Very good but could it have been better?

Rating: Null/10 (21 November 2002)

I'm in two minds about this film. I've never read the books so I can't really say if JK Rowling's vision was really realised or not and not being familiar with the character of Harry from the books I only have Daniel Radcliffe's portrayal to go on.
Having said that, I enjoyed this film for what it was, a very imaginative fantasy story. I think the credit for the movie can only go to Ms Rowling herself because I've heard she had a huge amount of involvement in the creation of Harry's world for the big screen.
I understand this is a very faithful adaptation but it's probably too faithful. There are parts of every book that can be left out in the translation to the big screen and Harry Potter is no exception. Where the editing of LOTR was superb and Peter Jackson and co. weren't afraid to change things around, I think the crew of Harry Potter could have learned a lot and been a little more daring. Fans aren't going to mind if you cut something out as long as their beloved story remains recognisable. Look at how well LOTR turned out.
As for the cast, they were top notch and I think that it's very commendable that there isn't one American amongst the cast. This, I hear, is due to Rowling's input.
There are those who say that Daniel Radcliffe wasn't as good a Harry as he might have been but obviously, if JK Rowling is happy to have him play her creation, he must be given some credit. I think all the kids were great and I'm sure we will see a lot more of them in years to come. May I also just pay a tribute to the late Richard Harris who will be sadly missed, the new Dumbledore will have a lot to do to match his portrayal.
One final comment. I severely object to the fact that the name of the film and the book was changed to suit US audiences. There is no such idea or concept as a "sorcerer's" stone. The word sorcerer does not mean the same thing as a philosopher. A philosopher translated from Greek is; a "lover of knowledge". This, I think, is not that difficult to grasp, it's not even that difficult to pronounce (fill-oss-offer) so why should US audiences not have to learn a new word? If you want more information read Paolo Coehlo's "The Alchemist" if you don't find it too difficult a read. It's about time we stopped dumbing down things to suit certain people. Need I say more?