To listen this review of that now far 2001 makes me feel so nostalgic. I watched this movie in its premiere when I was only 8 years old and was something shocking for us
Thank you for the upload! I have been trying to track down Ebert and Roeper's reviews of Harry Potter 1-4 (Ebert became too ill after Goblet of Fire to review them on the show) but for years and years they just did not seem to exist anywhere online. If you have any of the others to upload that would be greatly appreciated as well. Oh that's right! It is the 20th anniversary. Damn I feel old, still remember seeing this in theaters. I was 11 at the time (just like Harry, Ron and Hermione in the 1st film) and loved the books. I agree with your review as well as Ebert and Roeper's. The Socrerer's/Philosopher's Stone is a masterpiece which, despite being recognized as a classic, has become very underrated. The 1st two Potter films aren't quite my favorites of the series but I still love them and they are near perfect adaptions of their respective novels which NEVER happens in book to film adaptations. These first two films deserve more respect for the colossal undertaking they were to complete. So many things could have gone wrong, but nothing did. Bravo Chris Columbus for daring to follow the source material.
Ebert was generally able to enjoy, appreciate films for children that yes entertained and told a story. Sorcerer's Stone gets slammed a lot, it's flawed and could have been better but it also could have been a lot worse and it laid really good foundations for the rest.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer Stone was a fantastic fantasy movie that I was a Harry Potter Movie Fan I watch the movie is amazing is one my favorite fantasy movie and is my number 1 best flim of the year 2001.
I like both versions of the title but even knowing PS was preexisting kind of prefer Sorcerer's Stone, sounds cooler and more mysterious and powerful (also weird for the kind of subtitle of both 1 and then soon 3 to start with P).
"Wonderous special effects" where they really considered good at the time? Anyway love these reviews I NEED to see the Chamber of Secrets and Azkaban reviews ffs why must it be so hard
I would say for the time yes. You have to remember a lot of this was never done before, showing what the quittich match would look like and translating it from the book was an incredible achievement in terms of how they made it work. The troll effects don’t hold up, but I would say the rest does, and for the time they were really solid.
Are you high?? YES. I'm not even a huge Potter fan but man did this really blow everything else out the water. This came out the same year as mummy returns and tomb raider. Both I saw in theaters sadly lol. But other than fellowship of the ring, which wasn't even out yet, nothing came close to visuals like these
@@mania4270 Star wars episode I blows this out of the water and obviously I'd expect it to also like you mentioned so does fellowship of the ring. Off the top of my head I can't think of live action movies with lots of CGI in this time period but other than the mummy returns what is worse than the troll in this movie.
I really like Sorcerer’s Stone, but man, the transition scenes between the Hogwarts classes would’ve been executed WAY better if Terry Gilliam directed it. With Columbus at the helm, if feels like you’re on a slow moving ride at Epcot
I thought the movie started off with great wonder, awe, and movie (sorry for the pun) magic . . . then it becomes an overblown action film, not worthy of the first part. Too bad. Perfectly cast.
3:14 Ebert nails it. Kids like to be scared sometimes. If you gradually expose them to the right amount of scary stuff, they can handle it fine.
I still remember going to see this movie when I was 7 having no idea what it was and leaving the theatre a lifelong fan
Love seeing contemporary reviews of these early 2000s films, crazy to think it's over 20 years old now!
Anyone else have RUclips suggest Siskel and Ebert recently and now you're binging all you can find?
That first happened to me when I was 13, now I'm 20 and I still binge Siskel and Ebert once every few months
one of my favourite classic fantasy adventure movies and great classic review by roeper and Ebert
To listen this review of that now far 2001 makes me feel so nostalgic. I watched this movie in its premiere when I was only 8 years old and was something shocking for us
Thank you for the upload! I have been trying to track down Ebert and Roeper's reviews of Harry Potter 1-4 (Ebert became too ill after Goblet of Fire to review them on the show) but for years and years they just did not seem to exist anywhere online. If you have any of the others to upload that would be greatly appreciated as well.
