Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Reviews

Despite having never read the Harry Potter books, I was pretty sure what I was getting into before I watched the Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: a basic kid's fantasy with a few kid wizards get mixed up in an evil, magical, plot. And I was correct. Essentially, I got what I expected, which- in this case- isn't a bad thing, but is it unfair to have hoped for a bit more from one of the most famed film series of all time?

Harry Potter is an orphan child that is taken to Hogwarts (a school for wizards) upon being informed that he has magical abilities. Harry befriends Ron Weasely and Hermione Granger, and it isn't long until the trio discover a villainous plan to steal the Sorcerer's Stone.

As far as fantasy films go, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is pretty solid. A lot of things are going for it. The characters are likeable, the acting is good, and the story- while extremely familiar- is engaging. At the same time, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone has no small number of issues either.

The length is one of the biggest problems. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone has a two and a half hour run time, and frankly, the tale seems absurdly slight for a film of such length. Indeed, there seems to be no real middle in the story. Just an absurdly long beginning and a really fast ending. The film just kept building up to something, but ultimately there was nothing to build up to. The treasure here lays in the journey, not the destination, but it would've been nice to have a little more meat in the conclusion.

The other most notable issue is the special effects. While there are a number of effects that are pulled off quite well, the vast majority are hopelessly dated, cheap looking, and even phony at times. One's tolerance towards this may vary depending on the person. The film is entertaining enough to be enjoyed in spite of dubious effects, though they can be quite distracting at times (and downright laughable at others).

The acting is mostly good, though as the film deals with children, the acting is far from excellent. Daniel Radcliffe is respectable as Harry Potter, but there are a number of poorly delivered lines on Radcliffe's part. Emma Watson is good as Hermione Granger too, but the highlight of the children actors is Rupert Grint giving a standout performance as Ron Weasley. Richard Griffiths has a small, but highly memorable bit, as the father of a spoiled child.

The score, composed by John Williams, is appropriately magical. With a very memorable main theme, and some really excellent action music, this is a superb fantasy score.

The best thing about Harry Potter is that it creates an environment you want to return to. You want to spend more time with the characters, you want to spend more time at Hogwarts. But you also want to have something to do while you're there. And there's simply not enough going on to justify a 152 minute run time. Still, most of the film works, and there are some really good ideas here. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone isn't quite enchanting, but it does cast a rather good spell.

The lack of discernment between the boundaries by literature and the cinema compromises part of the movie, which seems oddly limited and unimaginative in a universe that is just the opposite. Chris Columbus, with a monstrous technical department, prepares the magical world beautifully, however fills the air. The scenes seem a succession of sketches made strategically to put the narrative in motion, without any soul or your driving style. The soundtrack by John Williams, however, besides having a theme already unforgettable simply creates beside the photograph the whole mood and atmosphere of Hogwarts. As a product, is a beautiful film and well done, but it suffers from the absence of a different taste and own something that is only acquired later along the saga goes on.

Being a child of the 1990s and having read four of the seven novels that were released at the time until the release of the first film adaptation in the series - Philosopher's Stone, there were excitements tingling all over. This truly became the first installment and a taste of excitement, intension and drama that was coming up in the remaining novels in the series. Many would say that Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone is like a warm-up in the series, that it's just something to not take so seriously and is just a fine piece of entertainment. Quite frankly, that is exactly what I think what I think of this first film.


As the films in the series progress, they get darker and darker so The Philosopher's Stone is perhaps the most child-friendly film in the franchise. It obviously does have its dark moments every now and again but as I said, it was a warm-up to the series so therefore we get to know more about the characters, the wizarding world and the basics of the series before things got really personal. It perhaps is one of the most perfect films for an entire family because this has all that a family film must require: good fun, and a strong story with lovable characters.


It is the tale of Harry Potter, an ordinary 11-year-old boy serving as a sort of slave for his aunt and uncle who learns that he is actually a wizard and has been invited to attend the Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry is snatched away from his mundane existence by Hagrid, the grounds keeper for Hogwarts, and quickly thrown into a world completely foreign to both him and the viewer. Famous for an incident that happened at his birth, Harry makes friends easily at his new school. He soon finds, however, that the wizarding world is far more dangerous for him than he would have imagined, and he quickly learns that not all wizards are ones to be trusted.


Back in the late 90s when during pre-production of the first installment of the series, the roles of Harry Potter, Ronald Weasley and Hermione Granger were huge and we needed three great child actors who can deeply affect the audience and make them pleasurable to watch. First off, Daniel Radcliffe as Harry James Potter. Although, Dan was a little kid at the time, he delivered a disappointing performance as Harry. His acting was a bit forced and quite flat at times, but there have been worse debut child stars. For example, Jake Lloyd in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. We got used to Dan as Harry as the films progressed and, quite frankly, I think he played the character brilliantly. It just took him a few films to get into the character, that's all. Secondly, Rupert Grint as Ronald Weasley: out of all of the films released in the series, Rupert has always made me laugh as Ron (especially with his quote in the first couple of films ''bloody hell'' and using 'bloody' a lot), and not just with looks but personality as well, he suits the character pretty well. Emma Watson was brilliant as Hermione Granger. In my opinion, she is the best actor of the three main characters. Yeah, she did act a bit overdramatic in this first installment and a lot how Dan acted, but still decent enough to enjoy.


