User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 519 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 42 out of 519
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 27, 2012
    10
    An astonishing movie that was perfect in its tone. It captured the world of magic perfectly and John Williams score connected brilliantly. A classic it certainly is. Who knew what would come of this series. It will always remain the beginning of a franchise that will be remembered forever in cinema.
  2. SteveM.
    Jun 3, 2002
    6
    Better than Attack of the Clones, much worse than Lord of the Rings. Frankly, I was bored repeatedly in the film. This is not an easy proposition for me. I like fantasy and will devour anything. This film was sparse. That Roger Ebert gave this a 10 proves all the more how desparately idiosyncratic and misguided his abilities have become in time.
  3. Mar 4, 2011
    8
    Not the best of the Harry Potter movies (needed to be closer to the books). Nevertheless, the movie was a great introduction to a ten year long franchise.
  4. Apr 21, 2013
    10
    I've never been the kind of person that buys into hype and to be honest, I hate most big budget films, So until this weekend, I've avoided everything Harry Potter. That being said, I have never met anyone who had anything bad to say about the Potter films, so I finally decided to give it a shot, and boy was I surprised! For those select few who don't know the story, Harry Potter is the sonI've never been the kind of person that buys into hype and to be honest, I hate most big budget films, So until this weekend, I've avoided everything Harry Potter. That being said, I have never met anyone who had anything bad to say about the Potter films, so I finally decided to give it a shot, and boy was I surprised! For those select few who don't know the story, Harry Potter is the son of two legendary wizards, who was hidden with distant relatives, in order to protect him. Until his eleventh birthday, he had no idea that he was famous or had the potential to be the most power wizard the world has ever known. Potter is invited to join the Hogwarts school of wizardry and that is when the adventure begins. British Actor, Daniel Radcliffe, plays Potter and is nothing short of spectacular. Before the Potter films, Radcliffe had very limited acting experience and many say, he got the part, because of his resemblance to Harry Potter on the cover of the book. That may be how he got the part, but he defiantly shows he has the talent to go along with the right look. His performance was terrific, but there is something to be said about having the right Director, and Christopher Columbus was the perfect choice. Columbus has a ton of experience working with young newcomers in films with high expectations. Overall, the story is extremely well written, the young cast was refreshing and full of energy, the direction was stellar, and the set, costumes, and effects were some of the best I've ever seen. I'm not going to go run out and join a quitage team, but I am going to see the rest of the series. Harry Potter is a huge budget franchise, but for once, a blockbuster film does live up to the hype, and earns the title of a must see movie! Expand
  5. Oct 19, 2012
    7
    Released in 2001, J.K. Rowling's international bestseller got its film adaptation here. While it must be admitted that it does have a nice charm to it, its sometimes lopsided pacing can break it off from the perfection it was so dramatically close to.
  6. Nov 28, 2012
    8
    Dark, mystical, and not afraid to leave the audience begging for more, "The Sorcerer's Stone" truly remains a worthy start to a great franchise.
  7. Nov 30, 2013
    7
    Even though it was all kids, or for the most part, Chris Columbus did it pretty well this time in 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'. It stayed really true to the book and had decent effect for its time.
  8. Sep 23, 2011
    8
    Director Chris Columbus has created "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" a dazzling movie that stays true to its book and adding itself with pure zeal and passion with impressive visuals.
  9. Mar 28, 2012
    10
    Amazing this movie, is really interesting, amazing, a bigger sorprise, I think that have some mistakes, but is awesome movie. I love Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a classic.
  10. Nov 22, 2011
    10
    Where do I start?! This movie presents the greatest entertainment the business had to offer in 2001! I personally love this series, and this is a wonderful introduction. Harry Potter has arrived at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and the magic begins here. Harry meets two children named Ron and Hermione, and he wouldn't live without them. The choice of casting surpassesWhere do I start?! This movie presents the greatest entertainment the business had to offer in 2001! I personally love this series, and this is a wonderful introduction. Harry Potter has arrived at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and the magic begins here. Harry meets two children named Ron and Hermione, and he wouldn't live without them. The choice of casting surpasses perfection, and the movie is an awesome start to an awesome series! Expand
  11. Aug 14, 2012
    7
    We all know the story to Harry Potter. Orphan who has nothing turns into the greatest wizard of all time. The first film instalment sticks true to the original book and includes some good special effects but nothing that will stand out from anything but a kids film.
