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

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Reviews

Page 1 of 2009
January 20, 2018
Enjoyable film based on JK Rowling's fantastical world of wizards. Good story, well acted, especially by the marquee players, that moves along at an engaging clip. Overly simplistic in that you never get the sense that anyone is in real danger, so the movie just piles on with abandon the magic, interesting creatures and fantastical scenes/perils. Also, I take it down a bit for the Matrix-complex of The One, though they are much more obvious from right out of the gate how special Harry Potter is going to be. I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the films.
January 18, 2018
A great beginning to a movie series that everyone seems to enjoy. The acting is great and the setting is presented with a great sense of wonder.
Super Reviewer
½ January 14, 2018
The cast is uniformly charming and while Columbus is far from the best director this series ever had he does handle the book's Roald Dahl-esque plot quite well.
January 13, 2018
Some early growing pains as the actors and director get a foothold in these characters and world, but an otherwise fun introduction to the Harry Potter movie franchise.
January 11, 2018
The mirror of Erissed scene was very touching
January 7, 2018
An absolutely instant classic. I am rating each of the Potter films independently of the books or at least not in direct contrast to the books but as films that stand on their own. There is no question, that this film burst on the scene with a new universe of Harry Potter. It was one of the 'nothing like this has been seen' instant children's classic. Although the actors were young, so we are not talking Oscar performances, the sets, characters, magic, adventure all add up to a children's and family classic.
January 5, 2018
The special effects are really bad, and the actors seem a little young, but overall the movies great.
January 4, 2018
The beginning of what was to become one of the best and most successful movie franchises of all time, "Sorcerer's Stone" plays close to the book as the whole world of magic is unleashed upon us Muggles in a way we can't help but love and adore.
January 2, 2018
It lacks the depth of later installements, the third act is rushed and Radcliffe's acting is still a little stale, but "The Philosophers Stone" still holds up.
The designs are great, the effects (mostly) hold up and the cast is charming. John Williams' score is fantastic as usual, and there are some great moral lessons for kids.
It's a film that has to spend a lot of time on exposition, so it's actual plot is a little thin, but it's a really good time, and it's hard to not get nostalgic if you grew up with these films and books.
December 28, 2017
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a magical and enchanting start to a great series!
½ December 20, 2017
A very solid beginning to a franchise with so much potential. These young kids do some good work here, especially when helped by British acting legends in several scenes throughout. Some heart & some cool visuals
December 19, 2017
Puntaje Original: 8.0

A pesar de unas novatas interpretaciones por parte de sus protagonistas, Harry Potter es sumamente fantástico y genial, capaz de volver fanático a quien sea con solo ver la primera película (si lo se, me pasó a mi).
½ December 13, 2017
As far as family-friendly blockbusters go, Harry Potter is absolutely magical. Filled with intrigue and wonder, fun and fantastical characters, even if there are a few cheesy moments, kids will adore this first foray to Hogwarts.
"Hermione: Now if you two don't mind, I'm going to bed before either of you come up with another clever idea to get us killed - or worse, expelled."
December 6, 2017
All time favourite franchise
½ November 25, 2017
Following the book, the movie franchise begins with a successful opening! Great storyline, excellent cast and amazing presentation! The trio of Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson delivered when the spotlight was there, showcasing their talents in the big stage!
November 22, 2017
Great book adaptation! It is such a wonderful film! Best "Harry Potter" movie in my opinion.
November 20, 2017
I feel, next to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is the best book-to-movie adaptation that I've ever seen. The sets were stunning - the actors were first rate - the effects were breathtaking. The film flowed quite smoothly in it's transition from page to screen, never tripping on the awkward conventions that other books on film have struggled with. The screenplay, by Steven Kloves, stripped away all unnecessary elements to get to the root of the story. Though many events from the book were excluded, the essential ones made it to the film. And it makes for one smooth story and very enjoyable movie-going experience.

Many kudos to Chris Columbus and the rest of the Harry Potter cast/crew for not turning this movie into what it easily could have become: a 2 and a half hour commercial advertisement for action figures and collectibles, kid's meals and fast food tie-ins, soft drinks and snack products, etc. and instead focused on bringing J.K. Rowling's story to life as accurately and as lovingly as it deserves. There has been much speculation on whether Columbus was the correct choice for the first two installments of the series and I say to that, Yes. I feel that he accomplished what most would have failed. He has proven, at least to me, that Diagon Alley truly exists - if only I could find the right brick to tap on. The world of Harry Potter is no longer fantasy to me, but instead a place where any of us mere Muggles could hope to visit, one day.

One of my favorite moments, is what I'm going to refer to as the Adrenaline Sequence. By Adrenaline Sequence, I mean the sequence in a movie that for all intents and purposes, doesn't necessarily propel the story, but gives the audience a huge theatrical payoff, ala the Pod Race sequence in The Phantom Menace. The Adrenaline Sequence for this particular movie is the Quidditch sequence. I was very happy to finally see the 'hockey/soccer hybrid on a broomstick' come to life. The Quidditch Sequence is, by far, my favorite sequence in the whole film. The scene is dizzying in it's violence and it's one breathless moment after another. My hat goes off to Columbus and his team for succeeding in making this scene as memorable as it should be.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a fantastic movie for children of all ages. Fans and non-fans alike will enjoy this colorful story of good versus evil and the friendships that endure.I enjoyed this movie immensely. But, like "The Phantom Menace," I've had a very hard time viewing it objectively. There was so much anticipation leading up to its release, I simply enjoyed the experience of being there. Having read all four books in the series a few times each, I am overly familiar with the events in the story. As I watched the movie, my continuing thought was "How well will the next part of the story be translated to the screen?" rather than "How entertaining is this film overall?" I have trouble answering the latter question because I was already entertained by watching a wonderful story dramatized, so I'll never know how I'd have reacted had I seen this movie without having read the books.

