Rating: 
Summary: An Excellent Movie That Will Soon Be A Classic
Review: I am sure many of you have heard the story line of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," so I won't go into detail about the movie. I have seen some reviews to where I thought I was reading a Movie Critic column out of the New York Times. Don't over analyze this movie. It is a based on the Harry Potter book series that is intended for children, but has an appeasement for adults as well. The reason why I gave this five stars is simple: it is a family movie that has no profanity, sexual suggestions, or nuditiy. The purpose of this review is to give an honest assessment of the DVD and if it is worth the money. In my opinion the answer is "Yes." This movie is bound to be a classic in children's cinema and will have the same stature as "Star Wars" and "E.T." There are a lot of things we can spend $$$ on....why not invest it on a good family movie that you will have for years to come.
Rating:
Summary: Closet Harry Potter Fan
Review: Being 18 and liking Harry Potter makes many of my peers laugh, but I don't care. Harry Potter is awesome for all ages. Having read all of the published books, I greatly anticipate each new movie. "The Sorcerer's Stone" is the first installment in what is sure to be an acclaimed series. Owning the movie will start a collection that will be priceless someday. I definitley recommend this movie to all Potter fans and to those who are young at heart!
Rating: 
Summary: Not a Faithful Adaption to a Wonderful Novel,
Review: just a movie made to cash in on a popular novel. This is one of the dullest book-to-movie adaptions I've ever seen. The original novel, Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone (or Philosophers Stone) had a magic quality even I couldn't deny, and make for an interesting and exciting little read. The movie, however, has no heart or soul. It was made without care, attention to detail, or any attempt to put any kind of a magical quality into it. It's just a cash in, which did it's job of raking in the dough. The acting in this film is beyond worthless. Aside from Hans Gruber, it doesn't look like much effort was put into getting good performances out of the cast. I would love to see some behind the scenes footage with Chris Colombus and Daniel Radcliffe. i can just see him going "Now, Daniel, you're expressing emotion in this scene! Let's try not to do this, OK?" None of the kids have attitudes, and they really should have worked to get at least SOME American kids, because those British kids.... get the voices out of my head (not at all a racist comment, I love British people!). The movie was really screwed up so it difered from the book tremendously just to save time, which messes the plot up immensely. For instance, we find out that Hagrid is raising a baby dragon. This would be an important part of the books, with Harry and his friends trying to get it away from Hogwarts without being caught. Here, in the movie, it's mentioned that Hagrid had to give it up. That's all. Rather stupid. Also, I hated the way Hogwarts looked. When I read the books, I imagined it as a nice, cozy warm place that I would love to live at. in the movie, it's a dark, stony, cold looking place that looks like some sort of jail which I would hate living at and feel scared. It destoyed my vision of the place. Also, the characters were basically wood. In the books, they're well developed and we can care about them. Here, to much time is spent showing off the (lousy) special effects and forgets we can only enjoy a movie if we care for the characters! Speaking of special effects, the ones here are so bad it's an embarrasment. Yes, they are worse than Spiderman. Far worse. The Quittitch match is just sad. All the characters look like a cartoon, and you may die of a heart attack laughing when Harry starts spinning around on his broom. I'm usually not to hard on special effects, but for a big budget movie from one year ago, this is a pity that they couldn't have worked on the special effects rather than just throwing them in quickly. The music is dull and forgettable. Enough said. Anyway, this is a pure skippable movie, not even good enough to laugh at. It's just dull. Those are the only words I can use to describe this. Read the books again, and forget this existed.
Rating:
Summary: Truly Magical
Review: I saw this film with a lot of skepticism, not because I was worried about whether it is a good representation of the book, but rather because I had never really seen what the big deal about Harry Potter was. However 20 minutes in and I was hooked, getting a drink, or a bag of popcorn be damned, I wanted to watch every moment of the film and was deeply interested. Having gotten interested in the film I checked out the book, and found the film was incredibly close to the book which is always a feat. While having dropped a little bit here and a little bit there Chris Columbus faithfully adapted this beloved children's book. Parents should be warned that the movie contains scenes that might be scary to a young child, but that should not stop you from showing this to your child, or them from enjoying it. The film transfer on the DVD is great, with no problems. The sound is more than adequate, and the overall presentation of the DVD is quite good. Despite being on 2 discs the extras are the let-down here, but they are not horrible, what there is is quite nice but could have been better. The way they could have been better is by adding more extras, and making some difficulty levels so that adults who buy this film can enjoy it every bit as much as children. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's (or Philosopher's, depending on where you live in the world) Stone is definitely a film that will go down as a classic and will be enjoyed for generations to come, it is now and will be for a long time: simply magical.
Rating:
Summary: Impressive Acting
Review: I have read many reviews of this movie. For the most part, people seem to be most impressed with the fact that movie remained faithful to the book. I agree, that impressed me as well. But what really impressed me about this film are the excellent performances of the younger members of the cast. Yes, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Richard Harris, and Alan Rickman were superb during their limited screen time. But that was expected. Radcliffe was perfect for the role. His low-key acting is refreshing to watch compared to the epidemic of overacting we see in contemporary young actors. He conveyed so much with his eyes, facial expressions, and body language. Emma Watson and Rupert Grint were also excellent in their roles, although Emma Watson did have a tendency to overact at times. But then again, the character of Hermione is a bit intense to begin with.
Rating: 
Summary: It's magical!
Review: This is a great movie.Daniel Radcliffe stars as Harry Potter and puts a spell on everyone in the world!The second movie is released and I'm waiting for the third one.Too bad they are not goin' to make the fourth one!
