Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Poster

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Adventure | Fantasy 
Rayting:   7.6/10 664396 votes
Country: UK | USA
Language: English

An orphaned boy enrolls in a school of wizardry, where he learns the truth about himself, his family and the terrible evil that haunts the magical world.

Movie Trailer

User Reviews

BiiivAL 5 June 2018

The breeze stirred the neatly cut bushes of Tisovaya Street, silently lying under the ink-black sky. Of all the streets in the world, this street was the least suitable for amazing events. Harry Potter turned in his sleep. A small hand groped for it and squeezed the envelope. The boy was asleep ... "(c)

June 30, 1997 in the light came the debut of the writer Joan Kathleen Rowling. Literally such words began to become great, a series about a small wizard, with a scar on his forehead. The story that absorbed the minds of adolescents around the world, as it was said in the press "... a book that can tear boys and girls away from TVs and computers, return it to the house from the street ..."

Just imagine...

"A dull, dank, dark night. In the street a storm. The little boy lies on the floor of his "room", in a small shack and draws a finger in the sand with an inscription, "Happy Birthday, Harry!". The cry of the soul, he knows that no one will congratulate him, no one will affably caress the top of his head. In a minute he will be eleven. Ten seconds ... Nine ... You can wake Dudley - just for laughing ... Three ... Two ... One ... A loud knock at the door, there's no knock, just a crash. There was someone behind the door, and he was obviously going to come in. "

I think anyone will guess what happened next. Good-natured giant Hagrid, told Harry the striking news that he is not just a boy with a scar on his forehead, but a real magician.

A short word about the actors.

Harry

What to say, there would not be Harry James Potter, there would not be the book itself. Whatever happens in the books, I was always entirely for his character. In the first part, he's just small, you can even tell a confused boy. All situations, difficult fights, intricate situations, are still ahead. Now he just scooped up this great knowledge - magic. The first real home, first friends, first classes, the first meeting with this evil, he is experiencing all this in the first part. Hermione

Hermione Jane Granger is my favorite female character in the book and film. In it, I see a part of myself. Hermione loves to learn and she pays a lot of time. Sometimes she is too arrogant and excessively proud of her success in her studies. Born of a muggle, so often heard the offensive word "Mudblood" in her address. Hermione is just a smart girl, how many times she has yet to pull friends out of difficult situations.

Ron

Ronald Bilius Weasley. Redhead. Already this word can give some characteristic. Ron is the sixth child in a wealthy family of hereditary magicians. Always the elders took on everything superior to Ron, be it study, sport, or female attention. Arriving at Hogwarts, gets to know Harry, the same situation is repeated as with the brothers, but he reconciles with his second plan. Whatever it is, he remains the best friend of Harry and Hermione.

I wanted to say that the whole trio was exactly the same as it was represented by millions of readers in the world. Actors took absolutely unknown, but this film made them real little stars.

The movie has good enough, more famous actors, the same Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Julie Walters and the inimitable Richard Harris. His death was just a blow to all the fans, his Dumbledore seemed to come off the pages of the book, the same wise look from under the half-glasses, gray hair and beard, hooked nose. He inspired a kind of majestic calmness, ev

jhclues 21 November 2001

Once upon a time (and not that long ago), in the vivid, fertile imagination of author J.K. Rowling, a character was born: A boy. A young boy named Harry, who was destined to become one of the most beloved characters to emerge from a work of fiction in a long, long time, and was quickly embraced by young and old alike in all corners of the world. And now, thanks to the magic of the cinema, Harry and his companions fairly leap from the pages of the novel to the silver screen in the phenomenal motion picture, `Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone,' directed by Chris Columbus and written for the screen by Steve Kloves. Indeed, Harry Potter is a boy, but not just any boy; because Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) just happens to be a wizard. But, orphaned as a baby, Harry has been raised by his Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw) and Uncle Vernon Dursley (Richard Griffiths), who never let him in on the fact that he was, well-- what he was. It seems that Petunia didn't approve of her own sister-- Harry's mother-- because she was a witch; nor of Harry's father because he, too, was a wizard. When Harry turns eleven, however, the secret is out of the bag when-- after some strange goings-on-- a giant of a man named Rubeus Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) shows up at the Dursley's door to collect Harry and take him off to `Hogwarts,' a school for wizards and witches and all who would perfect the gift with which they were born: The gift of magic! And from the moment Harry boards the train (from station platform nine-and-three-quarters) that will take him to his destiny, the magic is alive-- for Harry, and for the audience, as well; and it's a journey you will never forget.

