Filled with delight and excitement with constant wonders to be opened and is easily transformed from words to motion

Rating: 9/10 (29 September 2005)

When I first went into the cinema to see a film, I was originally going to see K-PAX since I was a huge Kevin Spacey fan. Turns out that the film is going to run late because it's opening weekend for the newest Harry Potter film. Being a semi-Harry Potter fan at the time, I didn't mind, I wanted to see a film at the moment, so I thought, "Why not?" My other choice was probably the Disney/Pixar film Monsters Inc, but I was happy that I invested my eight bucks on this film, because it is worth it - or at least more than Monsters Inc - but that's a different story.
I have read the original material by JK Rowling back in the late 1990s so I do know what's going on. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone starts in sort of a weary tone, with a death of a infant's parents, sent to his aunt and uncle. A few minutes later, I was shocked how enjoyable the film is. I had a form a delight rushing through my sleeves. That was when I decided that I would rather watch this than the seriously-toned K-PAX.
As the film arrives at its main location, Hogwarts, director Chris Columbus (whoa - from Home Alone to fabulous set designs) puts magic into the school as much as Rowling's novel has done. The school is beautiful and is exactly how fans may imagined it. The school is glamorous and it's just wonderful. It has breathtaking scenes.
There is a very attractive all-star UK cast, such as Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, etc. I was surprised how they got all those actors to participate in this film. But not to mention, the child actors were all right as well, almost the way we have imagined them - in looks, I mean. Daniel Radcliffe makes a semi-believable Harry, or it looks like he's doing an impression of Harry, but that's all right because his acting is sort of a minimal part of the film. If Radcliffe's acting was getting on my nerves, I can easily stare into the background of castles and wonderful costumes. Rupert Grint is a pretty natural actor, as plucky Ron Weasley. You kind of like him, because he is normal and you can relate to such a person. Most of all, I loved the portrayal of Hermione Granger, played by Emma Watson. As Richard Roeper puts it, she reminds you of Holly Hunter in James L. Brooks memorable classic, Broadcast News. Without Watson in the cast, the three leads would be plain and boring, and whoever who was chosen for the part would be just be stepping into the place of destiny. I thought Alan Rickman was a wise choice for one of my favorite characters, or classic villains - Severus Snape. He brings life into the serious-toned teacher and he makes him sort of a borderline human being. You have to like him because of his strict portrayal of Snape make you chuckle. Richard Harris gives a sentimental performance as Dumbledore, which is as much enjoyable as Rickman's portrayal as Snape. Same goes to the portrayal of Hagrid, which I enjoyed as much as I did to the rest of the cast. The cast is well-chosen - or at least bearable for fans of these well-loved characters.
The story is simply put on screen. Steve Kloves, the American screenwriter who wrote/directed the nostalgic Michelle Pfeiffer and Bridges brothers flick, The Fabulous Baker Boys, really pulls this one through. You can almost feel that he knows the book and most of all, he stays true to the book through his script. I think Chris Columbus matured in his story. Maybe he's not a Cameron Crowe-actor-director, you can see he really knows the book and read everything carefully because his decisions for the sets are perfect because the sets flow nicely with the book. Even though the so-called special effects were a bit corny (like the three-headed dog, Fluffy), you kind of forget about those stuff and go with the flow because Columbus is a master of these somewhat-classic films because he really knows his family films. He is great at working with child actors - in the past he has worked with Macaulay Culkin (Home Alone), Jena Malone (Stepmom), etc. Columbus is one of those directors who makes entertaining films that almost everyone can bear, and that is what makes him so great. His films may not have the signature of "Colubmus" on it, but you like them and you smile all the way through.
This is an enjoyable film for all ages (I hope it's not too scary for younger kids) and I don't think you have to like the book to like the movie. It's a very entertaining film (credit: Chris Columbus) and the sets and costumes are wonderful, the dialogue and characters stays true to the book, and there are not extra snippets or ridiculous put-ons that may ruin the books. This is my opinion of course because many prefer Alfonso Cuaron's take on Harry Potter films in the third film (Prisoner of Azkaban) but people must understand that Columbus and Cuaron are different directors and they have different takes on what they think a film should be. I think Columbus's vision of Harry Potter is much more similar to the original book's vision, so I must give full credit for that. All in all, this is a fairly enjoyable film with a fairly enjoyable plot line mixed with fine acting from the veterans of British cinema. I have seen this film 6 times and I wouldn't mind watching it again in the near-future.