Rating: 
Summary: This is a review of the DVD
Review: The special features include some mildly interesting (but all too short) interviews with the director and producer. The only other features worth watching are the deleted scenes. Unfortunately, the scenes are difficult to find and the viewer must play some dull and inane games to reach them. The rest of the features are boring and do little to enhance the movie. There are no commentaries. Unless you are dying to see the deleted scenes, I suggest you save your money and buy the video.
Rating:
Summary: Very good try, but doesn'te make it to the "great DVD" level
Review: For those of you that have been living in a cave for the last several years, Harry Potter is a boy-wizard, raised by "Muggles" (non-magical people) who is taken away to a private school for wizards and witches when he turns 11. The success of J.K. Rowling's books made a film version inevitable, but also a risky venture (2nd only to Lord of the Rings). Chris Columbus's film stands up well on the surface. Unfortunately, in a more in-depth analysis, it's not much more than a kiddie movie. In defense of the filmakers, they saw the challenge of this first Harry Potter film as faithfully reproducing the atmosphere and magic of Hogwarts, the school. This they did admirably well with fantastic sets and a liberal helping of computer-generated images. Some of the CGI looks cartoony, but I suspect it is to prevent younger viewers from being scared. Likewise, the characters are faithfully reproduced by the actors - I was especially impressed with Smith as Prof. McGonagall, the teacher who demands a lot, is a strict disciplinarian, but still admired. We've all known teachers like that, but the performance generates such respect that you totally believe in McGonagall (rather than the screenplay dictating it), even in her rediculous witch hat. Likewise, Rickman and Harris as Snape and Dumbledore are pretty much exactly as you would picture them from reading the book. However, I have to question the interpretation in places. The two main misteps (the blame for which I place on director Columbus) are: 1. Harry is far too rebellious and confident in some scenes - to the point of arrogance - which was not Rowling's intention. 2. In filming most of the events of the book, the running time blew up to 150 minutes. This is not an adaptation so much as a photocopy! However, if interest was more in the environment than the story, future films will be better (especially as each book gets longer, it will be impossible to film all the events). All things considered, it's an enjoyable movie, although with limited replay enjoyment. As a special edition 2-DVD set, I was disappointed by the lack of material. The entire 2nd disc is devoted to little games that are annoying to adults and not fun enough to hold a child's interest. Especially annoying is the fact that to access the deleted scenes, you have to navigate through many games that give you little direction to solving the puzzles, and that kick you back to the beginning if you choose wrong. ARGH! Also, the "making-of" featurette is quite short (16 minutes). There is no commentary or other extras - why not bring in Rowling for a commentary on how things were adapted? Therefore, it's a disappointing DVD version of an enjoyable film.
Rating: 
Summary: Overrated rubbish. And too long, also.
Review: Mediocre writing, unoriginal and lacking of talent.
Rating:
Summary: A marvelous classic for Potter fans
Review: The first in the J.K. Rowling series entitled "Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone" is one of the best fantasy films that I've seen in a very long time. While nowhere near as captivating or as visually explosive as the Lord of the Rings movies, Harry Potter is a marvelous silver screen adaptation of Rowling's first novel. I know that I will almost certainly be butting heads against HP book-reading purists as I'm a Harry Potter newbie (as of writing this review) and I can fully understand that, but this movie is a marvelous fantasy classic. I have no regrets about buying this on video and I've watched it countless times over and will continue to do so in the coming years. The movie begins with Hogwarts Professor Dumbledore bringing a an orphaned Potter to his uncle Vernon Dursley and aunt Petunia Dursley who, along with spoiled cousin Dudley, become very unkind towards him due to their belief that witches, wizards' magic are a grave threat and they try to bury the whole topic during his childhood realizing that Potter was the child of a wizard and a witch, something that the Dursley family wanted nothing to do with. Later, a friendly half-giant Rubeus Hagrid comes crashing in and takes care of Potter's abusive relatives and takes Potter to a huge school of wizardry and witchcraft called Hogwarts by means of a secret passageway called Platform 9 3/4. I sometimes even think of why the carts don't crash into the wall instead of vanishing through. During the trip there Potter meets Ronald Weasley and Hermione Granger. It was around that time when the rivalry with the troublesome Draco Malfoy would begin. It was eventually around then when he'd learn of the evil wizard known as Voldemort who killed his parents but why Harry himself is so famous. And so the adventures that involve monstrous creatures, magic, witchcraft, Quidditch matches, all begin. The cast of the characters was great even though maybe not perfect. Richard Harris did such a wonderful job portraying Albus Dumbledore and with his tragic passing, he will be missed by millions of movie goers. No word on who could take Harris' place. Maggie Smith does such an incredible job playing the fearsome, strict but fair Professor McGonagall. I love that British accent and it's so funny seeing her get angry when Potter and his gang get in trouble at school. She was perfect for McGonagall's role. Alan Rickman has that unsettling deep commanding voice that perfectly matches the mysterious Severus Snape, Slytherin's Potions Teacher. Tom Felton does a solid performance playing the cold-hearted Hogwarts bully, Draco Malfoy. Although he is sinister in terms of Hogwarts students, if Malfoy was real, he would seem like a nice guy compared to some of the violent bullies in real-life schools! :( The threesome Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, Rupert Grint as Ronald Weasley, and Emma Watson, were great choices to play these characters. A great amount of suspenseful music gives the movie a relatively chilling feel to it. The production is excellent in the entire movie and the special effects are astounding, even if nowhere near as mind-blowing like those from The Lord of the Rings are. I know that there's already tons of LOTR vs. HP going on all over the place and while I definitely prefer LOTR over HP, Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone is a marvelous classic that should be owned by almost any movie lover.
| 
