Firstly dedicated Harry Potter fans should note that the movie is abridged quite a lot in certain places from the original book (see Movie Plot for the full details) itself. However, the humour, visual effects, acting etc. does make up for this in parts and the 2 1/2 hours are guaranteed to fly by; captivating and delighting you with the on-screen magic.

Quite a lot of the beginning of the film is cut out but parts of the readaptation works well. For example, when they visit the zoo, the glass of the boa constrictor area disappears and Dudley falls in the water and the snake leaves. The glass however reappears and Dudley is trapped. Although this never happened in the book with him becoming trapped (Piers Polkiss is also missing), it adds more humour to the scene and works effectively.

Although the movie is abridged, the screenplay has been scripted by Steve Kloves to get the main points across and even improve the books with more comical value in some ways. Certian key lines have been left in and hardcore Potter fans (such as I did myself) will be quoting along happily to themselves. It has to be said that John Williams has done a superb job with the music adding to the atmosphere that is present in the movie.

You'll be amazed when Hagrid falls out of the sky on the flying motorbike, when Harry jumps on the troll and the bogies(!), the real-life wizard chess game, Hogwarts itself and Quidditch to name a few of the stunning visuals in the film. Quidditch to me was absolutely amazing and I would never have been able to imagine it to be as good as what was shown. Flying however did look unrealistic at times. Diagon Alley is perfect too and although we don't get to see all of the shops as in the books, an atmosphere is created by what we do see. Hogwarts looks simpley perfect especially at Christmas and the castle looms impressively over the Lake.

Certain mistakes were made in the movie though that will leave Potter fans screaming silently at the screen. An annoying one is when Hermione shows Ron and Harry his dad's Gryffindor trophy (this never happens in the first place) but it says "James Potter - Seeker" when we all know that James was a Chaser according to Jo Rowling herself in an interview. Other annoying plot changes includes Dumbledore sending Norbert to Romania and Harry, Ron, Hermione and Draco having detention in the Dark (Forbidden to you and me) Forest opposed to Harry, Neville, Hermione and Draco in the books. Things like Hagrid leaving Harry at Platform 9 and 3/4, The Sorting Hat not singing, Harry not moving from his cupboard to the second bedroom, only one Quidditch match (and we never get to find out who wins the Quidditch Cup) and other little changes could leave Potter fans feeling cheated but the book had to be abridged otherwise it would have lasted hours, not that Potter fans would complain about that anyway.

Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) although he doesn't have as messy hair as perceived in the book, will be known as Harry Potter for the rest of his life. Radcliffe grew from strength to strength in the film, starting off shakily with the earlier filmed footage but certainly improving as the film progressed. Rumours that his voice was dubbed in the film as his voice break are certainly not true because it seemed that his voice did break and they kept his voice as his own for shots afterwards.

Rupert Grint (Ron) in the movie has to be one of the best, if not the best, actor in the film. He portrays Ron in such a way and is able to deliver his comical antidotes with such flair (hit by the broomstick, Fang and Ron, Ron on Hermione, McGonagall transfiguring to name a few) that you never knew existed in the books. Emma Watson (Hermione) was able to capture Hermione's ways.

Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) is another that has got his part down to a tee and is able to deliver his amusing lines ("I shouldn't have told you that.") with excellent use of facial expressions.

Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Richard Harris and Ian Hart (McGonagall, Snape, Dumbledore and Quirrel) all carried off their parts well in particular Smith and Hart. Hart especially had good transformation of character in the film. David Bradley (Filch) was amusing and witty in his part, a side not seen of him in the books.

John Hurt (Ollivander) and Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy) both were convincing and realistic in the movie and everyone else helped to keep the Potter magic present throughout the film.

The inclusion of some characters however seemed pointless including Nearly Headess Nick, Crabbe and Goyle, Seamus, Dean, Ginny Weasley who just seem to be stand-in extras in the film and to some extent even Fred and George, Percey, Neville and even the Dursleys who had little on-screen action. Disappointingly for me, they cut out Peeves (played by Rik Mayall) on the editing room floor which was one character I was looking forward to seeing immensely as Peeves is my favourite character and Mayall my perfect choice for the pesky poltergeist.

"Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" as it is known here in the U.K took over a year to complete. It had a budget of over £125 million and it said to be a box-office smash. It features a host of credible British actors and hot new talents, stunning visual effects and superb music. For me the film has not spoilt the books but contributed to my vision of the magical world. Although the movie will never be as good as the books, credit has to be given for a delightful 2 1/2 hours that will enthral children and adults, Muggles and Wizards for many years to come. Therefore, I give the film, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", 7 out of 10; an extremely enjoyable film.