What a monumental undertaking to even think of attempting-- translating and transferring this passionately beloved work from novel to the screen. Because to millions of people, Harry and his companions are so much more than merely characters in a book; these are characters for whom people have made a special place in their hearts, which puts a great burden of trust upon the man who would attempt to bring them to life. And Chris Columbus, it turns out, was the right man for the job. More than rising to the occasion and with some magic of his own-- and a lot of help from an extraordinarily talented cast and crew-- Columbus has delivered a film that is not only true to the story, but true to the very spirit that makes Harry Potter so special. The special effects are absolutely beyond astounding, and Columbus, with a keen eye for detail and without missing a beat, keeps it all on track and moving right along at a pace and with a sense of timing that makes this an absorbing, thoroughly entertaining and enjoyable experience from beginning to end. From the opening frame you get the feeling that you're about to have a singular experience; and you're right. Because you've just entered the world of Harry Potter. And it's magic.

Even having the best special effects do not a great movie make, however, and this film is no exception; what catapults this one to the top are the performances, beginning with Radcliffe, whom you quickly forget is an actor playing a part. And that about sums up what kind of a job this young man does here. Without question, he IS Harry Potter, physically and emotionally, and when he waves his wand and does what he does, you believe it. A wonderful performance by a gifted actor who has a great career ahead of him; without question the perfect choice for the role of Harry.

Also turning in excellent

Spike-Washington 23 March 2018

Having read the first few Harry Potter books before 2001 and hearing about the hype for the first movie, I was excited. I heard there was going to be an all-British cast (which makes sense, right?) and we'd get to see a live version of one of the defining novels of our generation. From what I remember I went with my family and a family friend to see the movie the day after Christmas and was pleasantly amazed. After the movie was over, I watched the credits and discovered some familiar names (the late Alan Rickman, Sister Act's Maggie Smith, James Bond 007's Robbie Coltrane, and Star Wars' Warwick Davis); others not so familiar (the kids, some of whom had their debut). But it was a good movie and was a party of colors and sights for all to see. This is easily my favorite of all the Harry Potter films. The catalyst of the movie series!

kylopod 20 November 2001

I enjoyed this movie immensely. But, like "The Phantom Menace," I've had a very hard time viewing it objectively. There was so much anticipation leading up to its release, I simply enjoyed the experience of being there. Having read all four books in the series a few times each, I am overly familiar with the events in the story. As I watched the movie, my continuing thought was "How well will the next part of the story be translated to the screen?" rather than "How entertaining is this film overall?" I have trouble answering the latter question because I was already entertained by watching a wonderful story dramatized, so I'll never know how I'd have reacted had I seen this movie without having read the books.

Critics talk about how incredibly faithful the movie is to the book, and perhaps I'd have had an easier time detaching the two in my mind had the movie set off on its own course. Indeed, many classic children's movies, like "The Wizard of Oz" and "Mary Poppins," are so successful partly because they're so different from the books that inspired them. But these are exceptions; in my experience, most children's movies reveal their weaknesses in how they diverge from the books upon which they're based. And much of what makes the Harry Potter phenomenon unique is that it is the first time in ages that a children's book, without a movie accompanying it, has generated this much popularity. According to an article I read a year ago, the universe of Harry Potter has become as real in the minds of youngsters and adults as that of a popular movie series like Star Wars. Therefore, it will be very hard for any film based upon it to compete with it. In the minds of die-hard fans, any changes made to the story will be seen as desecrating the fantasy world that Rowling created. That's why it's easy to understand why the filmmakers were so reluctant to change anything.

As a faithful rendering of the book squeezed into a two-and-a-half hour period, the movie is beautifully done. I don't have a single complaint about any of the actors, who successfully bring to life, with the aid of costume design and special effects, the many colorful characters from the book. My favorite character, the giant Hagrid, is played by Robbie Coltrane, and I say with no exaggeration that he is exactly how I imagined him while reading the book. It's as if they took the image in my mind and transferred it to the screen. While I had my own personal image of Snape (for some reason, I always imagined him as the head villain from another Chris Columbus film, "Adventures in Babysitting"), Alan Rickman is perfect in the role. I usually expect to have words of criticism for some performances, but I just don't. The remaining adult actors, including Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall and Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore, are as good as they possibly could be, and the kids do an excellent job of holding their own against these veterans. Some have criticized Daniel Radcliffe for appearing too subdued in the title role, but that's exactly how the character is portrayed in the book: modest, unassuming, and laid-back. The kids who play Harry's two best friends are flawless.