  12. EstebanF.
    Feb 27, 2006
    10
    This is the most-"loyal"-to-the-book Harry Potter movie, and it's from one of the best books. Logically, results in a wonderfull, amazing movie. Even if the effects aren't so good compared with the later films, the plot line is incredible. I have to repeat it, the "loyalty" to the book was amazing, that made this film awesome. I watched it 7 times in video and 2 times in the This is the most-"loyal"-to-the-book Harry Potter movie, and it's from one of the best books. Logically, results in a wonderfull, amazing movie. Even if the effects aren't so good compared with the later films, the plot line is incredible. I have to repeat it, the "loyalty" to the book was amazing, that made this film awesome. I watched it 7 times in video and 2 times in the cinema. Yes, you heard well. I repeated a movie in the cinema, without beeing a super-fan. I loved it. Expand
  13. SandraV.
    Jun 9, 2002
    10
    I thought that if you read the book you were probably pleased with the movie. Sure some critics may not like it but did they take the time to read the book to be amazed? i really doubt it. The movie compared to the book is great b/c it could not find better people for all the characters played, or better settings. I loved this movie.
  14. Jul 5, 2011
    8
    An 11-year old boy named Harry Potter discovers that he's a wizard and receives an invitation to a magical school called Hogwarts. Along the way, he meets two friends named Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger as they spend their natural lives at the school, but little do they know that an evil sorcerer plots to steal the magic stone known as The Sorcerer's Stone and they must find it andAn 11-year old boy named Harry Potter discovers that he's a wizard and receives an invitation to a magical school called Hogwarts. Along the way, he meets two friends named Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger as they spend their natural lives at the school, but little do they know that an evil sorcerer plots to steal the magic stone known as The Sorcerer's Stone and they must find it and solve the mystery about the death of Harry's parents.

    Wow. I was very speechless when I first saw this movie in theaters as a little child. To tell the truth, I've never read the book in which this movie was based on, but when I read it, the chapters showed the same thing that were included in the movie and I think it followed the book quite well.

    What else can you say about it? The actors were very entertaining and had a lot of talent with their performances since they look like the same characters from the book. Daniel Radcliffe did very well as the main character (god bless him) and I can't say anything else about the rest of the actors because they did great as well as him.

    The storyline was well-paced and the John Williams music score was very memorable and had a lot of emotion to it.

    The CGI effects were great and the fantasy action was very good.

    There's nothing negative to say about this movie and that's it.

    Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a faithful adaptation of the book with excellent performances, great settings, and a well-paced storyline. Thumbs up from me.

    8/10
    Expand
  15. JonL
    Dec 15, 2007
    6
    Unlike the second one, does not show it's length, and with a fine cast and set design to keep things afloat, but slavishly workmanlike and deadening in it's writing and directing and with rather mediocre special effects in key scenes.
  16. Aug 16, 2010
    9
    I have to say that I did not enjoy this film very much when I first saw it, but after multiple viewings, I have grown very fond of it. The magic is really in the air when you watch this movie, as Columbus visualizes Hogwarts so brilliantly and faithfully to the book. The performances are not the best obviously (they're just kids) but they're good enough. Rickman makes a terrific Snape, butI have to say that I did not enjoy this film very much when I first saw it, but after multiple viewings, I have grown very fond of it. The magic is really in the air when you watch this movie, as Columbus visualizes Hogwarts so brilliantly and faithfully to the book. The performances are not the best obviously (they're just kids) but they're good enough. Rickman makes a terrific Snape, but I wish the characters were a bit deeper in the movie, as they were in the book. Still, one of the best of the series. Expand
  17. DuncanS.
    Jul 4, 2002
    10
    The best fiction movie i've seen in a while.
  18. PaulaW.
    Dec 30, 2001
    2
    A great disappointment to Potter fans over age 12. What makes the books great, beyond the adventure and fantasy setting, is the emotional truth in each character; J.K. Rowling clearly knows a lot about the slings and arrows of pre-adolescence. Granted, 300 busy pages will always be hard to squeeze into a feature-length film, but the unfortunately-chosen Chris Columbus (Home Alone, Mrs. A great disappointment to Potter fans over age 12. What makes the books great, beyond the adventure and fantasy setting, is the emotional truth in each character; J.K. Rowling clearly knows a lot about the slings and arrows of pre-adolescence. Granted, 300 busy pages will always be hard to squeeze into a feature-length film, but the unfortunately-chosen Chris Columbus (Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire) forgoes character development, and for that matter any sense of true magic, in favor of extended hijinks a la Home Alone. Too much time is spent on actiony set pieces like a fight with a troll in a bathroom, the Quidditch game, and the final showdown, and on shots of cute kids gaping in wonder at magical stunts. You might think of this literal-minded adaptation as no more than an illustrated companion to the book, but sadly, it doesn't even look good. The aesthetic owes a lot to mid-sixties Disney, or maybe Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. The animated effects don't come close to justifying the reported $150 million budget. This is fine as a run-of-the-mill kiddy flick, but it's a tragic waste of a great book. There is no need to see this is in the theater. I would argue that there's no need to see it at all. Expand