Critics talk about how incredibly faithful the movie is to the book, and perhaps I'd have had an easier time detaching the two in my mind had the movie set off on its own course. Indeed, many classic children's movies, like "The Wizard of Oz" and "Mary Poppins," are so successful partly because they're so different from the books that inspired them. But these are exceptions; in my experience, most children's movies reveal their weaknesses in how they diverge from the books upon which they're based. And much of what makes the Harry Potter phenomenon unique is that it is the first time in ages that a children's book, without a movie accompanying it, has generated this much popularity. According to an article I read a year ago, the universe of Harry Potter has become as real in the minds of youngsters and adults as that of a popular movie series like Star Wars. Therefore, it will be very hard for any film based upon it to compete with it. In the minds of die-hard fans, any changes made to the story will be seen as desecrating the fantasy world that Rowling created. That's why it's easy to understand why the filmmakers were so reluctant to change anything.

As a faithful rendering of the book squeezed into a two-and-a-half hour period, the movie is beautifully done. I don't have a single complaint about any of the actors, who successfully bring to life, with the aid of costume design and special effects, the many colorful characters from the book. My favorite character, the giant Hagrid, is played by Robbie Coltrane, and I say with no exaggeration that he is exactly how I imagined him while reading the book. It's as if they took the image in my mind and transferred it to the screen. While I had my own personal image of Snape (for some reason, I always imagined him as the head villain from another Chris Columbus film, "Adventures in Babysitting"), Alan Rickman is perfect in the role. I usually expect to have words of criticism for some performances, but I just don't. The remaining adult actors, including Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall and Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore, are as good as they possibly could be, and the kids do an excellent job of holding their own against these veterans. Some have criticized Daniel Radcliffe for appearing too subdued in the title role, but that's exactly how the character is portrayed in the book: modest, unassuming, and laid-back. The kids who play Harry's two best friends are flawless.

I had a lot of worries about the fact that it was being directed by Chris Columbus, whose entire directorial career so far has consisted of over-the-top slapstick films. I was pleasantly surprised that he did not direct the Harry Potter film in this way. Except for brief moments like the children's delayed reaction to a giant three-headed dog they encounter and Harry's swallowing the quaffle ball, there is nothing here to remind us that this film is directed by the same person who gave us films like "Home Alone" and "Mrs. Doubtfire." Indeed, I think Columbus may have gone just a tad bit too far in trying not to make the film seem cartoony. I would have liked to see a little more emotion on the actors' faces at certain times. Overall, however, his restraint works nicely in giving the film the kind of believability the book possesses.

But much is left out. Harry's caretaker Uncle Vernon, a prominent character in the book, is given less attention in the movie than some of the bit characters. The gently satirical aspects of Hogwarts School aren't in the movie at all. We never see the ghostly history teacher who died several years back but kept on teaching. Lines like the following--"Professor McGonagall watched [her students] turn a mouse into a snuffbox--points were given for how pretty the snuffbox was, but taken away if it had whiskers"--find no equivalent in the movie. The movie does include platform nine-and-three-quarters, though the way the kids disappear into the wall isn't as mysterious as I had visualized, and the sorting hat is there, minus the great poem explaining the differences between the four schools.

Not that I'm blaming the movie for omitting some details. Some things from the book would not have translated easily to the screen, and it would have been very difficult to stick everything in. Had Columbus done so and allowed the film to be as long as necessary (eight hours, maybe?), like a BBC miniseries, the film might have been a masterpiece, but few kids would ever have had the patience or attention span to sit through it.

The problem is that the amusing details are much of what make Harry Potter such a special story. A whole universe is created in Rowling's series, in which a magical society exists within our own ordinary "muggle" world and is kept secret by a bureaucracy with its own rules, history and politics. The way magic is treated in her books, not as something medieval but as very similar to the way our own contemporary world works, is a large part of their charm. Take away these details, and you're left with a fairly conventional tale of a young wizard fighting an evil sorcerer.

Although the audience I was with broke into applause as soon as the movie ended (something I've never seen happen before, though I don't go to the theater that often), some people have complained about the movie dragging at certain points. I didn't have that problem, but, as I said, I wasn't really trying to get involved in the movie's story. After thinking about it, it does seem like parts of the movie fail to convey a sense of urgency. Why should this be? I never felt that way when reading the books, and this is without a doubt the very same story.

The answer, I think, is that the books portray much of Harry's anxiety in trying to succeed in school (for if he's kicked out, he'll go straight back to his horrible uncle) and fit in with the kids there. The movie doesn't tap into these anxieties enough, so why should we care whether he wins the Quidditch match (other than that he survives in one piece) and gets through the school year? The only real suspense in the movie after he arrives at Hogwarts comes from the story of Lord Voldemort returning, which in the book is almost secondary. Harry's adventures getting along in the school are fun and interesting, but as they are presented to us in the film, there isn't enough tying them all together.

What we have here is a serviceable dramatization of a wonderful children's series, but it doesn't entirely succeed in standing on its own. Perhaps it should have diverged from the book just a little, to compensate for the difficulties in translating some of the book's delights to the screen. In its current form, it's almost like a preview of the book. Its lack of fullness, and its dependence on the book, might actually increase the popularity and endurance of Rowling's series by making those who see the film yearn for more, which they can get from the real thing.
November 13, 2017

A personal favorite. Chris Colombus captured the child-like sense of wonder and discovery from J.K. Rowling's book and madea near perfect fantasy picture. There was no better way to kick this mega franchise off!
November 10, 2017
Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone: An exciting, brillant and magaical adventure. Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone is a smart, original audacious fantasy that manages to be a family freindly flick.
Page 1 of 2009