Pure magic, that´s what this movie is. i read all four books and loved the story so, i couldn´t wait to see the movie. When i finally saw it, i spent most of the time delighted with the adaptation - which is very good, and with a fabulous cast that does a wonfderful job in giving life to Harry Potter and his world.

That was a really great movie! I thought it might be another one of those movies that didn't live up to the book it was based on, but it was a great movie in relation to the book! Important details were left out but the movie itself was GREAT! I loved it and can't wait for the next one!

This was a very good movie that captured all of the images that were in my head from reading the books..however, for some reason, it lost some of the magic for me. I am a Harry Potter/J.K. Rowling fan and have read the series of books several times. Every aspect on screen lived up to my imagination..that was definitely the Dumbledore, Hagrid, Harry..troll etc..in my head..however to see them up on the screen somehow tainted the experience for me. However, if I am to just rate the movie, I would have to say it is excellent. The acting is genuine, the special effects spectacular and the overall message is warm and triumphant. However, if you are a big fan of the books, the movie may lose a bit of the magic for you..for reasons I can not explain! Also, I have read the books to my children (sons, ages 4 and 5) and we did bring them to see the movie. My husband and I decided that if it got to be too much (too scary or too long..2 1/2 hours) we would simply leave. However, we did not leave and the boys loved seeing on screen all of the people and events that had taken place in their imaginations while reading the books (having the books read to them, they are not child prodigies). So, as far as the age guidelines, you really need to assess on an individual basis, I do know 4 and 5, even 8 or 9 year olds who may not find the movie entertaining. Overall, a great movie and honorable message and a wonderful 2 and 1/2 hour escape from realities into the world of Hogwarts.

So-so

FANTASTIC! One word describes it all!

REALLY, REALLY don't see what the hype is with this movie. I saw it, and just kept going through my checklist of things to expect until the long three hours were over. I've read the books, and maybe it's the fact that I can't stand to see or read anyhting twice but this movie didn't do a thing for me. Only reason I suppose I'm giving it a two is because I feel that maybe I would have enjoyed it had I not already known the story.

I would have preferred the film to be twice as long, but all in all the cuts are justified - especially as far as the weakest part of the book, i.e. the first few chapters (too kitsch) are concerned. The casting is excellent - Coltrane as Hagrid is ideal, for instance - in spite of the tendency to choose actors and (in the case of Emma Watson as Hermione, at least) actresses which are too good-looking. A particularly glaring case ist the casting of Alan Rickman as Severus Snape. Now, I am not the kind of persons who gets crushes on actors, but still... In all four volumes Snape is decribed as positively revolting - not just ugly but quite unappetizing. References to his greasy hair abound. Now, I suppose the make-up people could have provided Alan Rickman with sallow skin and an abnormally long nose but they certainly didn't. So why did Rowling choose him, anyway, as I understand she did? Because of the "silky voice" in which Snape proffers his sarcastic comments? Or because she realized that, as P.G.Wodehouse put it in "Pigs have Wings", nothing is quite as scary as a dressy assassin? Or has she changed her mind about Snape? Anyway, the "new and improved" (beyond all recognition, in fact) Snape is extremely convincing as well as elegant, in an austere kind of way. I hope that if Rowling kills him off (and I have the sneaking suspicion that she will, eventually) she will at least wait until the end of the last volume.

"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is definitely worth seeing in the theater. I was blown away by J.K. Rowling's incredible imagination and her ability to step into a child's mind. The special effects are spectacular, and there are delightful surprises sprinkled throughout the show. My only complaint is that the movie focused primarily on boys and reinforced boy/girl stereotypes to a certain degree, which I suppose is no big surprise. It was very annoying, for example, when Harry Potter broke the rules on one occasion and then again with his sidekick, and the behaviors were rewarded. On the other hand, when the main female character (Hermione) did the same, she was punished. Hermione was initially portrayed as an uptight, goody-two-shoes sort who got by because she studied compulsively, whereas Harry Potter was just naturally talented. Finally, most of the other children in the movie were boys. I appreciated the way that Hermione emerged as a stronger character as the movie progressed, though. On a final note, I think this movie is appropriate for very mature second-graders and up. I definitely wouldn't take young children to see it due to many scary scenes and the length of the show (about two-and-a-half hours).