Oh that's right! It is the 20th anniversary. Damn I feel old, still remember seeing this in theaters. I was 11 at the time (just like Harry, Ron and Hermione in the 1st film) and loved the books. I agree with your review as well as Ebert and Roeper's. The Socrerer's/Philosopher's Stone is a masterpiece which, despite being recognized as a classic, has become very underrated. The 1st two Potter films aren't quite my favorites of the series but I still love them and they are near perfect adaptions of their respective novels which NEVER happens in book to film adaptations. These first two films deserve more respect for the colossal undertaking they were to complete. So many things could have gone wrong, but nothing did. Bravo Chris Columbus for daring to follow the source material.
Have you watched the 20th anniversary special?
I can’t seem to find their chamber of secrets review anywhere
Awesome, been looking for this review forever
Thanks for the upload!
Should have mentioned the score!
10 years of sequels depended on this one knocking it out of the park. It did.
the wizard of oz of its time
I see you’ve quoted the back of the DVD case
@@SDfan2002 more like the tv spots but i see your point
@Guy Incognito oh really
Nah that would be LOTR fellowship of the ring.
Which was released same year & was much superior cinema
@@elamcyril depends
I wonder how gene would have felt
He probably wouldn't have liked it. I feel like he probably would have been tough on the kids' performances.
Ebert was generally able to enjoy, appreciate films for children that yes entertained and told a story. Sorcerer's Stone gets slammed a lot, it's flawed and could have been better but it also could have been a lot worse and it laid really good foundations for the rest.
Chris Columbus really was the perfect choice to direct these movies. I really felt his absence starting from the third film.
wow
Great review and truth!
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer Stone was a fantastic fantasy movie that I was a Harry Potter Movie Fan I watch the movie is amazing is one my favorite fantasy movie and is my number 1 best flim of the year 2001.
In the uk its called Phlosiphoer's stone
I like both versions of the title but even knowing PS was preexisting kind of prefer Sorcerer's Stone, sounds cooler and more mysterious and powerful (also weird for the kind of subtitle of both 1 and then soon 3 to start with P).
Should’ve been nominated for Best Picture that year…
I agree, it's a delightful and, fittingly, magical movie.
lol no
The nominees were A Beautiful Mind, Gosford Park, In the Bedroom, Fellowship of the Ring, & Moulin Rouge.
Here is was the philosophers stone
God, I wish this series never happened
No one's forcing it on you.
Harry Potter series did absolutely nothing for me at the time. Maybe I should go back and revisit the series
"Wonderous special effects" where they really considered good at the time? Anyway love these reviews I NEED to see the Chamber of Secrets and Azkaban reviews ffs why must it be so hard
The troll effects are pretty bad but the dog still looks decent
I would say for the time yes. You have to remember a lot of this was never done before, showing what the quittich match would look like and translating it from the book was an incredible achievement in terms of how they made it work. The troll effects don’t hold up, but I would say the rest does, and for the time
they were really solid.
Are you high?? YES. I'm not even a huge Potter fan but man did this really blow everything else out the water. This came out the same year as mummy returns and tomb raider. Both I saw in theaters sadly lol. But other than fellowship of the ring, which wasn't even out yet, nothing came close to visuals like these
@@mania4270 Star wars episode I blows this out of the water and obviously I'd expect it to also like you mentioned so does fellowship of the ring. Off the top of my head I can't think of live action movies with lots of CGI in this time period but other than the mummy returns what is worse than the troll in this movie.
I really like Sorcerer’s Stone, but man, the transition scenes between the Hogwarts classes would’ve been executed WAY better if Terry Gilliam directed it. With Columbus at the helm, if feels like you’re on a slow moving ride at Epcot
7 filns can't be wrong
director christopher columbus???????????????????
I thought the movie started off with great wonder, awe, and movie (sorry for the pun) magic . . . then it becomes an overblown action film, not worthy of the first part. Too bad. Perfectly cast.