On his eleventh birthday, orphan Harry Potter discovers that he's a wizard, so off he goes to Hogwarts School to learn the ways of the wand. But it isn't all lessons and making friends: Harry is destined for a showdown with the evil Lord Voldemort.

Original Title:

Harry Potter And The Philosopher&

8217;s Stone

Sometimes the best plan is to do things by the book. With over 100 million Harry Potter readers desperate to rush down cinema aisles to see their hero on the big screen for the first time, you can't blame Chris Columbus for sticking close to J.K. Rowling's novel. It's one thing to let your imagination loose with the words on the page; it's another to have those images backed up by a multi-million dollar Hollywood budget. And from the very first sight of an owl perched on the Privet Drive road sign to the closing shot of the Hogwarts Express pulling away from the station with the majestic school sitting high on the hills behind, we know that every golden galleon has been well spent.

That's why this faithful adaptation won't fail to win over the book's fans with its 'wow' factor. It thrives on audience recognition. John Williams' score swells at the key moments - Here's your first glimpse of Hogwarts! Isn't Diagon Alley crammed with Dickensian detail! - as Columbus pulls back curtain after curtain to reveal all of the avid readers' favourite bits. The stand-out sequence is the Gryffindor versus Slytherin Quidditch match, a fast-paced medieval Rollerball with broomsticks. It soars where The Phantom Menace's podrace stalled on the third lap.

Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone has one advantage over so many other blockbusters: it already knows that it's the first in a series, so it doesn't have to become a self-contained hit movie before its sequels can receive the green light. This means it deliberately takes its time setting up the characters and the scenario before, like the book, pulling in a quest-cum-whodunnit plot to provide a climax. This structure is fine for the initiated, but it might leave first-timers feeling a bit uncomfortable with the shape of the movie. And because it's more of a kids film than the book was just a kids book, the two-and-a-half hour running time is bound to provoke some cinema squirming from young viewers.

That said, Columbus ensures there's a bit of on-screen magic coming our way every couple of minutes, and not just in the shape of expensive effects. Near-perfect casting ensures character colour from the adult actors and allows the central trio of kids (Radcliffe, Grint and Watson) to prove that three heads are better than one (unless your name is Fluffy).

Coltrane as cuddly giant Hagrid and Grint as Harry's cheeky chum, Ron, steal some scenes, but it's Radcliffe who leads us through Harry's journey from open-jawed underdog to pint-sized hero. Sympathetic and strong, brave and believably ordinary, he becomes the audience's counterpart in this weird world of witches and wizards.

Even though a few of the book's scenes have been cut, fans probably couldn't hope for a better adaptation. It bodes well for the rest of the series, when strong stories start taking precedence over set-up.

Related Articles

Just so you know, whilst we may receive a commission or other compensation from the links on this website, we never allow this to influence product selections - read why you should trust us

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" wraps up a decade's worth of brilliance and near-brilliance with the most satisfying installment to date, a thrilling - and moving - testament to the care put into J.K. Rowling's story by the filmmakers and actors who came into its orbit.

Other "Potters" have bided their time, pleasantly enough, wallowing in subplots and diversion while waiting for something to happen.

No one wallows in "Hallows."

Instead, there's apocalyptic "Lord of the Rings"-worthy spectacle. There's the reintroduction of familiar faces for one last go-around (three cheers for Maggie Smith's Professor McGonagall). There are desperate kisses as doom approaches. There are the deaths of longtime allies and mortal enemies alike. There are heroic moments for the overlooked underdog. There's Alan Rickman unleashed, as the motivations of his Severus Snape are finally made clear (and really, is there any actor now working who can command the screen like Rickman?).

And of course, there's the climactic showdown - which has the good sense not to drag on and on and on, as so many climactic showdowns do.

You know, too, about the story's sweet, much-buzzed about epilogue, which should induce satisfied sniffles in many Potterphiles. (It's odd though that, after the astonishing effects and makeup efforts seen in the previous two hours, they're so perfunctory and unpersuasive in the final minutes we're ever going to spend in theaters with Harry, Hermione and Ron.)

The "Potter" films didn't have to be so good for so long. Just OK would have made tons of money (witness "Transformers" or "Pirates of the Caribbean"). Give credit to screenwriter Steve Kloves, who wrote all but one Potter film, and director David Yates, who shepherded the series to its end with masterful direction that's both intimate and thrilling.

Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have fully grown into their characters, who have taken on the weight of the world while very young (a brief glimpse here of the trio as first-year innocents effectively slaps us with that recognition). "Part 2" benefits as well from the increased screen time for Ralph Fiennes' Voldemort, who, as he becomes more vulnerable, is shown to be ridiculous and pathetic as well as massively evil.

This is the first "Potter" film in 3D which, while not crucial, does work well here. It's worth the extra money.

Speaking of money, there were certainly mercenary reasons for splitting up Rowling's final book into two money-making behemoths.

Turns out it was a wise move for storytelling purposes too: "Part 1" was contemplative, full of dread for what's to come.

What is the review of Harry Potter?

Critic's opinion. The films are imaginative, funny, frightening and, of course, magical! What makes them so successful is that they combine action, fantasy and friendship. If you like adventure and magic, you'll love the Harry Potter films!

How to write a movie review?

How to Write a Movie Review.

Watch the film at least once. ... .

Express your opinions and support your criticism. ... .

Consider your audience. ... .

Talk about the acting. ... .

Call out directors, cinematographers, and special effects. ... .

No spoilers! ... .

Study the professionals. ... .

Reread, rewrite, and edit..

What was so good about Harry Potter movies?

The visual effects of the Harry Potter movies are so good that they hold their own against the movies made today, over two decades later. Dragons, magic spells, trolls, and mermaids are just some of the CGI effects used throughout the franchise, and they look great.

What is Harry Potter about short summary for kids?

Overview of Harry's StoryHarry is an orphan living with his guardian aunt and uncle and their son, who mistreat him. On his 11th birthday Harry discovers that his parents were a witch and a wizard. A wizard himself, Harry is invited to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.