Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Reviews

Page 1 of 2008
August 20, 2017
A solid start to a renowned franchise that surprisingly holds up well, even 16 years later.

Upon his 11th birthday, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), who lives in misery with an aunt and uncle that don't want him, learns from a giant named Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) that he is the orphaned son of powerful wizards. Harry is offered a place at prestigious Hogwarts, a boarding school for wizards that exists in a realm of magic and fantasy outside the dreary existence of normal humans or "Muggles."

Before heading off for a life in another state shortly, I pushed myself to rewatch a series of films that I had been dying to see since my childhood. But I had been pushing it off in fear that the first couple of films would be really dated. Finally, I decided to put the first film into my Xbox. By my surprise, this film held up really well, and the Blu-Ray rendition actually looked really good. And I'll be honest, I had fun seeing the roots of our heroes, and I can't wait to watch them grow up through the next seven films and join their adventures.

So to start out, the beloved "Harry Potter" cast all give fine performances as young children. Daniel Radcliffe was a great lead and held a solid performance as a young child. Rupert Grint did a great job as the geeky, goofy, yet supportive best friend. Emma Watson was also fine, even if her character came off as that annoying, know-it-all friend that we've all met. Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid was also introduced as this lovable giant who will definitely be a fan favorite for years to come. It was really interesting to see the cast at a young age, especially knowing how far they would go.

The visuals and cinematography certainly wasn't as bad or dated as I expected it to be. Granted, some parts and moments definitely looked like something you'd see from the early 2000's but for the most part, this is a film that still holds up decently today. That was a real nice attribute that this film had and it really made the whole experience better for me.

In the end, this film really did feel more like a kids movie. I mean, it was made for the target audience of younger children, even if it was still entertaining for adults. There were some cheesy and goofy parts for sure, but it also was the beginning of a much more dark and deep story that's still going. Like I said, I still enjoyed this movie a lot and I had a lot more fun than I thought I would. Maybe it was the nostalgia of seeing it as a kid, or maybe it was the fun in seeing the beginning of things so iconic. Either way, this film was more than enjoyable.

In the end, I think this film holds up really well, and is a great start to a beloved franchise. I can't wait to see the rest of these films again and review them all soon. For now, I'm glad I finally rewatched this film so soon.
½ August 6, 2017
What a fun, exciting, start to a massive franchise. The kids that were chosen to play the parts of Harry, Ron, and Hermine were perfectly selected. The film sticks fairly close to the source material, and it helps the movie massively. The few creative liberties that were taken made the film work smoothly without sacrificing story. The CGI has its weak points throughout the film, especially in the final act. Over all a fun film that the family will enjoy. Great character work, good story, and a great kick start to a juggernaut of a franchise.
½ August 6, 2017
Great movie, acting of the children could have been better. They definitely improved in the later movies.
July 30, 2017
The story that started it all ?
July 29, 2017
Although it was released in 2001, it still makes me feel curious.
July 28, 2017
Ok, this has been driving me crazy for seven movies now, and I know you're going to roll your eyes, but hear me out: Harry Potter should have carried a 1911.

Here's why:

Think about how quickly the entire WWWIII (Wizarding-World War III) would have ended if all of the good guys had simply armed up with good ol' American hot lead.

Basilisk? Let's see how tough it is when you shoot it with a .470 Nitro Express. Worried about its Medusa-gaze? Wear night vision goggles. The image is light-amplified and re-transmitted to your eyes. You aren't looking at it--you're looking at a picture of it.

Imagine how epic the first movie would be if Harry had put a breeching charge on the bathroom wall, flash-banged the hole, and then went in wearing NVGs and a Kevlar-weave stab-vest, carrying a SPAS-12.

And have you noticed that only Europe seems to a problem with Deatheaters? Maybe it's because Americans have spent the last 200 years shooting deer, playing GTA: Vice City, and keeping an eye out for black helicopters over their compounds. Meanwhile, Brits have been cutting their steaks with spoons. Remember: gun-control means that Voldemort wins. God made wizards and God made muggles, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

Now I know what you're going to say: "But a wizard could just disarm someone with a gun!" Yeah, well they can also disarm someone with a wand (as they do many times throughout the books/movies). But which is faster: saying a spell or pulling a trigger?

Avada Kedavra, meet Avtomat Kalashnikova.

Imagine Harry out in the woods, wearing his invisibility cloak, carrying a .50bmg Barrett, turning Deatheaters into pink mist, scratching a lightning bolt into his rifle stock for each kill. I don't think Madam Pomfrey has any spells that can scrape your brains off of the trees and put you back together after something like that. Voldemort's wand may be 13.5 inches with a Phoenix-feather core, but Harry's would be 0.50 inches with a tungsten core. Let's see Voldy wave his at 3,000 feet per second. Better hope you have some Essence of Dittany for that sucking chest wound.

I can see it now...Voldemort roaring with evil laughter and boasting to Harry that he can't be killed, since he is protected by seven Horcruxes, only to have Harry give a crooked grin, flick his cigarette butt away, and deliver what would easily be the best one-liner in the entire series:

"Well then I guess it's a good thing my 1911 holds 7+1."

And that is why Harry Potter should have carried a 1911.
July 21, 2017
Good luck.... Harry Potter :)
July 10, 2017
Everyone I know loves Harry Potter and my mom really wanted to try it so I watched about 1 hour of it and turned it off. HORRIBLE and BORING movie!
½ July 1, 2017
Book was so much better
June 26, 2017
This is a fun family movie. A very good start to one of the most popular series. From my memory this one was also more true to the book the most of the movies. The young actors did a very good job an I really like Richard Harris as Dumbledore and Allan Rickman as Snape.

8.2/10
June 19, 2017
Harry Potter series is awesome
June 16, 2017
A mild, but satisfying YA novel adaptation tat started the most important book franchise ever that will span many other YA franchises who will fail to top this one for a while.
½ June 11, 2017
Pretty good first film. Some effects don't hold up that well though.
June 5, 2017
Second favourite of the franchise
½ June 1, 2017
Child actors that aren't terrible? Sign me up.
June 1, 2017
The first film is satisfactory. The casting is very well done and grounds this saga.
½ May 25, 2017
Came back to this after probably 10 years. It is SO much better than I realized as a kid. The music and visuals are especially arresting and really create a fantastical world.
May 23, 2017
want to see to baldly but ... cant wait to see
May 15, 2017
The first film in the Harry Potter franchise to this day remains one of the most enjoyable and magical films in the series and one of the best grand scale blockbusters of the last 20 years. The direction is perfectly mysterious and sinister whilst being wondrous and innocent at the same time. While the performances from the younger cast members are mostly solid, a few lines here and there definitely could be delivered better but luckily the script brilliantly fleshes out the characters and the chemistry is on point and the same goes for the entire cast - the casting is absolutely perfect. As a film it delivers as a set up and as its own self contained adventure, besides some meandering in the second act and the speedy timeline, the Philosopher's Stone is almost a beat by beat adaption of the book, leaving out and tweaking one or two sequences for the sake of run time. It has aged a little but overall there is no doubt that this is solid film for all ages that is an essential watch for people who have not seen it. Also can't forget that John Williams' score is one the greatest ever.
Page 1 of 2008