Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

A slavish, unimaginative, and routine adaptation that has the ungrateful task of drowning the whole first half in slavish, unimaginative (what a pity given its magical nature) and merely routine introductions of the characters and their world. There's not much to criticize, but it's also completely without invention ideas of its own. Which is true of most of Columbus' movies. There is not one originally filmed scene, not a single interesting camera angle; simply nothing. It's as if a robot made the movie, page by page. And the extended version is worse because the extra scenes are not only completely unnecessary, but are as mundane as everything else. The casting of the child actors is quite successful but the acting is not great; yet it is slowly getting better with each episode. The adult “back-up" cast is invariably great. (21/11/2010)

Two decades have passed and the film that started it all hasn't aged a day. It's hard to say whether Chris Columbus knew the enormous phenomenon that was starting, but I am incredibly grateful to him for it. Without him, I would have never gotten into movies, but most importantly, I would have never discovered my beloved book source. And the nostalgia while watching "our new celebrity" wiped out by Severus Snape is truly immeasurable. It's not the best installment, but it's simply the first. (18/12/2011)

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)

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. (29/07/2006)

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? (26/01/2004)