Rating: 
Summary: Wonderful! I could watch it over and over
Review: I thought this movie was sooooo good! The special effects were amazing and everything looked so lifelike and the music was great and so was the acting! And everybody looked just like i pictured except for the bloody barron and Prof. McGonagal. The only reason i gave this 4 stars was because of them leaving stuff out that i really wanted to see like peeves , the potions scene in the forbidden corridor, the part where norbert bit rons hand and some other stuff. Another reason was...... seeing "he-who-must-not-be-named" they could have done better than that.... but otherwise... i really loved it and encourage everybody who likes movies at all to see it! I LOVE the special effects!!!!
Rating:
Summary: Everyone expects too much!
Review: Reading over some other reviews, it seems that many people have overly high expectations of the film- and although many people make excellent points (e.g. the promotion of the concept that "goodness" is hereditary)- i think they are being unreasonable. No matter what, the fact remains that the books were written for children, the merchandise was designed- for children, and consequently, the movie was made to cater for children- so obviously you cannot expect something which equals the complexity of movies such as Lord Of the Rings- if anything, tthe books and films should recieve more praise owing to the fact that they recieved as much adult attention as they already have! i thought the movie was a wonderful interpretation of the film- although not including ron and dracos fight cost them one star, in my eyes... i felt it was an important part of the story.
as for the actors, considering they were children, i liked them, especially Emma Watson- and SEAN BIGGERSTAFF!!! (yum!)
Rating: 
Summary: Not What I Expected!
Review: I went to see the movie expecting a great movie, maybe not spectacular but still well done. It was not a great movie.
I was bored about 30 minutes into the movie. Voldemort was not at all scary or evil looking he was just some human face sticking out the back of another dudes head. Harry Potter is way to over-rated. It has to many flaws to overlook, like the plot for example. My uncle who hasn't read the books saw the movie and was totally confused.
Rating:
Summary: Better the second time (for a true fan of the books)
Review: I am one of the many Harry Potter fans who was disappointed with the movie the first time I saw it. I found it beautiful visually but lacking depth, narratively choppy and somewhat contrived. On Christmas eve we took our six-year old to see it for the first time (she loved it!). I wanted to see it again to give it another chance, and I enjoyed it much more this time. I think I missed the movie when I was away from it like Harry misses Hogwarts during the summer. Like many fans of these stories, a part of my mind and heart live, or at least vacation, in the phenomenal world of Harry Potter. Seeing the movie a second time was like visiting my alma mater. Maybe everything there wasn't perfect the first time, but coming back to familiar places and people was a rewarding experience. So if you liked the books enough to read them (at least) twice, but you were disappointed with the movie, give it a second chance as well.
Rating: 
Summary: This Stone's An English Gem
Review: Film's adaption of well-loved books are tricky things. Hence, the general rule of thumb that B-grade novels made better films and A-grade books tend to get butchered on screen. Harry Potter And The Sorceror's Stone is an exception to this rule.Despite the fact that this a blockbuster Hollywood production,one secret ingredient rescues this from the formulaic malaise which has gripped blockbusters of late, it's quintessential Englishness. This Englishness is an integral part of Rowling's story-telling which mined most ot its inspiration fron the rich lore of English writing. The scenes are a marvel of big budget special effects. The ensemble is cast to absolute perfection. The story is so vividly realised tht Richard Griffiths and Fiona Shaw as Harry Potter's horrid muggle step-parents now seem truly hatefully horrid. Though there are missing gaps-no sorting hat song and the shortened sequence with Norbert the baby dragon, these are minor quibbles with a movie that has accomplished the miraculous feat of seeming to replicate the book in its entirety. You will be spellbound, just as I am. This fantasy adventure soars, no broomstick needed. This is one Hollywood spell that works wonders.
Rating:
Summary: What the heck?
Review: This was a fantastic movie. My kids and I enjoyed it immensely! But, why is it listed as the "Philosopher's" Stone instead of Sorcerer's??
Rating:
Summary: A Great Film
Review: 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' met all of my expectations. It had the main characters, and the actors portrayed all the character's from the book very well. It was, however disappointing with the abscence of Peeves the Poltergeist but it still was excellent.
Rating: 
Summary: Didn't capture the magic
Review: I am a huge fan of the Harry Potter books (I must have read them at least four times over) and I was disappointed in this movie. It didn't transport me the way the books did and the movie flowed poorly. Also, Harry's eyes are supposed to be GREEN! The actors seemed like they were reading from the script and that was it--I didn't feel like they were into their characters. I guess I expected a lot more from all of the hype (the marketing people did a great job of that), so I was very disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: Too much hype
Review: Very disappointing. The marketing for this movie was well done, it really made it seem like the movie was going to be as great as the book was. A lot of gaps in the movie and poorly flowing scenes made this movie a thumbs down.
Rating:
Summary: missing the point
Review: After reading so many negative reviews of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer"s Stone, I think they are all missing the point. This was the "set-up" movie, just as the book was the setup for all those that will follow. As you go on reading the books, Rowling has to explain less and less and can just let the story flow. I think the movies will follow that pattern. As for the acting, was anyone really looking closely at Radcliffe's face in certain scenes? He is one of the few actors of his age I've ever seen who can really speak with his eyes. And, frankly, I think he looks exactly right as Harry. I do agree that Rupert Grint could have been given a bit more to do than grimace at the camera and throw off the odd quip, but he will develop more, hopefully, in future films, as he has in the books. As for the other actors, most of them were spot on--have you all noticed that most British actors don't have to rely on their looks? They don't care what you look like in Britain, it's "can you act?' that really counts. Although as Daniel Radcliffe matures, I think he will give Prince William a run for his money in the teen heartthrob department!! So just go and enjoy the movie, but don't forget to read the books!!!!
| 