The late Richard Harris portrayed Albus Dumbledore in the first two Harry Potter films, and is easily the best of the two actors to have played Dumbledore throughout the franchise. Robbie Coltrane's performance as Rubeus Hagrid was just fantastic! He is perfect for Hagrid, and gives a supporting performance that could have been worthy of an Oscar nomination; similar to Alec Guinness in Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope and Ian McKellen in The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring. The main thing that they all have in common is that they are the supporter and comforter of the protagonist of the stories and become like father figures to them. Hagrid's involvement in Philosopher's Stone is perhaps the longest time we see throughout the entire series but he still remains a very crucial character in the franchise.


Honestly, there must be a very talented film director to be able to pull off a fantastic start in a film series, especially when the books they are based on received critical acclaim. Before Philosopher's Stone, director Chris Columbus bought us the likes of the first two Home Alone films (so had a bit of experience with introducing franchises) and Mrs. Doubtfire and they were successful, so he really knows how to satisfy a family from the big screen. However, his work on Philosopher's Stone is exactly what was required and hit the nail on the head by achieving exactly what was required out of it. He made it a very dark story despite being precisely suitable enough for children's eyes. Steve Kloves wrote the scripts for every single Harry Potter and he begins with a bang! He makes this first installment something both very modern and in an enchanting world that can capture the audience’s imagination and heart as they watch it.


Overall, Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone truly is a fantastic start to a series of films that has defined a generation. Although, despite one or two flaws (including Daniel Radcliffe's weak role as Harry), it still manages to be a successful film that is a great, great film for all family members to watch. It ended brilliantly that became an outstanding build-up to The Chamber Of Secrets and the rest of the series.

For those that have read the book many times you will wonder if this film met or even exceeded those expectations that the book set fourth. "Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone" is not only a classic , but an epic film and idea since it's inception in January of 01. What filmmakers called a challenge , is exactly what the reader likes to see, a-true-the-page adoption. Harry Potter provides just that. Cast as Harry is Daniel Radcliffe who played the character with dignity and respect for the role. Rupert Grint is Ron Weasley who comes from a poor family of five children, and Emma Watson is the know-it-all of the trio who plays her character with some spunk. Needless to say her character is the only one who seems capable of seeing events as a whole , when they unravel.These three young actors together created a chemistry that almost lasted a decade as the Potter films progressed. These three couldn't have done so without the ensemble case of adult actors ; which included Alan Rickman ,Maggie Smith, Fiona Shaw,Richard Griffiths,Ian Hart, Robbie Coltrane, and the late Richard Harris (to be replaced in the prisoner of azkaban by Michael Gambon). Set in a world of wizards and warlocks we are told the tragic story of Harry and the loss of his parents to "he who must not be named" an evil-doer who all wizards fear. During that fateful night when his parents were killed , somehow, harry survived and thus has become famous for it. Although famous, Harry , seems to careless. which shows us an anti-hero at the mercy of the universe around him. Harry is raised by his remaining family as someone they could care less about , but yet they know his family secrets , when letters come from a wizardry school by the hundreds. Harry Potter provides us with a world filled with unicorns, three headed-dogs, and dragons. It's messages are pure and to the point unlike most films of today. For example when Harry has become amused with the idea of seeing his parents everyday in the mirror of Arisette. Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris in a perfect role) is there to set harry straight. "a truly Happy man would look into that mirror and see himself exactly the way he is". If you loved the Novel by J.K. Rowling you'll love the movie as well.

In many ways, Sorcerer's Stone is the best of the series. Aside from the books (which were fairly well taken into consideration at the time), they had a blank slate to play with. The cast they chose was fantastic, and they did a good job of translating the story from the book.

I watched this well before reading the series, and so I could see it with fresh eyes that are a great deal more jaded these days. There are additions and changes, but any movie of a book will have that, and the magic and wonder that are needed are there.

I just wish the same could be said of some of the later movies.

This is actually only my 2nd Favorite movie in the Potter-verse. I'm more partial to Chamber of Secrets, because of its slightly darker tone...that and Dobby!

And, before I say anything more, let it be noted that Joel H should've used the appellation "Troll H", because it seems obvious to me that he only posted to get a rise. If you're really so dense that you could use such contumely with abandon, then more's the pity. Either you have no eye for good cinema, or you just don't like this film, but spare us any nonsense that its rubbish!

This movie couldn't have been made any better! It managed to capture perfectly all the essentials from the film, and even made the Dark Lord out to be a superb villain. He even gave me the chills, and that's hard to do in a movie for "children".

I personally prefer the Richard Harris Dumbledore to the Michael Gambon portrayal, but that's simply a matter of taste. Speaking of 'taste', one of my favorite scenes is this first time Harry feasts in the Great Hall...I get uber hungry every time I see all that food!

This movie is a must own, as are the books. It could even be watched as a sort of "Christmas" or Holiday movie, right on par with "Home Alone"...another Chris Columbus film. Hats off to Director and Cast!

I was surprised, to say the least.
After reading the books, the movie was better than I expected it to be. Usually directors take free carte blanche with Book-to-Film movies and add or take at their leisure.

Chris Columbus was able to pull off a superbe film with all the wonderful quips and quotes of the books in only 152 minutes.

I loved how there was even room for the small things. Like: Hagrid's "I shouldn't have told you that." and Harry Potter & friends interaction.

True there were some things missing: Peeves the Poltergeist (to tell the truth I didn't notice he was not there until after watching the second HP movie) and Norbert the dragon's adventure.

Someone knew what they were doing when they choose the cast though. Harry, Ron, and the others were good picks.

I just wish they had gotten someone a little more like the Dumbledore from the books to play himself.

The graphics were okay for 2001 and the quiditch match was exciting. (which is more than I can say for the second film's one)

Thanks for reading this, and I hope to get in a review for the second film next!
--WyrmSlayer