Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Ummm… I was forced by circumstance to see it. Yes, it's visually perfect, but for God's sake, I don't understand what that the guy with glasses was doing. It was too serious for a fairy tale, too infantile for fantasy, not funny enough for a comedy, and not adventurous enough for an adventure film. Columbus reminds me of a craftsman who didn't want (couldn't) smuggle any of his own ideas into the story. A perfectly done commercial product, nothing more. The fault is probably in me, Harry Potter made me very bored even after I read a few pages. We were not meant for each other, and Rowling is never going to be poor... And neither am I, so why worry? (25/01/2004)

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)

"Yer a wizard, Harry." –– This is a beautiful tale about a wizard's apprentice that even after several years has not lost its original charm and atmosphere. When I watched it recently, believe me, I had the same wonderful feeling as when I first saw it. While I admit that the main trio does not exactly give Oscar-winning performances, they wonderfully make up for it with their childlike innocence – because, like the audience, they are gradually learning about this world of magic and enchantment, its many wonders, but also its dangers... I do not think I need to elaborate further in my review, because I do not believe anyone has not heard of this movie. (14/07/2008)

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)

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)