The magical mystery tour is waiting to take you away, however, to truly be taken away you MUST read the book. While "Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone" is truly a great film for all ages, because it's from a book, reviewers get to be pickier than normal and I'm probably about to find myself to be a very unpopular Epinions reviewer.

Short of being a narrow minded or Southern Baptist person there is nothing to criticize about J.K. Rowling's books. How can you say something is wrong with a book that sold 10 million copies world wide, tore kids away from their video games and captivated the imagination of all ages? Obviously you can't and now it's out on the big screen.

Certainly no one has missed the hype short of being an aboriginal tribe member. Chris Columbus (The director of "Home Alone" not the explorer) got the nod to direct the most awaited movie of all time and worked closely with Rowling to ensure the film did not vary too much from the movie. This was the promise to fans everywhere and to a large degree the promise was kept. Anything extra in the movie was simply added for a small laugh but fit right in or was put in to keep the plot flowing from one scene to the next while skipping some small part of the book (more on that later).

As most of us know Harry Potter is an 11 year old orphan in England who suddenly discovers that his dead parents practiced magic and that he will be going to a boarding school for wizards. The story shows an oppressed, quiet boy coming into his own and making his new friends to go with his new life while having to face the evil wizard that killed his parents. Harry is played by relative newcomer Daniel Radcliffe who does a better than average job. What he lacks I blame mostly on the production's attempt to keep the movie short so we see a lot less of the unconfident Harry blossoming into his own than the book would show. The one point I really couldn't understand is his hair. All of the books make it quite clear that Harry's hair is wild and unmanageable yet the movie shows a neatly combed haircut. Surely they could have found some hair gel.

His best friend is Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint). A mischievous fellow wizard in training from a poor, but very red headed wizarding family. Grint is superb at being the exact Ron that book readers have come to love but the movie just doesn't have time for the character development that the book did. And on a picky point, why didn't he have the thousands of freckles that the book said he had.

Emma Watson plays the other best friend, know it all, teacher's pet, Hermione Granger. She, like Harry was brought up in the muggle world (muggles are non magic folk) but apparently read every wizard book she could before school started. Emma steals the movie for me more than anything else. Her one liners and superior attitude are delivered with a degree greater than perfection and highlight EVERY scene she is in. Frankly, I don't ever expect that fine a performance from a child. When Oscar time comes around don't be surprised to see her on the ballot. Again they fell short on living up to the book simply because she's a very cute little girl and the book clearly describes a very plain looking girl with huge front teeth. However, it's excusable simply because of the extraordinary performance put forth.

One thing that the movie doesn't bring across very well is just how much Harry and especially Ron can't stand being around her until after the troll incident that bonded them for life. That just goes along with being rushed for time and the lack of development of most of the familiar characters.

The second best performance was also extraordinary but was completely underutalized. Robbie Coltrane ("The World Is Not Enough") was simply incredible as Hagrid, the grounds keeper (and keys keeper) for the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizadry. Hagrid is a HUGE man (owing to the fact that he is half human and half giant which is explained in a later book) whose enormous body size is exceeded only by the size of his heart which has a warm spot for all sorts of fantastical creatures including dragons. Frankly the second largest disappointment for me was Norbert, Hagrid's baby dragon, as the movie never showed it getting bigger. I was looking forward to this huge dragon living in Hagrid's quarters as well as seeing this huge man crying in his beer when the dragon got sent away. The film very much glossed over this which also meant excluding much of Harry's using his invisibility cloak. Had Hagrid appeared in the movie as much as in the book I'm sure Coltrane would have earned himself an Oscar.

Much has been made of Richard Harris (Gladiator) as Professor Albus Dumbledore, the school's headmaster, and rightfully so. He has been entertaining audiences for decades and was exceptional as the kindly mysterious wizard in charge of training young witches and wizards. Alan Rickman known for "Cutting Your Heart Out With A Spoon" in "Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves" among other fine villianous roles was the perfect choice for the almost evil Professor Snape. In all of Hollywood there isn't a better pick for the role and he played it perfectly. In fact, this character appeared to be more accurate than any other when compared to the book and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Rowling was picturing him when she first wrote the book.

Among all these performances there are just two others I need to mention unless I go on forever. John Hurt ("Lost Souls") was only in the movie for one short scene as Mr. Ollivander the shopkeeper that sells Harry his first wand. It was a most excellent cameo performance from a talented man and greatly helped maintain the magic of Rowling's world. Warwick Davis ("Willow") played Professor Flitwick and again it was a small role but he played it well.

Many other performances helped to enhance the magic but most of all the special effects made it possible to dive into it. From Dumbledore's light grabber through moving staircases (which are NOT in the book) to the evil Professor Quirrel crumbling to stone at Harry's touch it was all fantastic. the scenery was all exceptional especially the shopping town and the castle. And then we come to the most magical, fantastical, wondrous effects of all.

Quidditch is a magical sport that appears to combine rugby, hockey and baseball with three goals to score in. Oh yeah, and it's played in mid-air on broomsticks. This was the worst mistake of the movie. I spent months waiting to see all the Quidditch matches and instead of the three matches played in the book we only got one. I would gladly have spent another twenty minutes in the theater to see the other two matches especially after seeing just how excellent the effects were for the one they showed. I would pay to see a spin off sports movie about Quidditch. It was that good.

On a side note the greatest criticism I have seen have come from religious fanatics and parents groups. The greater criticism is from the fanatics and as usual they are more laughable than anything else. All I can say about them is it's a movie, just fiction, so get over it and give up your mindless, ludicrous rantings about the evil of Harry Potter. The parent groups do have a legitamate but minor complaint. It is possible that young children can be scared by the movie. However, we took our 5 year old and simply snuggled close during any part that might be scary and reminded him it was a movie. In the end he wasn't scared and although he didn't understand as much of the film as the rest of us he did enjoy it very much.

all in all I was simply one of countless fans that waited months to see the movie and it was worth the wait. The disappointments are mostly expected since a movie can only run so long. I believe that viewers who haven't read the book won't be able to follow some parts that just aren't explained enough to fit in well but would still be highly entertained by the magic of it all. It's certainly a five star movie, well worth the price of admission and most importantly of all it omits enough to not stifle the imagination of children everywhere who were stimulated by Rowling's series. If you're waiting for the video, don't, it just wouldn't be the same!

Recommended:
Yes

Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children up Ages 8