This movie set in stone, what would be the foundation of the Harry Potter film franchise. It kinda work.

Rating: 7/10 (16 July 2014)

It's seem like just yesterday, when the movie about the boy whom lived, was about to come out. People were wondering if the Harry Potter's books by J.K Rowling could easily be translated into the big screen. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone AKA Sorcerer's Stone directed by Chris Columbus, indeed show that it was somewhat possible. The story follows Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe)'s first year at Hogwarts School of Wizardry as he discovers his gift and destiny against the dark forces of magic. The movie like the other films are cut into two plots directions. One is about student life at Hogwarts during the school-year, while the other half is about the mystery that Harry Potter must uncovered that year. It works well as a long read novel, but in movie form: its means a long sit through. The movie pacing is so long. It takes forever to get to the main plot of Harry Potter finding the Philosopher Stone. There are is a lot of filler scenes that could be cut away. I dislike how the Philosopher Stone is one-time movie McGuffin. For the best of my knowledge, the Philosopher stone plays no factor after this movie, and never mention again after this film. The third act, mostly comes out of nowhere. The twist toward the end, was pretty predictable, if you readt the books, but pretty interesting. Another thing about the movie is how non-logical the movie is. It really baffled me, how much exposition, it needed. Even an hour in the film, there were a lot of random odd things happening without much explaining. It gets more confusing as long bits of the book, like the Centaur showing in the woods, were shorten in the film. It gets worst for the centaur, as he wouldn't play a factor, in any of the later films, despite, saving Harry Potter from Voldermort. Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) was also cut short. Her riddle solving in the book was cut from the film. Several minor characters have been removed from the film version, as well. Despite those, the movie is really close to the novel. In my opinion, don't bother, trying to understand the logic of all the wizard terms, because it will take you out of the fantasy movie, and give you a headache. Still, there were some really dumb things to nitpick here like why would Professor Dumbledore (Richard Harris), even allow Harry Potter to stay with the Dursley's family when he knows that they're horrible people. Honestly, the Dursleys could had killed Harry Potter with the childhood neglect! What was he thinking? Harry Potter could had commit suicide, or gone crazy like Lord Voldermort! What an idiot! The whole movie is about children being danger all the time. I don't care if they're wizards in training, I'm surprise that the death tolls of students dying isn't as high as it should be. The school staff is questionable at times. A good example of this stupidity, is punishing students whom went out at nights, by sending them out at nights in the dark forest, where they can get attacked by creatures. The most insulting thing in logic is the black/white one-dimensional view of good Vs evil. Honestly, how on earth is the members of Slytherin never got expulsion for all the bullies that it has? You would think, that at less, there would be one good person in Slytherin. Another thing that bugs me is the whole the power of love conquer all. I think, children are a lot smarter than the childish message, the film is trying to pull. The acting in the movie is pretty bland, for the most part. After all, most of the child actors had this film as their first roles. I wouldn't say that Harry Potter's film series, have the most entertaining of dialogues, anyways. The wooden delivery, felt like a read-through. Most of what they're saying are stating the obvious or repeating what happening on screen. It's so annoying. The other actors were master British thespians, who seem to over-act at times. A good example of this is John Hurt & Alan Rickman. It was too hammy for already over the top world. The action scenes were pretty well-done. My favorite had to be the Quidditch match and the whole chess game. I can do, without the whole troll scene. The CGI troll hasn't aged well. Visually, the movie is beautiful to look at. I love the special effects, locations & set, and costume, they did. It really made the Harry Potter world, stand out. The music by John Williams is amazing to listen to. I think director Chris Columbus was indeed the best choice for this first movie, as he got the magically part, right and how to make a family picture. You even see, how much things, he establish that other directors would reused time after time. Still, I really hope for Terry Gilliam like J.K Rowling's first choice to be the direction. The movie has great social commentary themes like the metaphor of racism, ethnic cleansing and why Nazism is bad. You can also see possible influences from other words, that made Harry Potter work. There was a few controversial moments leading up to the film, like religious debates. A few religious groups claim that Harry Potter contain occult or Satanic subtexts that isn't good for children. Another one is the use of the word, sorcerer over the word philosopher in the title. US & British have different meanings to the words, plus marketing though, it would better to call it sorcerer as that word get more appeal. Due to this different, all scenes that mention the philosopher's stone by name had to be reshot, once with the actors saying "philosopher's" and once with "sorcerer's". Overall: The movie might has its flaws, but majority, a great first watch for any fantasy fan.