A wonderful film for a book adaptation.

Rating: 10/10 (29 November 2006)

Speaking as someone who has seen this movie over 200 times (no joke, people), I must say that there are a few flaws, as is the case with many a film. It is extremely rare this day and age to find a seamless film, and lets face it, with a main character that boasts only two pre-Sorcerer's Stone credentials, and neither of those happen to be one of my top 200 picks for a Friday night flick and a director who boasts such films as Bicentennial Man and Monkeybone, I think it's safe to say that most of the weight of this film rests on the shoulders of Chris Columbus and not David Radcliffe. And I must also admit that for an actor's second film and third acting job, he did above and beyond what I would expect of a nearly new actor, fresh on the market.
Enough of the banter, let's move on. First and foremost, I have to say that this is my favorite book-to-film port to date, and it doesn't look like that's going to sway anytime soon. The Sorcerer's Stone does it's job, captures the innocence of the first installment of the Harry Potter series, and really is a great film, which is more than I can say for the following films, which would have been right up there with this film, had they not been book adaptations. As I have said many times, I wish I would not have read the books so that my opinion is not swayed by sitting there watching and comparing to the book, but the damage has been done. This film has only a few flaws, but then again, it's hard to find films that are seamless in this day and age, so I won't hold those against it, but I think it would be fair to warn you. Most lines in the film seem too practiced, too refined, as though the actor/ess is reading off of a cue card. There are many scenes where lines that should have been cool were just lame, and the CG, which was great for 2001, is less than impressive today. Apart from that, great film, definite "re-watch value", a major recommend.