Directed by:
Chris ColumbusScreenplay:
Steve KlovesCinematography:
John SealeComposer:
John WilliamsCast:
Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Tom Felton, Richard Harris, Fiona Shaw, Ian Hart, John Hurt, Richard Griffiths, Alan Rickman (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
Harry Potter has learned to live with his bullying Uncle Vernon, his callous Aunt Petunia and the constant whining of his greedy, spoiled cousin Dudley. He's even learned to live with sleeping in the cupboard under the stairs. Harry's relatives have just as reluctantly learned to live with the unwelcome presence of their orphaned relation, a constant reminder of Petunia's "wayward" sister and brother-in-law and their mysterious and untimely demise. Even the impending arrival of his 11th birthday offers no excitement for Harry--as usual, there's little chance of cards, presents or any kind of birthday treat. This year, however, is different. On his 11th birthday, Harry learns that he is the orphaned son of two powerful wizards and possesses unique magical powers of his own. Invited to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Harry embarks on the adventure of a lifetime. At Hogwarts, he finds the home and family he has never had. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (1)
Reviews (12)
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?
()
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.
()
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 what enormous phenomenon that was undertaking, but I am incredibly grateful to him for it. Without him, I would have never gotten into movies, but most importantly, I would never have discovered the beloved subject matter of the books. And the nostalgia while watching "our new celebrities" haunted by Severus Snape is truly immeasurable. It may not the best installment, but it is truly the first.
()
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.
()
At the beginning of the new millennium, the grand journey of one of the greatest cinematic sagas of the 21st century began, and I have a vivid memory of staring in disbelief at what it actually was, as the book version didn't come to me until several years later. Chris Columbus's first (and second) Harry Potter is still a PG-rated tale that exudes the family feel of the director's previous film Home Alone. Even years after the premiere, the unforgettable theme tune from composing titan John Williams still rings in my ears, and while some of the effects are subpar, I was still pleased with the visuals. There are a few clumsily done spots in terms of the script that were due to the adaptation of the source material, but that's something to be expected with most film adaptations. Alan Rickman is already incredibly convincing here, and the mediocre performances of the still-unseasoned trio are balanced by seasoned actors like Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane. One of the prime examples of what a family fantasy film should look like, and while it has its flaws, it's perfect for its age group.
()
Ads