  19. AdamE.
    Nov 27, 2002
    2
    A film that really doesn't all the success it has had. It is very boring and even the sp.effects seem pointless.
  20. RobertH.
    Jan 13, 2002
    1
    Terribly slow moving boring movie. It was so bad that I walked out in the middle as I could not take any more. It is simply amazing what good marketing can do. Pet Rock anyone?
  21. AppleH.
    Apr 20, 2002
    2
    Terrible flick. Would have given it a 0 but I walked out in the middle so I penalized myself. Is it any wonder AOL stock is now practically worthless?
  22. SeanL.
    Apr 24, 2003
    0
    See the 2nd one.
  23. Amoviecritic
    Apr 9, 2003
    0
    Completely fails when compared to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. See that instead. That makes this slow, badly paced movie seem like a complete 0.....it's not a bad movie....but horrible when compared to the 2nd one.
  24. JohnM.
    Dec 30, 2001
    1
    It is so upsetting (and irritating) to watch a movie die in front of your very eyes. Harry Potter begins well enough, nicely portraying the cruel family that Harry grew up with, yet the film develops into such a disaster that even saying it was dismal is to give it some credit. The film relied on amateurish special effects that persistently failed to invoke the magic of the book. Then It is so upsetting (and irritating) to watch a movie die in front of your very eyes. Harry Potter begins well enough, nicely portraying the cruel family that Harry grew up with, yet the film develops into such a disaster that even saying it was dismal is to give it some credit. The film relied on amateurish special effects that persistently failed to invoke the magic of the book. Then when the effects failed to hold my attention, I tried to focus on the story, which was greatly hindered by terribly annoying acting and choppy screenplay. There was indeed almost nothing to enjoy by the time the film was over. Aside from "Thirteen Ghosts," which sets the standards for movie lows, Harry Potter is the WORST film of the year. Grade: D- Expand
  25. SaiK.
    Oct 22, 2002
    3
    The movie is boring. It is lifeless. There is no continuity. Although the settings are great, The movie failed to reflect the deeper aspects of harry potter. It is as if The movie is only intended to show of hogwarts in a highly colorful perspective. I would expect a better job on the next one.
  26. Carol-AnnC.
    Feb 23, 2002
    0
    Boring overhyped movie that I walked out on 2/3rds through this garbage. Don't waste your money!
  27. RobertM.
    Apr 28, 2003
    3
    This movie features come cool scenes, but overall, just lacked imagination. See the 2nd one.
  28. Nov 22, 2010
    7
    The first installment of a great intriguing series from J.K. Rowling, becomes to be a dark and addictive fantasy film that makes you like Harry Potter. He finds out he is a wizard, and asks to stray from his evil step-parents to attend the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. More secrets about his close evil relationship with Lord Voldemort unveil and he cannot wait to meet him.The first installment of a great intriguing series from J.K. Rowling, becomes to be a dark and addictive fantasy film that makes you like Harry Potter. He finds out he is a wizard, and asks to stray from his evil step-parents to attend the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. More secrets about his close evil relationship with Lord Voldemort unveil and he cannot wait to meet him. The film in general was well directed, but the film lacks a sense of greatness. Despite it's PG rating, it has several instances of dark sequences of action that might frighten small children. The film's maturity should appeal to anyone who has read the book, but the instensity of the film could be more intense, but with a young cast and a PG rating, the direction and tone of the film is mild. Expand
  29. Aug 9, 2011
    7
    Even though this movie was eventually topped by almost all of the following films in the series, it is a modern classic and a very satisfying first chapter. There are also some stand-out adult performances that elevate this movie (Alan Rickman)
  30. Nov 6, 2011
    8
    It's an excellent start to an excellent franchise. It's very faithful to it's literary counterpart and it's pure cinematic magic. It's impressively designed and sports likable characters, emotion, friendship and bravery to coincide with the story . There are some moments I found a little too childish, but that's understandable given the film's general child-friendly demographic. The youngIt's an excellent start to an excellent franchise. It's very faithful to it's literary counterpart and it's pure cinematic magic. It's impressively designed and sports likable characters, emotion, friendship and bravery to coincide with the story . There are some moments I found a little too childish, but that's understandable given the film's general child-friendly demographic. The young actors weren't that convincing through certain parts of the film. But, again, it's understandable given their age and lack of real acting experience. 3/4 stars. Expand
  31. Nov 8, 2012
    10
    Harry Potter is dazzling and magical. It's a film of pure of wonder that's enjoyable for the whole family.