I had a lot of worries about the fact that it was being directed by Chris Columbus, whose entire directorial career so far has consisted of over-the-top slapstick films. I was pleasantly surprised that he did not direct the Harry Potter film in this way. Except fo

nicholas_clarke 10 November 2001

To be faced with the challenge of adapting Harry Potter for the Silver screen must have been any director's nightmare- the chance of directing possibly the biggest film of this decade, but also the hardest audience-the millions of fans of the book who know every line and will pick up on every mistake. Being one of the above, I can only say that Christopher Columbus and all of the team working on HP did marvelously. The cast was brilliant (particularly notable are Alan Rickman as Snape, Maggie Smith as McGonagall, and the eerily creepy David Bradley as Argus Filch), the directing wonderful, and the scenery perfect. The only qualm is that it does not track perfectly with the book, but squeezed into 2.5 hours, this can only be expected. Well done all involved!

Dickoon 8 November 2001

We live in a world where economics is hard. This forces practical limitations when making a movie. Time and money are sadly finite, cinema owners need to be pleased as well as fans and computer animation ain't perfect. Given these limitations, this film is about as close to human perfection as it is possible to achieve. However, it's extremely clear what an immense challenge it is to turn Philosopher's Stone from book to film.

Two and a half hours is not long to explore a wonderful, magical world. Furthermore, the directors have bowed to the inevitable temptation to show us things that cannot be communicated so effectively in a book. The consequence is the feeling of a slightly breathless sprint in places.

It also means that the movie has to stay true to the spirit of the book rather than to the letter of it. There are omissions and there are changes. The changes that were made capture and maintain the spirit of the story really well; indeed, there are places where the story is more clearly and straightforwardly told in the movie than in the book. Some aspects of the story are fleshed out on screen and the additions are delightful, completely in keeping with the flavour of the world.

The humour of the movie is inevitably more visual than that of the book; no belly laughs, but a lot of smiles. Some punchlines have changed, but the reasons why the jokes are funny remain the same. Not knowing exactly what's coming next is a good thing! It's all kept tasteful, classy and above the belt; there's nothing to cringe about.

The voice acting is almost uniformly brilliant. However, there are occasions where some of the actors are required to convey high emotions and are only given a second or two of face shot, or head-and-shoulders shot, to do so. This isn't as much freedom as they need and they fall a little short. The blame here must fall on the decision to give the actors too much to do too quickly, not on the actors themselves.

Other than these rare jarring instances, the physical acting is frequently excellent and seldom less than completely adequate, judged against the highest of targets set by the book's clear emotion descriptions.

Dan Radcliffe has the look, the mannerisms and the charm of Harry down pat. His strongest expressions are the bemusement that must be inherent at entering a world where science does not rule alone and the bravery that Harry shows in his achievements. Emma Watson possibly slightly overplays Hermione, but does so in a fully endearing fashion. There's one scene which gives her too little chance to truly express panic; otherwise her performance needs no changes.

Rupert Grint has comic timing way beyond his years, hitting Ron's lines perfectly. Tom Felton makes a stylish Draco; Matt Lewis' Neville character suffers from the acceleration, so the finale does come as a slight characterisation shock.

The Phelps brothers' Fred and George are distinctively cheeky rather than proactive pranksters; Chris Rankin imbues Percy with genuine authority. Sean Biggerstaff shines; his Oliver Wood is likeable and an ideal Quidditch team captain.

Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid is the single dominant adult character, with maximum laughs extracted at every step. The movie changes strongly exaggerate one side of Hagrid's nature, though; probably inevitable considering how much plot exposition his character has.

David Bradley has a vicious Argus Filch; John Hurt's Ollivander is an eccentric treat,

seremela-1 30 November 2004

This movie is a delight for those of all ages.

I have seen it several times and each time I am enchanted by the characters and magic.

The cast is outstanding, the special effects delightful, everything most believable.

You have young Harry, a mistreated youth who is "Just Harry" to himself. And then, he embarks on a most beautiful adventure to the Hogwarts school.

He meets Ron and Hermione, one an adorable mischief maker, the other a very tense and studious young lady.

Together, the trio try to set things right in the school.

