For fans of the book only...

Rating: Null/10 (20 May 2002)

Put it this way, if you loved the book, chances are you're going to like this. If you hated the book, or worse didn't read it at all, then you're going to find this film pretty bemusing.
The reason for this is that it doesn't really stand up well as a film in its own right. That it manages to faithfully recreate most of the key moments in the book at all is something of a miracle, given the subject matter. The trouble is that what works well in print does not always make interesting viewing in a movie. I think, those that already knew the book enjoyed the film simply because of this faithful recreation, and not because the film in itself had any artistic merit. Thus, those who have not read the books are both at an advantage in being able to criticise the film objectively, but at a disadvantage because they got no enjoyment out of it.
I also think that there was an unquestionable Englishness to the whole film (English actors, English public school setting etc.), which may really grate with some people.
I really enjoyed it, but I'm prepared to admit that I am wholly biased by my enjoyment of the first four Harry Potter books. And I did rather find myself mentally noting the various scenes as they appeared and comparing them with the book.
One thing I don't understand - the original book was called "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" and so was the movie in the UK. Why was the title changed to "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" in the USA? Surely dumbing down the title of a children's novel is something of an insult to American childrens' intelligence? Will Americans really not go and see a film if the title doesn't give some clue as to the film's content? Why would this be?