Excellent movie!! I normally can't sit through a movie that long but the time just flew by with this movie - it was great!!

This is one of the best movies out. When it first came out I was one of those people who was like OH GOD , more Harry Potter, but I was very surprised. I LOVED it, cause its not just a kids movie. I still though dont understand it when people say it makes kids want to practice witchcraft. Also people say it tells lies, well c'mon, its a fairytale type book & movie. That means some things in the book are gonna be fake, just like the fairytales adults heard when they were little, not everyhting in those stories are true. But anywayz....its a really good movie. I reccomend going to see it, & if you dont wanna spend the money for it in the theaters (cause movies in theaters are so expensive now), rent it when it comes out on video. Its surprisingly really good!!Some parts in the movie arent all good for little little kids, like in one part, I cant believe they swore, I was like huh, what did he just say? :) Oh & the main little girl in the movie (cant think of her name right now) is really cute!

I didn't see it yet. I know that it doesn't desserve to be above Requiem for a Dream, that's for damn sure!

Lucky enough to see it the night before it opened. I loved it. It is amazing how some of the things in the movie looked exactly as I imagined them to. Diagon Alley for example was almost a perfect match, as was Gringott's. Hogwarts itself was very different from what I imagined, but it was very cool. I loved the moving staircases! The actors all perfectly conveyed their characters, and I especially liked Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint as Harry, Hermione and Ron. Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid was wonderful and they could not have picked a better Dumbledore or Snape! I do have only one concern though. The book was about 150 pages, the movie was about 2.5 hours... What happens when we get to "Goblet of Fire" at 750 pages? In all, I highly recommend this movie!

Harry Potter was a great movie. the casting was good, and it was good how they stuck to the book. Harry Potter is a 11 year old boy who spent all his years living with his mean Aunt,Uncle,And cousin. things change when he recives an invitation to Hogwarts where he meets New Friends and enimies and becomes a wizard. good film. the only problems are the film was too long and there are a few dark and scary scenes. but it was still a great family movie.

I would really give this a 4.5. Harry Potter is a great family movie. Taken from the Book by the same name it is a very imaginative story. a young boy who was orphaned as a baby has lived with his horrible aunt, uncle and cousin until at age 11 he finds out he is a wizard. he goes to To Hogwarts to learn to be a wizard and meets new friends Ron, and Hermione. I won't go into anymore detail but I would say this is a great movie to see as a family. There are a few scary scenes, and it is too long. I liked the fact that they stuck with an all british cast especially the child actors. Daniel Radcliff was terrific as Harry.

I found this movie very entertaining. It was the best work that Christopher Columbus has done in a long while, with beautiful, sweeping cinematography(as someone mentioned before, I think), inspired casting, and great special effects. Having never read the books, I'm sure I missed a lot(as one always does when they see a movie adapted from a book or something of that sort.), but I still found the movie very charming. I would recommend it highly to anyone who enjoys films of the cute and mindless persuasion. I wanna be a wizard. (Not a witch..I will transcend the unfair gender stereotypes.)

The movie's cinematography was beautiful, the pictures were well captured in telling the story. However, I could tell the story dwindled with the certain lack of elements. I really love the books, and when I got out of the theatre, I wasn't quite as happy as I was excited months ago. I was also a bit bothered by the lighting, too much of dark scenes that the light gets blinding. What I loved about it thou' is the emphasis on the values of the story and the Quidditch scene! Should have been more thou...

Great movie!!!

This movie was a great disappointment to me. Although I thought the characterization, acting, and special effects were admirable, there were several inconsistencies with the book. Idle readers may enjoy it, but die-hard Potterists like myself would do well to avoid it. There is very little adherance to detail, and one important part needed for the audience to figure out a detail is completely omitted. They also discluded characters entirely, such as Peeves the Poltergeist, or gave them miniscule parts, like Fred and George Weasley. In short, the movie is certainly less than spellbinding.