What could be wrong with this movie?

Rating: Null/10 (2 June 2002)

At 24 years old, i am a self-described Harry Potter fanatic. I easily outwitted just about all the people i played Harry Potter trivia with. I love the books, I thouroughly enjoyed the movie! It captures the essence and story of the J.K. Rowlings first novel: Harry Potter and the Sourcer's Stone, aka...Philospher's stone, almost to the letter. Daniel Radcliff (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron) and Emma Watson (Hermione) play the characters perfectly. They fit the images in my mind precisely as I had pictured them, although I must admit, perhaps I pictured them this way was becauase I saw a photograph of the three actors before reading the books. Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid), Richard Harris (Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Snape), Maggie Smith (McGonagall), John Cleese (Nearly Headless Nick), etc all fit their roles perfectly.
This movie was funny and magical, just like it was in the book. Dudley and the boa constrictor, the trio and Fluffy, and all the sights Harry saw in Diagon Alley.
However, what this movie lacked overall was warmth and soul. Given that a 2.5 hour movie can only fit in so much, I was forgiving for this. We never got good emotional aspects of the characters, but then again, the first novel never really got that emotional either. For example, when Harry and the others lost all the points for their school house (Gryffindor), in the novel, Harry felt the ridicule and resentment quite clearly from his classmates, as their archenemies, the Slythrins took control of the standings. Also, I am pleased to that WB and the writers did not try to change around the plot, as screenwriters commonly do when adapting novels (even children's books) to cinema. LOTR's Fellowship of the Ring was another example of faithful film adaptation. But when changes were made to HP...Stone, they were subtle and largely plot inconsequential, a few minor characters were omitted, Peeves, for one, while their presence was missed as they would have given color and texture, I understand why the writers chose to omit them, as their presence was not critical to the plot, which I must reiterate was extremely faithful and similar to the novel. I believe Director Chirs Columbus had a diehard HP fan, his daughter!!!, looking over his shoulder, just to be sure!!!! Ironically, Rowling herself, had relatively little sayso, (by her own choice!!!) over the direction of the film. Many film critics were quick to decree that this movie may have been too faithful of the books. I wholeheartedly disagree with them. With literally millions of fans out there, who know these novels back and fourth, the writers understood that significant changes would infuriate, and potentially lose ticket buyers
I also had a problem with the writers uses of animals names. While the choregraphy and training was spectacular, the animals' personalities were a bit abrubt. They never verbally gave Harry's snowy owl her beloved name: Hedwig. Nor for that matter, did they give the caretaker's cat...Mrs. Norris. Yet, lesser animals were verbally addressed like Nevill's toad, Trevor, Hagrid's dog, Fang, and Ron's rat, Scabbers.
I must also critisize some of the special fx. At times, particularly, the Quidditch match (which they're should have been at least one more), and the Troll, were overly digitized and/or too cartoonish. Perhaps, Harry wrestelling a guy in a big troll suit and stilts would have been more fun. This movie was a learning process, and I am sure in subsequent movies, these problems will be rectified.
Some changes I must laud: The Quidditch stadium was a terrific alteration. Instead of a muggle looking football stadium as Rowling describes (albiet raised 50 feet high), the filmmakers, gave it a Roman gladitorial colliseum with a King Arthur jousting era look (The raised box towers for seating).
Overall this movie is one of a kind.