Harry Potter and The Sorcerer`s Stone (Widescreen) (US)

This is an intoxicating fantasy. It works grandly as entertainment, and being a cynical git I was surprised at how taken in I was by Harry`s plight. The film is expensive and certainly looks it; it`s filled to the rafters with impressive locations, fairly good CGI effects and a wonderful fantasy milieu unparalleled in many a year. The film is also very well cast, with young Daniel Radcliff making a fine Harry (although I was even more charmed by his two young cohorts in crime, Rupert Grint as Weasley and Emma Watson as Hermione.) The supporting adult cast is also a treat, with Alan Rickman appropriately slimy as the evil (?) Severus Snape, and Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith and, briefly, Richard Harris all chewing the scenery with barely restrained glee.

The only real flaw with the movie is that it seemed to get caught up with its own grandeur a few times, stretching scenes out a bit longer than they needed to be, showing off the scenery just to let us know how hard they worked to get it all right. This is fine when we first see the school itself as the sweeping views of Hogwarts are quite spectacular, but after the Quidditch match between Slytherin and Gryffindor it seemed a bit excessive to be doing panning shots of Harry.

The film moves along at a good pace and despite its 150-minute running time, there are few slow moments in the film and Director Chris Columbus paces the film to perfection. "Harry Potter" is a modern day classic that more than lives up to the hype and is well worth seeing for fans of all ages. The second film in the series is already under way and I must say that for many people, myself included, I look forward to seeing what future adventures Harry and his friends have in store for audiences.

But for goodness sake, are there no Philosopher`s in the U.S.A.?