It's the ultimate fantasy for young and old.

scmovieguy 12 November 2001

To millions of children of all ages, November 16 has been more eagerly anticipated than Christmas, as the long-awaited film version of J. K. Rowling's beloved novel "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" hits the screen.

Each of Rowling's four Harry Potter books have been critically acclaimed worldwide best-sellers, turning a generation of video-game playing children into avid readers.

In translating Rowling's world of wizards and magic to the screen, the film makers claimed to be intensely aware of the fans' high expectations and had sworn to be faithful to the book.

"Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" is indeed the most loyal film adaptation of a book that this fan has ever seen.

It's the story of an orphaned boy who discovers on his eleventh birthday that his parents were wizards and that he is in fact a famous and powerful wizard himself.

Released from the clutches of his desperately ordinary (and non-magical) Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia - and their deliciously obnoxious son Dudley - Harry takes his place in the wizarding world as a first year student at the venerated Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

A great deal of "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" is an introduction to this fantastic and dangerous world and its richly drawn characters. There's not only a lot of plot to cover in this film, but an entire world to create.

At two and a half hours long (hit the restroom before it starts), the film includes the book's most memorable scenes, bringing many of them to life with pure cinematic wizardry.

The Quidditch match (a soccer/hockey/rugby thing played on broomsticks) is much more exciting on the screen than on the page, as is the bathroom battle with an enormous mountain troll and the larger-than-life game of wizard's chess.

The frightening aspects of the book are in full force in the film, and its PG rating (for some scary moments) should be taken seriously.

Screenwriter Steven Kloves ("Wonder Boys") has done a fine job of streamlining Rowling's tale while maintaining its spirit. Director Chris Columbus ("Home Alone") makes good on his promise to be faithful to the book. But at times the film is a bit too reverent; you want the actors to cut loose and have a bit more fun.

Columbus clearly understands that fantasy works best when it's played most real. Across the board, his fine ensemble of actors are so perfectly cast that they appear to have literally stepped out of Rowling's book.

In the title role, Daniel Radcliffe pulls off the very difficult task of playing an introverted hero who spends most of the movie reacting to the amazing sights and events around him. He beautifully captures the deep soul and untapped potential of Harry Potter. And when this kid smiles the screen lights up.

Rupert Grint is delightful as Harry's sardonic buddy Ron Weasley and Emma Watson nearly steals the film as their overachieving friend Hermione Granger. Three cheers to the film makers for giving three unknown child actors the top billing they deserve.

The strong cast of veteran actors includes Richard Harris as the wise Headmaster Dumbledore and Robbie Coltrane as the lovable giant Hagrid. Alan Rickman is wonderfully villainous as Professor Snape and Zoe Wanamaker has just the right touch of girls gym teacher as flying instructor Madame Hooch.

As the strict but just Professor McGona

AvinashPatalay 17 December 2004

I watched this movie first time when I was left with no choice. My expectations were extremely low as I always wondered if Harry Potter books were over-hyped. How-ever after watching the movie it did make me a Harry Potter movie fan. And needless to say - this continues to remain my favourite of HP series. That brings to a point here.... the effect of expectations over a movie. True, expectations reduce joy.

Without going into the story I would certainly say Chris Columbus churns out a perfect pot-pourri of emotions, suspense and magic, delivering something appealing to all ages.

Every character brought to life on screen has done justice and leave an impression on you. Particularly notable performances by Emma Watson and Alan Rickman.

CGI are in plenty and made good of. The Quedditch game is picturised amazingly. The wizard's chess is treat to eyes.

Let's hope that the forthcoming HP series carries the similar magical touch.

DianeLFletch 10 November 2001

When I knew the film was being made, I thought how could they make a film that would be up to the standard of such a perfect book. But they did! Sure they missed bits out but they captured the essence of the book brilliantly. One member of the cast was mis-cast for me but my children disagreed.I even found myself believing they were flying and not wondering "how are they doing that?" So 10 out 10 Warner Brothers. Bring on the next one!

ktulu34 19 November 2001

I feel, next to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is the best book-to-movie adaptation that I've ever seen. The sets were stunning - the actors were first rate - the effects were breathtaking. The film flowed quite smoothly in it's transition from page to screen, never tripping on the awkward conventions that other books on film have struggled with. The screenplay, by Steven Kloves, stripped away all unnecessary elements to get to the root of the story. Though many events from the book were excluded, the essential ones made it to the film. And it makes for one smooth story and very enjoyable movie-going experience.

