Faithful Adaptation, but apparently too subtly directed for some.

Rating: Null/10 (2 December 2001)

I've seen Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone four times already, so I think I have seen it from a variety of mindsets and viewpoints. First and foremost, the titling was changed as a result of the book's title being changed in the US because Scholastic thought "Philosopher's Stone" would go over the heads of kids or bore them.
That said, I must respectfully disagree with those who said that Daniel Radcliffe's portrayal of Harry was underperformed. Harry Potter is a boy who has lived in a hostile environment of emotional abuse and physical neglect. This is in no way conducive to the generation of an outgoing, over-the-top personality. Plus, the English are a little more circumspect in their attitudes. Columbus was correct in portraying Harry as sort of meek and mild-mannered, and only riled when his friends were provoked or endangered.
Insofar as there was only so much Columbus could squeeze into two and a half hours, this was, bar none, the most faithful adaptation of a novel I have seen in many years. The few liberties taken for cinematic convention were understandable and forgiveable. The major problem I had with the film was the score by John Williams -- who is succumbing to Horner/Elfman syndrome; which is to say that his scores are starting to sound all like one another. I kept thinking of "Hook".
The portrayals of the adults were exceptional. Rickman was exquisitely foreboding as Snape. Smith as McGonnagal was prim and severe. Harris took a bit to warm to the role of Dumbledore but once he got it, had the same warm, benevolent sense I got from reading the character in the book. Robbie Coltraine as Hagrid was nothing short of a perfect portrayal.
Harry and his compatriots were also well-done. I've already spoken about Radcliffe. Felton has this lovely faux-innocence and malice that he plays together. Watson's got the whole overachiever thing down to perfection, and Grint has the quiet pride of Ron Weasley subtle at first, but like Harris, warms to the role and makes it his.
It was difficult to cram an entire year of Harry's life into a 2.5 hour movie, and it will only become more difficult to squeeze a year of Hogwarts into the next three films as Rowling's books only get bigger and more involved.
Summing up, any movie that can keep kids from age 3 to age 14 quiet for two and a half hours has something going for it. And if *they* didn't believe it was true to the book, we would've heard about it before now.
This film had a lot of expectations and a lot of hype. To me, it met both. Columbus has a lot to be proud of, as does his entire cast. I look forward with equal eagerness to the next film in the series next year.
GO GO GRYFFINDOR! ;D