Artistic, haunting, awe-inspiring, and yet so ludicrously criticized

Rating: 9/10 (16 April 2003)

This rich adaptation of the first of J.K. Rowling's bestselling novels, about Harry Potter's adventures during his first year at Hogwarts, gets the budding franchise off to one hell of a start and myself finally into the thick of Pottermania after I watched the DVD and raced through all four books last summer. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) and Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) become so immersed in their roles, we have to remind ourselves that we're watching actors. The same goes for all the supporting characters, who are too numerous to mention here, because it's impossible to single out only a select few. There's not one bad performance to be seen. Complementing the players are solid direction by Chris Columbus, incredible sets by Stuart Craig and a powerful soundtrack by John Williams. When you think about it, has the man ever really composed a bad score? HP's only flaws are a long introduction and slow second-half pacing. Were it not for the awesome "Tomb Raider," the boy wizard would have conjured up the best movie of 2001. Yes, you read that right.
The last thing I want to do here is get on my soapbox, but there is one issue regarding this movie that I need to get off my chest. While "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" may not have won any Oscars, it unfortunately does deserve the Complaining About the Color of the Couch Award. (Note the initials.) Never mind that HP earned nearly $1 billion worldwide and is the second-highest grossing film of all time (unfortunately playing second fiddle to the downright horrible "Titanic"). I don't think I've ever heard so much anally-retentive griping before over one single movie. For instance, considering the universal disdain for tie-in merchandising, Columbus caught holy hell for staunchly rejecting any Harry Potter fast-food tie-ins - at Rowling's request, no less! - while Burger King got away unscathed with their "Lord of the Rings" promotion. Go figure.

And to those who just can't enjoy this great work for what it is, and who instead choose to incessantly take apart every little detail, ranging from the acting and direction to the script's excessive - or dearth of - fidelity to the story and other pointless minutiae, try removing your head from your posterior and maybe you'll get a better view of things. These are the same clods who are so full of themselves that some feel the need to list book mistakes on their two-bit websites, as if they believe that doing so will elevate them to a special plateau. While we're on the subject of fidelity, what the hell does "overfaithfulness" to the story mean, anyway? 9/10