Many kudos to Chris Columbus and the rest of the Harry Potter cast/crew for not turning this movie into what it easily could have become: a 2 and a half hour commercial advertisement for action figures and collectibles, kid's meals and fast food tie-ins, soft drinks and snack products, etc. and instead focused on bringing J.K. Rowling's story to life as accurately and as lovingly as it deserves. There has been much speculation on whether Columbus was the correct choice for the first two installments of the series and I say to that, Yes. I feel that he accomplished what most would have failed. He has proven, at least to me, that Diagon Alley truly exists - if only I could find the right brick to tap on. The world of Harry Potter is no longer fantasy to me, but instead a place where any of us mere Muggles could hope to visit, one day.

One of my favorite moments, is what I'm going to refer to as the Adrenaline Sequence. By Adrenaline Sequence, I mean the sequence in a movie that for all intents and purposes, doesn't necessarily propel the story, but gives the audience a huge theatrical payoff, ala the Pod Race sequence in The Phantom Menace. The Adrenaline Sequence for this particular movie is the Quidditch sequence. I was very happy to finally see the 'hockey/soccer hybrid on a broomstick' come to life. The Quidditch Sequence is, by far, my favorite sequence in the whole film. The scene is dizzying in it's violence and it's one breathless moment after another. My hat goes off to Columbus and his team for succeeding in making this scene as memorable as it should be.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a fantastic movie for children of all ages. Fans and non-fans alike will enjoy this colorful story of good versus evil and the friendships that endure.

HotToastyRag 17 June 2019

There's nothing like the first in a series, is there? The introduction to the characters, the immersion into the fictional world, the first time you laugh, cry, care, and fear for someone's safety can never be repeated. No matter how many Harry Potter movies they crank out, or if they ever remake them in the future, none will come close to the wonderful first film, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

I'm sure everyone has their own childhood memories of reading the Harry Potter books that they'll tell their grandkids about, but I'll never forget going to see the first movie in the theaters. The lights dimmed, John Williams's perfect theme played its first notes as Richard Harris walked down Privet Drive, and everyone in the theater was transported to another world. John Williams's numerous themes, all wonderful and a personification of the wizarding world, took the early movies to another level. As other composers tried their hands at the later films, that quality was missing. There's something truly special about going to see this movie on the big screen, and while the "magical" qualities might not all be credited to the music, it's certainly one of them.

Welcome to the world of Harry Potter, where if you're a ten-year-old kid who doesn't fit in, you might get a letter delivered by an owl telling you you have magical powers and should go to a special school to hone them. Believe it or not, there are people who watch this movie without reading the books, so a bit of description is necessary. Obviously the stars of the show are the children, who were selected out of millions of other kids to be able to memorize lines, not look in the camera, endear themselves to worldwide audiences, and hopefully act. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and Tom Felton are so cute and tiny in this first movie, you'll undoubtedly find yourself re-watching it as the years pass just to see them as kids again. I always marvel that child actors train themselves not to look in the camera, so even if their performances aren't perfect, I cut them slack, knowing firsthand how hard it is. And these kids had to dress in funny costumes, recite incantations without laughing, and pretend they're looking at things that were added in post production!

Usually, in kids' movies, there's a grown-up or two who add to the cast and make the adult audience members feel less silly that they're watching it. In the Harry Potter movies, everyone wanted to be in them! Throughout the series you'll see a host of familiar faces as "guest stars" but the regulars will make special places in your heart. Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, and Robbie Coltrane are household names for little kids, because they're so convincing as the kindhearted Dumbledore, the wizened but sentimental McGonagall, the endlessly mimicable Snape, and the jolly Hagrid, kids today can't imagine they've had any other career prior to these movies! Is there any kid who doesn't immediately attribute the word "earwax" to Richard Harris, point out striped cats as "Maggie Smith cats", mumble "Shouldn't have said that," when they make a mistake, or practice putting pauses in their sentences like Alan Rickman?

First movies are so special, since they introduce audiences to a world that will hopefully capture their attention for however many more movies will be made. In J.K. Rowling's fantasy world, there's so much t

Movie Scene

Similar Movies

4.2
Artemis Fowl
6.7
The One and Only Ivan
5.5
Black Is King
6.1
Timmy Failure: Mistakes Were Made
5.8
Come Away
7.0
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil
7.4
A Dog's Journey
7.0
Were the World Mine
watch movies online
WMO provides links to other sites on the internet and doesn't host any files itself.