Three things wrong with the film . . .

Rating: Null/10 (10 November 2001)

There are three things wrong with this film: it's not reality; it's not a book; and it's not bad.
With the weight of expectation on Chris Colombus and Daniel Radcliffe's shoulders, everyone seems to have forgotten that this is a film, and NOT a book. Even though it's two and a half hours long, there was never any way in which it could be a completely faithful adaptation of the book. Characters who are lightly sketched in the book had to be sacrificed to ensure that the story worked. And ultimately, that was what had to happen on screen, that the story flowed for both fans of the book and also cinema-goers who would have no idea of what Harry Potter was all about. The loss of the Dursleys' opening scenes will most likely be rectified by later films, since they appear as bookend characters. Poppy Pomfrey, Peeves, Polkiss, the mention of Mrs Figg, the rest of the Potter family in the Mirror of Erised: all of these omissions are reasonable in light of this film introducing a series of stories.
The first twenty minutes are, I think, the true test of the audience. For those who've read the books, it probably takes too long to get to the story proper, leaving out all the active, conflict-filled moments, such as Harry's first encounter with Malfoy and his cronies, most of Harry's life with the Dursleys, and the set-up of Neville's forgetful nature. For someone coming to it cold, it probably whips by too quickly, leaving too much said by characters rather than dramatised by action; remember that actions speak louder than words, and never more so than in the movies.
Once in the second act, however, the story reaches its tone quite quickly, and there are moments of sheer brilliance, including the entry into the Great Hall, Harry's first broomstick flight, the Quidditch match, the Invisibility Cloak, the emotional tone of the Mirror of Erised, and every single thing about the Dark [Forbidden] Forest.
Daniel Radcliffe plays the cipher of Harry Potter to perfection. He's never completely certain about his actions unless it's for the sake of his friends or the memory of his family. He's an Everyman, whose greatest characteristic is loyalty. The only problems he has are during the first act, which is a difficult part of the film anyway. From the entry to Hogwarts onwards, however, he's a joy to watch: his delight in his friendships, in being recognised for his strengths, the emotional rollercoaster he endures during the Mirror of Erised sequence, you can see exactly why Chris Colombus held out for Dan's casting. I think if anyone has a problem with Dan's performance, it's because he's not a broad, visual actor, but one where everything is a slight shade of subtlety. Similarly, Harry is not a broad comic character like Ron, nor an over-achiever like Hermione; he's the rock against their wind and water.
Rupert Grint is just brilliant, with the timing of a comic genius, the rubber-faced contortions of a master, and the emotional range of actors many years his senior. We can expect great things from Mr Grint.
Emma Watson in her first screen role is the supporting lady that Harry Potter needs. I believed every moment she came out with the right information, I believed that she had feelings to be hurt, and I believe that she has so much more in her to come. I hope we get to see all that this riveting young actress is capable of.
Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid makes him not only menacing at need, but also loveable beneath that hair. I'm sure that many actors would have felt overwhelmed by the costume, the make-up and the prosthetics, but Robbie inhabits the part. Jo was right to have him in mind. I can't wait to see him with Cher as Madame Maxime.
Before I saw the film, I never thought that there would be any other actors who would stand out in such a cast of great youngsters and well-established names, but Sean Biggerstaffe as Oliver Wood and Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy are two stars in the making. Sean's Oliver is strong, visionary and above all, funny, and I foresee great things for him. Tom Felton brings Draco to life, much more so than Harry Melling as Dudley, making Draco sly and superior, but also vulnerable and comic, and I can't wait to see more of his turn as Harry's school nemesis.
Richard Harris, Dame Maggie Smith and Zoe Wanamaker's characters are somewhat backgrounded by the antics of their students, but then the film IS called Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone, so it can only be expected. They provide a great mix of adult role models, and a strong backbone for the human side of Hogwarts.
Of course, any film of Harry Potter would be nothing without the witchcraft and wizardy. As a filmgoer, I never expected to see reality, since magic doesn't yet exist in our world, so how would we know what it looks like? To complain that the CGI was below par is amazing. The Burmese Python was fantastic, its motion absolutely believable. The Quidditch match and Harry's later solo pursuit of the winged key are literally breathtaking, and I felt my heart beating harder when Harry caught the Snitch. If CGI wasn't working there, I don't know when it was. I could go on, but I will just add that the Invisibility Cloak, from both outside and inside, was just inspired, and much better than I would have thought possible.
Diagon Alley was amazing. To those detractors of the scenic design, just look at Mr Ollivander's shop: how many wand boxes can you see? And, do you think they were built on mainframes?
There is so much more I could, and will say, but I'll stop here. Just enjoy it. It's a dream of a ride.