  32. Dec 17, 2011
    8
    With fantastic and heartwarming debut performances from the children, good visual effects, a heartwarming, sometimes thrilling story, make this a good start to one of the greatest franchises ever. Despite the fact of the incredibly long length and the lack of adventure. I give this excellent movie an 84% of a good movie.
  33. Amoviecritic
    Jun 22, 2003
    0
    In the United States, the term Philosopher is not really a term that young people use often. They don't really know much about it. Sorcerer, however, is a word most younger readers have heard a lot, so they changed it to that.
  34. FrankL.
    Nov 16, 2001
    2
    Hasn't this been done before?
  35. MarcB.
    Nov 21, 2001
    3
    Nice special effects, cute for kids, over rated. I think every movie should open to 5,000 screens...They would all have bragging rights! If they make the remaining books to flix, I guarantee the revenues will all be lower. It's also nice to have a zillion dollars in advertising.
  36. RobertoL.
    Mar 16, 2002
    0
    So slow, so boring that watching paint dry is more appealing. Don't bother to let me know when the sequel is out!
  37. HeathB.
    Apr 9, 2002
    3
    Though I prefered the zoo scene in the movie better than the book, I just wasn't overly impressed with the movie. Most of the film I got an image of a fat guy with thick glasses sitting at a keyboard saying "Look what I can do with a computer." More story, less special effects would have made this a better movie.
  38. WalterB.
    Jan 2, 2003
    2
    The book may be nice to read. I can say I can include this movie among the worsts I've ever seen.
  39. PeterM.
    Mar 6, 2005
    2
    Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Daniel Radcliffe were all appalling in this film, they were unconvincing and awful to watch. If you looked at their résumés you would never believe they were actors.
  40. JohnD.
    Jul 12, 2007
    3
    The story was kind of fun, but the kids couldn't act and many scenes dragged on and on and on...
  41. Jun 20, 2012
    0
    Harry Potter the movie was great! Yes the book was better, but isn't that always the way when there is a novel to film adaptation? There was magic, friendships and basically evil magicians going around wanting to win the world and kill specific people. Great movie and fun for the kids and a good family viewing movie.
  42. SaraL.
    Jan 4, 2003
    10
    The movie kicked arse!
  43. Mar 25, 2012
    10
    The Sorcerer's Stone is an excellent start to Harry Potter. It is a magical a joyful film. Everything i expected from reading the book Christopher Columbus has turned into something even more special. i suspect this will continue into the others.
  44. Jan 3, 2013
    3
    I saw this at a friend's house along with the second Harry Potter movie after it was released on video. This movie just bored me to death. I don't see what all the hype is about. Maybe you had to read the book, my friends who have read the book tell me that the book is way better than the movie. Rating it as a bad movie since it was so boring I only remember two parts, the beginning andI saw this at a friend's house along with the second Harry Potter movie after it was released on video. This movie just bored me to death. I don't see what all the hype is about. Maybe you had to read the book, my friends who have read the book tell me that the book is way better than the movie. Rating it as a bad movie since it was so boring I only remember two parts, the beginning and the end and neither or those were that exciting either. I thought the ending was stupid actually. After seeing the first two movies, I have never bothered seeing any others since I was so bored by the first two. Expand
  45. Dec 21, 2012
    6
    Though it was a good start to the most sucessful trilogy of all time, I thought it was a little childish and not extremeley well written. Other than that the movie was a sucess.
  46. May 18, 2013
    6
    Close to the book but still entertains. Excitingly enough I thought it would be great though it fared lower than most of its sequels. Zeal needed but a total failure when it came to dialogue. But very good stuff.

    Next Movie!
  47. KisshaunaS.
    Oct 10, 2002
    10
    This movie is exciting and unpredictible I give it a 10 it is one of the best movies I ever saw and it is also funny.
