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

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.

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 surpasses perfection, and the movie is an awesome start to an awesome series!… Expand

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The story was kind of fun, but the kids couldn't act and many scenes dragged on and on and on...

A good start to the Harry Potter series. Lots of brilliant magic scenes and wonderful storyline - kids will definitely love this movie. However, the film could have been more magical. My score: 73/100

The best fiction movie i've seen in a while.

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.

So slow, so boring that watching paint dry is more appealing. Don't bother to let me know when the sequel is out!

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.

The book may be nice to read. I can say I can include this movie among the worsts I've ever seen.

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.

Hasn't this been done before?

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.

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

A film that really doesn't all the success it has had. It is very boring and even the sp.effects seem pointless.

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?

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?

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.

See the 2nd one.

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.

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

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.

Boring overhyped movie that I walked out on 2/3rds through this garbage. Don't waste your money!

This movie features come cool scenes, but overall, just lacked imagination. See the 2nd one.

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, 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

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.

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

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)

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 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

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.

Harry Potter is dazzling and magical. It's a film of pure of wonder that's enjoyable for the whole family.

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.

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 won9;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

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!

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!!!!!

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

I think this film was one of the greatest films of all time and I hope the next film will be even better.

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.

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.

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!!!

Somewhat tedious in its strict keeping with the book, but the visuals are nonetheless stunning and the actors well-chosen for their roles.

Beautifully directed, wonderful cast! It casts a spell on everyone thats watching. But I give it a 9 because the book is better...:)

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!!

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

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

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.

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!!!

How could anyone human give this movie anything lower than a 9? It's a fantastic movie.

Harry Potter maybe a movie that might scare younger viewers, but it still is a good film.

A great movie that was taken off an awsome book.

I loved it. critics suck :P

A truly brilliant movie! Read the books, see the movie, you'll love them all.

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!

It's a great movie and less boring that the book!!!!! Characters are very cool...

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.

It was awesome.

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).

It was the greatest i've ever seen. emma watson was excellent. as also daniel radcliffe and rupert grint and the whole cast.

I LOVED this movie. It's the best!!!

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)

This is an awesome movie! The actors were great!

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.

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.

IT WAS GREAT!! They left some bits out but oh well, and another thing, isn't Ron supposed to be TALL?!?

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

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!

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!

The movie kicked arse!

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

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

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.

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.

Yeah. this was a good film but it leaves an empty feeling inside of me.

Very good, yet the weakest of the three Harry Potter films. Not great acting but good.

this movie was really good but too different from the book to get a ten.

Average but has its merits for remaining faithful to the book and giving a good insight into Harrys world.

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.

It was great!

It's everything you wanted the film version to be...only better! A perfect holiday gift for anyone who loves movies, books...or BOTH!!

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.

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.

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

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

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 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

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

Engrossing, faithful to the book and delightful fun.

After thoroughly enjoying the books I was ready for a 'great escape'. When the kids jumped through the wall at Platform 9 and 3/4 my wife and I looked at each other with anticipation. All looks after that were of disappointment. The movie degenerates into a tick list of scenes from the book with no real thread holding them together. It seems that the director has made a series of small vignettes about a central theme that do not hang together.… Expand

What is it with you Americans? What was wrong with the title "Philosopher's Stone"? What is so confusing about the concept of crumpets? Ah, you're all eejits. Still, the film's a good one, with great performances (what a shame Richard Harris had to die so soon...his Dumbledore was a joy) a faithful-but-not-to-a-fault script, and three very promising kids - I, for one, hope they don't get replaced. Even if Emma Watson's teeth are too small. If there is a fault, it's that it's too simplistic - but then, so's the book, by dint of being the first one. It gets better. Trust me. Mind you, at over 2 and a half hours long (from the shortest book), god knows what they'll do with Goblet Of Fire (nearly 700 pages). Maybe they'll try to resurrect Sir David Lean.… Expand

This movie is brilliant. The settings and action seem directly taken from my mind's eye as I read the book. The director wisely does not try to outdo the well-written book but instead captures its most brilliant moments. The cast wonderfully seems to experience the surprises of what they are seeing and doing, much as I turned with wonder from page to page dying to know what would happen next. Harry Potter succeeds at every step where LOTR fails miserably: it has a tight story, closure with a desire for more, compelling and articulate characters that are well-developed. I can't wait for the next one!… Expand

This movie is great for the kids, but not good for the adults as they might find the disappointment of lack of action. Harry Potter would be more exciting and fun if they put on the sound a bit louder. The book was better as it has more adventure and excitement. The characters should have put more charm into it. It really seems like it's too much for children and less for older people. But this movie may also be good by it's story and it's scenery as it was well imagined. I'm hoping the second one will be better. But still, this movie is good and recommendable for kids.… Expand

This movie was closely related to the book, and I liked it a lot. Yep.

This movie was awesome!!! Daniel Radcliffe was EXCELLENT in this movie; gotta love that guy!! I've never read the HP-books, but after the movie I bought them all and within 3 weeks time I'm now in the fourth book!! I'm totally hooked and can't wait till the next movie and book!!

For me, this movie teeters between 6 and 7. The acting was fine, and the movie was cast perfectly, and it was quite faithful to the book. However, standing as a movie itself, which it obviously is not meant to be, it doesn't quite achieve success. This movie is definitely directed to an audience who has read the book--there is very little characterization, and the scenes are strung together with little connection. The movie assumes you already know the characters and what you are going to see. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the movie, though. It was great fun to watch and I would definitely recommend it, just don't expect a masterpiece. … Expand