Clever and intriguing first step for a formidable franchise

Rating: Null/10 (30 December 2002)

I have never read the Harry Potter books, a fact that appalls my daughter-in-law, who loves the novels. I was not inclined to rush out to the movie theaters to catch this as I was much more interested in the Lord of the Rings movie. One thing led to another and I finally caught it on HBO a year after its release. I was very impressed with the film, although I still believe it to be meant for a younger audience.
The acting is all top-notch, not easy to do with adolescent actors, but the cast delivers well. Many fine British adult actors appear; in fact, I'd say that absent Ian McKellen and Judi Dench, you have the best of the lot here, including the (now) late Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, John Hurt, and a cameo by one of my all-time favorites, John Cleese as Nearly Headless Nick! Robbie Coltrane is Harry's mentor of sorts, Hagrid, and he is so good I kept forgetting it was Robbie Coltrane. Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson were marvelous as Harry and Hermione; as the series goes on and the characters grow up, I think they will be even better.
While the cinematography was superb, the script was a bit simplistic and obvious, but that's because it's aimed at young children, so it's completely forgivable. The quidditch match is, I think, a great example of both the positives and the drawbacks. I would expect future segments to be progressively darker and more complex, but the magic in this film is undeniable. Now I think I'll go out and see the sequel at the cinema. I give it an 8 out of 10.
And by the way, to the stunning oafs that chortle with superior glee over the title change from Philosopher's Stone to Sorcerer's Stone for American release, you are all apparently too ignorant to know that (a) the book was titled "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" for its US release and the film was titled to match it, and (b) the word "philosopher" has no occult submeaning in American English, which would have made the title rather weak. We hear "philosopher" and think Socrates and Kant, not Merlin, and a "philosopher's stone" therefore sounds like either an engraved tablet or a Aristotelian kidney problem. Americans and Brits have different jargon. Get over it.