  48. K.M.
    Apr 10, 2002
    5
    What could've been a good movie turned into a wretched attempt at a visual packed fantasy. One of the film's bright spots however, was Rupert Grint, who played Ron. Almost everyone else either wasn't in the movie enough to appreciate them or they, ahem, sucked. One piece of advice, if you are seriously thinking aboot watching this, I suggest you read the book or you What could've been a good movie turned into a wretched attempt at a visual packed fantasy. One of the film's bright spots however, was Rupert Grint, who played Ron. Almost everyone else either wasn't in the movie enough to appreciate them or they, ahem, sucked. One piece of advice, if you are seriously thinking aboot watching this, I suggest you read the book or you won't keep up with the pace. It might be a movie to watch until the true fantasy film comes to DVD, LOTR. In other words, you might want to skip the movie and read the book. Expand
  49. MaraJ.
    May 19, 2002
    9
    A movie worth watching! It was capable of bringing out the images in the book to life. It is not just a movie for kids but its something special for everyone!
  50. HeathcliffJ.
    Aug 3, 2002
    9
    This movie really captured every aspect of the book without becoming too lengthy. The special effects were excellent and I cannot wait for the next film!!!!!
  51. MaribelN.
    Jun 28, 2003
    10
    I love the harry books better but the characters really come to life and i can see them now in my minds eye as i read. I am leaing to got to the park but harry potter is ALWAYs with me lol
  52. RichardW.
    Nov 6, 2002
    10
    I think this film was one of the greatest films of all time and I hope the next film will be even better.
  53. CarmenG.
    Jan 5, 2002
    6
    I thought the movie was just OK. I'm a big fan of Harry Potter's book and when I read it again and again, it's always more exciting but the movie wasn't exciting at all. Only the kids will like it. I think the problem is that a lot of the book details weren't in the movie. So, in my opinion, people should see it only once.
  54. AndyP.
    Jan 9, 2002
    10
    Best movie of the year...next to "Atlantis." I'd give this a pure A, just like "Atlantis." The movie was great!!! All the effects were the best. Not even "Shrek" can top this.
  55. WhitneyD.
    Feb 3, 2002
    10
    It was so amazing!!! there were some parts left out...but that does not mean that it was a bad movie. I cannot believe the special effects, and how well the characters fit the description of the book!!! It is the best movie in the world...and you know it!!!
  56. MichaelM.
    Mar 10, 2002
    6
    Somewhat tedious in its strict keeping with the book, but the visuals are nonetheless stunning and the actors well-chosen for their roles.
  57. ShannonR.
    Jun 1, 2002
    9
    Beautifully directed, wonderful cast! It casts a spell on everyone thats watching. But I give it a 9 because the book is better...:)
  58. AilaJ.
    Jun 17, 2002
    10
    I loved the action scenes. This movieis one of the best movies I had ever seen! The characters seem really down-to-earth. Rupert was my favorite character... he is so cute!!
  59. TeresaC.
    Aug 29, 2002
    8
    On the whole I thought this adaptation was great. The only real complaints I have are: 1. John Cleese, as Nearly Headles Nick, did little more than make two brief cameo appearances. As a fan of Monty Python, fawlty towers, etc., I hope the filmmakers gave him a larger part the next time around. 2. Rick Mayall was originally supposed to appear here as the obnoxious poltergeist (which, On the whole I thought this adaptation was great. The only real complaints I have are: 1. John Cleese, as Nearly Headles Nick, did little more than make two brief cameo appearances. As a fan of Monty Python, fawlty towers, etc., I hope the filmmakers gave him a larger part the next time around. 2. Rick Mayall was originally supposed to appear here as the obnoxious poltergeist (which, considering his past roles, is a good casting decision), but wasn't put in for time reasons. I hope he appears in the next movie as well. Otherwise, I was extremely pleased with this adaptation. I hope that the rest of the Harry Potter movies are created by the same people, rather than someone like Stephen Spielberg (who wanted to AMERICANIZE it!). Expand
  60. Alright,then,here'sGilbertMulroneycakes
    Jan 12, 2003
    9
    In reply to Torri F: I have no complaint with the title in and of itself, it's just...why? I don't mind the Germans calling it Sorceror's Stone - maybe Philosopher's doesn't translate into German properly, whatever - but why the hell was the name changed in America? It smacks of some Random House executive with nothing to do trying to justify his pay cheque. In reply to Torri F: I have no complaint with the title in and of itself, it's just...why? I don't mind the Germans calling it Sorceror's Stone - maybe Philosopher's doesn't translate into German properly, whatever - but why the hell was the name changed in America? It smacks of some Random House executive with nothing to do trying to justify his pay cheque. You're right: it makes no difference. That's why it weirds me out. Okay? Good good. Expand
