why don 't they just take a dump on a filmstrip?

Rating: 1/10 (16 February 2005)

For a start, the correct title of the book is 'Harry Potter and the PHILOSOPHER'S Stone'. Could the retitling of the film have anything to do with the fact that the only audience for this film is actually too dense to have any clue in hell as to what a philosopher is, or for that matter, be able to read it. I think that it's time for a lesson in language from Yodapoo:

P-H-I-L-O-S-O-P-H-E-R: Now that wasn't hard was it? Let's find out what it means. - To take an etymological perspective: it comes from the Athical Greek words "phileisthai" - to love and "sophia" - wisdom; now let's see if you can muster enough brain cells to decipher what this could mean (hint: it's a noun)

Hmmm... the word 'philosopher' doesn't seem to be as linguistically complicated as some may think. Maybe whoever had the final word on what the film would actually be named woke up one morning and mistook his caffeine pills for 'stupid pills'. Idiots.
As for the film itself, the people who made it bought a cauldron, filled it with cinematic turd, brought it to an even boil and carried out the following recipe (for disaster):

Child actors as untalented as they are over paid. - An already poor and unbelievable plot. - A distinct lack of any thing at all: the film was not funny, dramatic, scary, adventurous or any other adjective which I can't be bothered to think of right now.

In short, this film bites. If you haven't already had the misfortune of watching this cinematic failure, do not- save yourself! This film has less cinematic merit than a blank screen. Once again, avoid this film; disassociate yourself with this film or anything to do with it.