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?
()
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.
()
You either love Harry Potter or you don't understand why everyone around you loves him so much. I'm one of the former. I think I'm from the generation that enjoyed watching it the most. I was young enough to be enchanted by all the magic and old enough to understand it. I grew up with Harry and the individual installments always fit my age just right. And so, to this day, The Sorcerer's Stone is an all-time favorite of mine, and a story that brings out the little kid in me who firmly believes that Hogwarts exists :)
()
The beginning to a legendary series that has gained a large number of fans, just like its famous literary source. I have certain reservations about the first one, which still somewhat stays down to earth in many aspects and situations, and sometimes appears overly childish and wannabe comedic, but it successfully plays out a great magical game and the fictional world of Hogwarts is hard not to love. It’s a good start, though far from perfect.
()
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…
()
Gallery (229)
Photo © 2001 Warner Bros
![Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - Photos](http://image.pmgstatic.com/cache/resized/w663/files/images/film/photos/164/689/164689816_35c478.jpg)
Ads