  61. TaylorJ.
    Mar 22, 2003
    7
    The special effects were a bit uneven, and sometimes the children's acting was forced, but other than that, it's a satisfying adaptation. The production is awesome and the characters pop mostly from Rowling's pages. I wish it had a little more heart and a zippier sense of magic like the books, but it all right.
  62. JamiA.
    Apr 19, 2003
    10
    The movie was wonderful. I have watched the first one about 30 time and the second one about 20! I love it. It is my FAVORITE movie!!!
  63. KatieP.
    Jun 4, 2004
    10
    How could anyone human give this movie anything lower than a 9? It's a fantastic movie.
  64. SaerA.
    Jul 2, 2004
    7
    Harry Potter maybe a movie that might scare younger viewers, but it still is a good film.
  65. JackB.
    Aug 9, 2007
    8
    A great movie that was taken off an awsome book.
  66. LilyP.
    Nov 15, 2001
    10
    I loved it. critics suck :P
  67. EricM.
    Nov 17, 2001
    10
    A truly brilliant movie! Read the books, see the movie, you'll love them all.
  68. Lauren
    Jan 12, 2002
    10
    This movie was excellent! IN my opinion it was the best movie of the year, not a dull moment at all...my friend needed to use the bathroom but couldn't leave through all this excitement and thrill. JK Rowling's book's are better then any I've read in my life. GOOD JOB!
  69. LadyC.
    Oct 29, 2002
    10
    It's a great movie and less boring that the book!!!!! Characters are very cool...
  70. MichelleP.
    Oct 9, 2002
    5
    I was very disappointed. The setting was gloomy and cold, and there were some parts from the book that they should've put in the movie. Richard Harris made an awful Dumbledore. He was SUPPOSED to be full of energy as described in the book, but Harris made him frail and sound like he was reading the lines from the book.
  71. S.A.
    Feb 4, 2002
    10
    It was awesome.
  72. M.W.
    May 13, 2002
    10
    This was one of the best movies I have seen. I don't know what you other people are talking about (just pig-headed I guess).
  73. SamanthaV.
    Jun 10, 2002
    10
    It was the greatest i've ever seen. emma watson was excellent. as also daniel radcliffe and rupert grint and the whole cast.
  74. ErikN.
    Jun 17, 2002
    10
    I LOVED this movie. It's the best!!!
  75. StacyB.
    Jun 21, 2002
    10
    This movie is the best I've ever seen and I think it will always be that way. (Except for the other Harry Potter movies coming out, of course)
  76. ConnieB.
    Jun 3, 2002
    10
    This is an awesome movie! The actors were great!
  77. HarryP.
    Jun 5, 2002
    8
    I thought they did a wonderful job of translating the book into the movie but I think I could have been a better looking Harry Potter! I'm sorry but I think Daniel Ratcliff looks nothing like the general public envisions Harry Potter when reading the book.
  78. BitBurn
    Jun 6, 2002
    7
    Magical! Spectacular!! Enchanting!!...but what a terrible ending it has!! When we're kids, we're taught that in life the important thing is to participate and winning don't matter. Harry Potter failed royally in that department.
  79. Nancy
    Jul 12, 2002
    10
    IT WAS GREAT!! They left some bits out but oh well, and another thing, isn't Ron supposed to be TALL?!?
  80. MylesG.
    Jul 19, 2002
    9
    This film got my son started on reading works of fiction. He saw the film, bought the shirt and bought the book. As a 44 year old saddo I couldn't help noticing that the props department had skimped or fallen for product placement. It seems unlikely that so many households on the Dursley's block would drive Vauxhall Vectras of about the same model year. Boring car for boring This film got my son started on reading works of fiction. He saw the film, bought the shirt and bought the book. As a 44 year old saddo I couldn't help noticing that the props department had skimped or fallen for product placement. It seems unlikely that so many households on the Dursley's block would drive Vauxhall Vectras of about the same model year. Boring car for boring people maybe but even boring people drive Fords, VWs and BMWs too. Expand
  81. TrixieJ.
    Jul 4, 2002
    10
    Daniel Radcliffe was made for this movie. Since his skills in acting are exellent, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets should be a BLAST!
