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)
I know that as an ordinary muggle I have no say in this, but why on earth didn't the creators conjure up a better lead? Daniel Radcliffe is awfully plankish, even though I can't expect miracles from a rookie. And I would also expect that in a project like this, some of the visual effects wouldn't be so blatantly digital. And while I'm criticising, Williams's music isn't one of the strong points either. I find Williams quite repetitive, and part of the main motif reminds me strikingly of one of the motifs in Schindler's List. On the other hand, the Quidditch scene was good and the the pawns with two swords in the chess game were cool. I also liked John Cleese’s appearances. And one more thing, I’ve made up my mind, sod cars, I’m getting a Nimbus 2000…
()
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.
()
"Yer a wizard, Harry." –– This is a beautiful tale about a wizard's apprentice that even after several years has not lost its original charm and atmosphere. When I watched it recently, believe me, I had the same wonderful feeling as when I first saw it. While I admit that the main trio does not exactly give Oscar-winning performances, they wonderfully make up for it with their childlike innocence – because, like the audience, they are gradually learning about this world of magic and enchantment, its many wonders, but also its dangers... I do not think I need to elaborate further in my review, because I do not believe anyone has not heard of this movie.
()
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?
()
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.
()
Gallery (229)
Photo © 2001 Warner Bros
![Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - Photos - Matthew Lewis, Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe, Luke Youngblood, James Phelps, Alfred Enoch, Sean Biggerstaff, Oliver Phelps](http://image.pmgstatic.com/cache/resized/w663/files/images/film/photos/159/922/159922051_157474.jpg)
Ads