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!!!!
Rating:
Summary: "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone"
Review: First of all, I must say that I've never read any of the Harry Potter books. I admit I was first a little bit indecisive whether I would like it or not when I entered the movie theater. And I must say, I enjoyed myself through and through! People might say that's it's just for kids but I'm 14 and I went to see the movie with my father and my sister and we all liked it lots! The story is about Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) who has been living with his Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw), Uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths), and cousin Dudley (Harry Melling) all of his life. Mistreated by his family and always shunned, Harry is surprised to find out on his 11th birthday that he is actually a wizard! And not only a wizard, but is the son of two famous wizards. Led by Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), Harry is brought to Hogwarts School of Wizardry and is enrolled for his first year. There under the Headmaster Dumbledore (Richard Harris) and Headmistress McGonagall (Maggie Smith), he proves to everyone that he is indeed a great wizard. But with his friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), they find out that strange things are taking place inside Hogwarts which seems to involve the evil wizard, Lord Voldemort (Richard Bremmer), Professors Snape (Alan Rickman) and Quirrel (Ian Hart), and the mysterious sorcerer's/philosopher's stone. For those who are worried that this movie would be a bad influence on kids, I don't think that that would be a problem. It's just a world of fantasy for everyone and if kids can understand that and that it's just a movie, I'm sure they can handle it. Even though the movie was 2 and 1/2 hours long, I wasn't bored one minute of the whole movie! It was very entertaining, from the very beginning where Harry Potter receives all of his letters to when he is enrolled into the school, where Harry Potter fights the troll to the part where he finds out about the sorcerer's/philosopher's stone. Every minute will have you enthralled! The F/X are something to talk about to, it was pretty impressive, especially the game of Quidditch. The acting was pretty terrific too, from all the main characters and even including most of the supportive cast, including Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy and Sean Biggerstaff as Gryffindor Captain Oliver Wood. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone" did not get any Golden Global Award Nominations but still, it's a pretty good movie from the year 2001's movies. Oh by the way, here's a little trivia. The reason I keep writing Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone is because I live in Japan. The movie is known as "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" everywhere except the USA and so every scene in which the Philosopher's Stone was mentioned was filmed twice, once with the actors saying "Philosopher's" and once with the actors saying "Sorcerer's". So when I saw the movie in theaters, I watched it as "Philosopher's Stone".
Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece of amazing proportions
Review: I have read the Harry Potter series many times: I was looking forward to the movie, even though there were some bad reviews. After viewing the movie, I noticed my popcorn and soda had been left, untoached; I was so wrapped up in the events! The special effects were a blast, and the actors were great. I especially loved Severus Snape: the actor and the makeup all put together made such a sinister-looking person! I loved it! There were a few things missing though, like the ghost teacher wasn't in it, and Harry and Hermione and Ron freed the Dragon, and kept it a secret; Dumbledore didn't send it away. But other than that, it was great....
Rating:
Summary: A book on screen but not a movie...
Review: Among the few things that I had as a problem with Harry Potter besides the missed scenes form the book was the fact that this movie did not feel like a movie. Chris Columbus stood wonderfully true to the VISION of Harry's world, so did Steve Kloves the writer. They did too good an adaptation though, cuase that's what this movie is an adaptation. It's not a movie, Daniel Radcliffe doesn't carry the movie. They have great supporting actors, that's another problem. The supporting actors are so great the kids are overlooked. How dare they use Alan Rickman so little! All in all, Columbus did a really good job minus a few exceptions he is the only one I can see filming the entire franchise. Also this movie was for readers of the book, not for people who haven't read them. It wouldn't make sense to them. But if you're a reader of the books you'll enjoy this film. (...)
| 