  82. BenP.
    Aug 27, 2002
    10
    I thought that despite one little situation when Rupert Grint (Ron) laughed. The movie was a great sucess in Canada as well in the UK and USA. The movie was exactly as I thought of the book. I can't wait to see the next movies and can only hope the others are like Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone!
  83. MovieReviewer
    May 2, 2003
    5
    This movie was simply an OK movie. Yes, it was not great, not even good. Many scenes from the book have been completely chopped away. The midnight duel, the dragon recsue, the scene with the logic potion, etc. WHY were these scenes cut out? It really ruins much of the plot. The 2nd one is much better, because it is more faithful to the book, with less important scenes deleted. THE ONLY This movie was simply an OK movie. Yes, it was not great, not even good. Many scenes from the book have been completely chopped away. The midnight duel, the dragon recsue, the scene with the logic potion, etc. WHY were these scenes cut out? It really ruins much of the plot. The 2nd one is much better, because it is more faithful to the book, with less important scenes deleted. THE ONLY SCENE in this movie that even came close to being as good as a scene in Chamber was the chess board scene, which was very well done. Expand
  84. It'sGilbertMulroneycakesAgainReally,Really,So
    Jun 10, 2003
    9
    Not to flog a deceased equine here, but what the hell, "Superman"? Not many people know what a philosopher is? Oh, come on, that's not...American culture's not that spoonfed by now, is it? I mean, us Brits can't exactly (or at all) be smug on that point, but we know what a philosopher is! Surely you...aren't THAT stumped...are you? Anyway. Sorry. You don't need to Not to flog a deceased equine here, but what the hell, "Superman"? Not many people know what a philosopher is? Oh, come on, that's not...American culture's not that spoonfed by now, is it? I mean, us Brits can't exactly (or at all) be smug on that point, but we know what a philosopher is! Surely you...aren't THAT stumped...are you? Anyway. Sorry. You don't need to post this, really. It's just a weird thing to say. Expand
  85. DaveC.
    Jul 16, 2003
    7
    A film with its ups and downs. There is some good humor her and there, the older characters are well acted, the plot is good and Hogwarts looks great. On the downside, the special effects look cheap, the younger actors are bad (especially Hermoine and Draco) and there's somewhat of a lack of genuine thrills seen in 2001's other fantasy films, Shrek and Lord Of The Rings.
  86. PatC.
    Jan 8, 2004
    5
    You kids go ahead and knock yourselves out on this fare. You'll find it useful later to learn how a Points System really works. Other than that, sometimes it goes well if a reviewer says something that is totally arbitrary, if not meaningless.
  87. RobertA.
    May 30, 2004
    4
    Yeah. this was a good film but it leaves an empty feeling inside of me.
  88. KittyC.
    Jul 24, 2004
    9
    Very good, yet the weakest of the three Harry Potter films. Not great acting but good.
  89. MariahR.
    May 5, 2006
    8
    this movie was really good but too different from the book to get a ten.
  90. AndrewN.
    Aug 11, 2007
    7
    Average but has its merits for remaining faithful to the book and giving a good insight into Harrys world.
  91. RuanH.
    Aug 12, 2007
    7
    It gets better with the second attempt, but does not quite capture me as much as I would like it to. The actors are becoming better in their roles, which leaves a big promise for the next installment.
  92. NoahR.
    Nov 15, 2001
    10
    It was great!
  93. BillC.
    Nov 16, 2001
    10
    It's everything you wanted the film version to be...only better! A perfect holiday gift for anyone who loves movies, books...or BOTH!!
  94. RobertF.
    Nov 16, 2001
    9
    I read the book and I liked the movie..a lot. Anyone who has read the book wants to see it on screen...and that's exactly what you get...the last thing I wanted was some ego driven director's version of Rowling's story.
  95. MaggieT.
    Nov 17, 2001
    10
    I loved the movie! I've read all of the books out so far, and I am already anticipating the next movie. I'm so glad they stayed on the same plot as the book, it probably wouldn't have been as good. The casting was great.
