Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Very nice in parts (especially the visuals of Hogwarts and, of course, the iconic central melody) and presented in an effective family package, but too sprawling and chatty, and it doesn't portray the characters (except for the final thirty minutes) or the plot in the way the relatively short book does. I like this film, but it’s pretty weak compared to some of the sequels. (14/10/2012)

I read the “Harry Potter" books six years ago - half of them in hospital, the other at home. I liked them, I devoured most of them almost in one breath, but I have - unintentionally - avoided the films to this day. It's hard to say why, actually. At the same time, the film version of The Philosopher's Stone has the same impact on me today as the book did years ago. It's still that sweet, mostly children's story that introduces the magical world, introduces the most important characters, entertains and thrills. If I'm not mistaken, everything important was left in and the filmmakers didn't screw anything up, which is a small miracle. I liked John Williams' music, Columbus' direction didn't offer anything memorable but didn't ruin anything either, the special effects could have been less blatantly digital, but what can you do. The greatest aces of the film are the child actors. Not only did they manage to pick them accurately, but they also know how to act - and how! Especially Emma Watson, who throws great disgusted looks and made me laugh more than once. I don't even need to mention the magnificent adult cast - it's not a plethora of stars, it's a starry sky. (06/09/2015)

I know that as an ordinary muggle I have no say in this, but why on earth didn't the creators conjure up a better lead? Daniel Radcliffe is awfully plankish, even though I can't expect miracles from a rookie. And I would also expect that in a project like this, some of the visual effects wouldn't be so blatantly digital. And while I'm criticising, Williams's music isn't one of the strong points either. I find Williams quite repetitive, and part of the main motif reminds me strikingly of one of the motifs in Schindler's List. On the other hand, the Quidditch scene was good and the the pawns with two swords in the chess game were cool. I also liked John Cleese’s appearances. And one more thing, I’ve made up my mind, sod cars, I’m getting a Nimbus 2000… (22/06/2003)

The beginning to a legendary series that has gained a large number of fans, just like its famous literary source. I have certain reservations about the first one, which still somewhat stays down to earth in many aspects and situations, and sometimes appears overly childish and wannabe comedic, but it successfully plays out a great magical game and the fictional world of Hogwarts is hard not to love. It’s a good start, though far from perfect. (28/07/2006)

You either love Harry Potter or you don't understand why everyone around you loves him so much. I'm one of the former. I think I'm from the generation that enjoyed watching it the most. I was young enough to be enchanted by all the magic and old enough to understand it. I grew up with Harry and the individual installments always fit my age just right. And so, to this day, The Sorcerer's Stone is an all-time favorite of mine, and a story that brings out the little kid in me who firmly believes that Hogwarts exists :) (28/10/2010)