I blame the hype.
There was just so much hype.
Not to mention anticipation…I'm a big fan of the books, so it seems like I've been waiting for this movie a long time!
But finally, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone hit theaters, and…
I liked it.
See my problem here…I liked it.
After all the hullaballo, I wanted to love it.
But I only liked it.

It's very obvious that director Chris Columbus and screenwriter Steven Kloves wanted very much to stay very loyal to author's J.K.Rowling's book. The film is very faithful…which may be part of the problem…maybe it's too long as a result of having a lot of unnecessary stuff in the movie just because it's in the book? I can't say for sure as with my notoriously bad memory I can barely distinguish events from the four Harry Potter books that are already out. But it seemed to me to be very faithful.

I think I was also a little disappointed by a lot of the special effects.
A lot of the CGI just looked way too CGI for my taste, and quite frankly it worries me because the books just get more and more fanciful so the CGI tasks will just get harder and harder. But usually I can let the special effects go if I'm really enjoying the movie, so hopefully the next film, which is already under production, will be slightly shorter and more fluid.
All that being said though, the general look of the film is awesome, and mixed with the enchanting score by the legendary John Williams, it was a feast for the senses.

I like the casting in this movie.
From British veterans, Sir Richard Harris and Dame Maggie Smith, to the always interesting Alan Rickman, and the hand picked by Rowling herself, Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid the gentle half-giant, there was a lot of talent in front of the screen.
The three biggest roles however went to complete unknowns. Rupert Grint played Harry's best friend, Ron Weasley. I think he did a great job and he definitely seemed quite at ease in front of the camera. Ron Weasley (along with his family, which gets more fleshed out in the later books) is a great supporting character. The same can be said for Hermione Granger, played here by Emma Watson. She too played her character perfectly, a sort of well meaning know it all. Her chemistry with the two boys was great.
But the role of possibly the most significant literary character in quite sometime went to Daniel Radcliffe, who will now be forever known now as Harry Potter. The character of Harry Potter is quite complex considering he's a children's book character. In the book series, he's developed quite nicely as a character, but in the first book, and in this movie, it's all about the discovery of who he is. Radcliffe played the part well. He has the whole wide eyed innocence thing down, but he also has some charm and wit about him. I'm not sure if he, or any of the other actors really will be around for all seven proposed movies, each a faithful adaptation of all seven (proposed) books, but he can always say he was the first.

The Harry Potter book series has really brought an interest in reading to kids, and a lot of adults, all over the world. This film seems on course to bring in even more new readers.
I do want the film series to be successful.
I just hope they do it right.
And a little better than this one…