The critic consesnsus is: Being so faithful to the book is both the movie's strength and weakness. The movie unfolds exactly as written in the book, so there is little room for surprises or discoveries. For Potter fans, what more can you ask for?. What reviews supported this critic consensus?
1. The movie has two serious flaws ... Daniel Radcliffe, as Harry, is almost devoid of personality ... [and] the film is a full hour too long.
2. As George Lucas did with The Phantom Menace, Columbus understood that he didn't have to make a particularly good movie. He just had to avoid making a really lousy one. And that's exactly what he's done.
3. Entertaining on almost every level.
4. This film is capable of a certain brand of magic: it may turn the faithful into Muggles.
5. An imaginative and remarkably faithful adaptation.
6. No, I didn't think (Columbus) would be able to do it this well, either, but I stand corrected.
7. Hiring nonhack screenwriter Steve Kloves (Wonder Boys) pays dividends.
8. If you believe in magic, you'll love Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. And if you don't, you will, and you will.
9. It's pleasant, and not nearly as hollow as, say, The Phantom Menace, but it's never truly captivating.
10. The effects are special, but too often they're the only thing that is. They seem to drive the story, instead of the other way around.
Kritikerns consesnsus är: Att vara så trogen boken är både filmens styrka och svaghet. Filmen utspelar sig precis som det står skrivet i boken, så det finns inte mycket utrymme för överraskningar eller upptäckter. För Potter fans, vad mer kan du begära?. Vilka recensioner stödde denna kritikerkonsensus?
The critic's consensus is: To be so faithful to the book is both the strength and weakness of the film. The film takes place just as it is written in the book, so there is not much room for surprises or discoveries. For Potter fans, what more can you request?. What reviews did this critic consensus support?
1. Filmen har två allvarliga brister ... Daniel Radcliffe, som Harry, är nästan utan personlighet ... [och] filmen är en hel timme för lång. 2. Som George Lucas gjorde med Fantomen Menace förstod Columbus att han inte behövde göra en särskilt bra film. Han var tvungen att undvika att göra en riktigt usel. Och det är precis vad han har gjort. 3. Underhållande på nästan varje nivå. 4. Den här filmen är kapabel till ett visst märke av magi: den kan förvandla de trogna till Mugglare. 5. En fantasifull och anmärkningsvärt trogen anpassning. 6. Nej, jag trodde inte (Columbus) skulle kunna göra det så här bra heller, men jag står korrigerad. 7. Anställa nonhack manusförfattare Steve Kloves (Wonder Boys) betalar utdelning. 8. Om du tror på magi kommer du att älska Harry Potter och trollkarlens sten. Och om du inte gör det, kommer du att göra det, och du kommer att göra det. 9. Det är trevligt, och inte så ihåligt som Fantomen, men det är aldrig riktigt fängslande. 10. Effekterna är speciella, men för ofta är de det enda som är det. De verkar driva historien, istället för tvärtom.
1. The film has two serious flaws... Daniel Radcliffe, as Harry, is almost without personality... [and] the film is an hour too long. 2. As George Lucas did with the Phantom Menace, Columbus understood that he did not have to make a very good film. He had to avoid making a really bad one. And that's exactly what he's done. 3. Entertainment at almost every level. 4. This film is capable of a certain brand of magic: it can turn the faithful into Mugglers. 5. An imaginative and remarkably faithful adaptation. 6. No, I didn't think (Columbus) could do it this well either, but I'm standing corrected. 7. Hiring nonhack screenwriter Steve Kloves (Wonder Boys) pays dividends. 8. If you believe in magic, you will love Harry Potter and the wizard's stone. And if you don't, you will, and you will. 9. It's nice, and not as hollow as the Phantom, but it's never really captivating. 10. The effects are special, but too often they are the only thing that is. They seem to be driving history, instead of the other way around.