Well cast, well acted, not so well scripted...

Rating: 9/10 (4 June 2002)

Let me Start by saying that I broke my rule with movies made from books. I read the book first then saw the movie. Big mistake in the case of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Although the movie was (a well documented) 2 1/2 hours, the script spread the story very thin.
--Possible Spoilers--
I never enjoyed the first act of the novel (Harry living with his muggle relatives), so I was pleased that this portion of the story was condensed. But so much of the story was glossed over as well. While reading the sorting hat scene, the tension can really be felt. But in the movie, it seems more like an introduction to the four houses at Hogwart's. There are several other points in the film that deal with the book's story similarly and disappointingly. For example, in the movie we never sense how disappointed the house is with Harry, Ron, and Harmoine for losing 150 points for them -- in the book they are practically ostricized, which brings the trio closer together.
With a stronger, more focused script (DON'T read shorter --that's not what I am concerned about) this movie could have been great. Instead we are given an entertaining tale that leaves you wanting for a fuller story. The casting and cinematography in this movie are superb -- all the right people and all the right sets. Radcliffe turns in a fine performance as Harry.

As far as special effects, I was disappointed with all the "money" shots -- the troll, the three-headed dog, the centaur and Quidditch. All seemed artificial, too easy to tell that they were CGI. But I can't complain much about F/X, I liked the Mummy Returns, but the CGI at the end of that movie is some of the worst ever. I digress.
Really, this movie was enjoyable. A good yarn spread a bit thin in places, but nonetheless entertaining. I give it a 7 out of 10.