  96. JaquerieP.
    Nov 22, 2001
    9
    Perhaps this is more of a bitter rant about a number of misaligned reviews of the film.. first of all, Chris Columbus did a wonderful job of bringing the book to life - and staying true to that fact... which seems difficult in a world of mindless glitter, flash, and baby-babble. What seems to escape a number of people, it was designed to attract children not because of commercial value Perhaps this is more of a bitter rant about a number of misaligned reviews of the film.. first of all, Chris Columbus did a wonderful job of bringing the book to life - and staying true to that fact... which seems difficult in a world of mindless glitter, flash, and baby-babble. What seems to escape a number of people, it was designed to attract children not because of commercial value (such as the hack and slash adventures of "Power Rangers" or dribble of "Pokemon") but for the visual, imaginary side of the books which has inspired a vast number of children, my own included to seek out Harry Potter books with a dying thirst and slowly being drawn to the classics of Nancy Clue and the Hardly Boys, anything that might spark an interest until the next book.. to stray from the adventures of the books would have been a great injustice to the many adults, children, and even those few teens who have been touched, sparked with a love of the storyline. For a children's film to have a fairly strong element of drama, fantasy, adventure, and even a sense of maturity to attract an audience of any age one can only hope that this will continue to spark trend and spread into the rest of children?s media. You'll either love it or be able to stand to see it two or three, maybe five to 8 more times. See it more than once, give it a chance people! Expand
  97. MichaelF.
    Nov 26, 2001
    6
    It's fine. The effects are cool but it didn't dare to do anything different than the book. The book is SO much better. The movie has this horrible opening which pissed me off throughout the film. Williams's score is made up of 2 songs. 1 is played throughout the entire film! The cast was extremely well chosen. The quiddidch game (there was only one; in the book there were It's fine. The effects are cool but it didn't dare to do anything different than the book. The book is SO much better. The movie has this horrible opening which pissed me off throughout the film. Williams's score is made up of 2 songs. 1 is played throughout the entire film! The cast was extremely well chosen. The quiddidch game (there was only one; in the book there were 2) was not too exciting. If they wanted somthing cool, they could've easily improved on it. Expand
  98. DawnW.
    Dec 12, 2001
    9
    The British cast was brilliant, I loved how they made Hogwarts, and they stuck to the plot impeccably well. They did leave out a quidditch match, Peeves the Poltergiest, and basically thinned out almost every smaller character, so those facts were kind of sad. But that was all for time reasons. They didn't want to movie to be "Gone With the Wind" for heaven's sake, it's notThe British cast was brilliant, I loved how they made Hogwarts, and they stuck to the plot impeccably well. They did leave out a quidditch match, Peeves the Poltergiest, and basically thinned out almost every smaller character, so those facts were kind of sad. But that was all for time reasons. They didn't want to movie to be "Gone With the Wind" for heaven's sake, it's not their fault. Two and a half hours was a perfect length in my opinion. If people could sit through Titantic they can definitely sit through this. I just wonder what they're going to do with the fourth book... that's 972 pages long, and you can't leave out anything or the storyline's ruined. It'll be like five hours long! Expand
  99. MichelleL.
    Dec 16, 2001
    9
    I quite agree with "Dawn W." Percy, Fred, and George weren't really given a lot of characterization-but the movie was already a bit lengthy. My one complaint is the Quidditch match- in the books Slytherin could never just knock out all those players and get away with it! Committing fouls right and left- blatching and cobbing to name just two. I picked it to pieces every single place I quite agree with "Dawn W." Percy, Fred, and George weren't really given a lot of characterization-but the movie was already a bit lengthy. My one complaint is the Quidditch match- in the books Slytherin could never just knock out all those players and get away with it! Committing fouls right and left- blatching and cobbing to name just two. I picked it to pieces every single place it varied in the slightest from the book after seeing it- but in spite of everything, I loved it. I can't wait to buy it. For the 4th one, maybe they'll divide it into two movies, or something? They can't leave much out, most of it's essential to the plot. Expand
  100. MattR.
    Dec 22, 2001
    10
    Engrossing, faithful to the book and delightful fun.
Metascore
64

Generally favorable reviews - based on 35 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 35
  2. Negative: 0 out of 35
  1. 50
    Potter-philes are sure to get what they want -- if what they want is, in fact, an exacting version of J.K. Rowling's charming children's fantasy. If it's enchantment they are after, that's quite another matter.
  2. If the movie doesn't ultimately transport us to places The Wizard of Oz once took us, that may be partly because "The Sorcerer's Stone" is just the first chapter, with more magic waiting to be parceled out in the coming years.
  3. That sense of déjà vu is at once this Harry Potter's balm and its limitation: many charms, but few surprises.