Daniel Radcliffe is the kid with the lightning bolt scar in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." (Warner Bros.)

Whether you consider yourself an honorary scholar of the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry or merely a Muggle who knows a thing or two, odds are you're pumped for the movie premiere of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." The first in what is projected to be a blockbuster series of films, based, of course, upon J.K. Rowling's beloved and best-selling Harry Potter books, arrives in American cinemas Nov. 16. If you haven't seen it yet and you're planning to purchase tickets in advance, we have a list of the theaters showing the movie. And we want to know what you think of the celluloid versions of Harry, Hagrid and Hermione.

We invite those of you lucky enough to attend an advance screening of "Harry Potter" -- as well as those of you who see the movie after its release date -- to post a review. Now's your chance to show the movie critics how it's done. Send us your opinions, your feelings and your astute observations about the biggest movie event of 2001. Is it better than the book? Does Daniel Radcliffe make a convincing Harry? Are the Quidditch scenes all they're cracked up to be? Submit your review in 200 words or less; we'll post new reader responses regularly. Caution: If you have not seen the movie and want it to be a surprise for you, do not read any further.

Submit your "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" review.

Reader reviews:

London, UK: I read the first three of the HP books after my wife and 8-year-old devoured all four not once but twice. So I was very excited when we got tickets to see the movie this weekend. The movie was unfortunately a big let down. The first 60 minutes dragged on forever and the rest stayed faithful to the book. In one way, this made the end even more predictable. Since there were no unanticipated twists of any kind, there was really nothing the movie could do that that book had not already done. Call me a Muggle, but I'll stick to the written word over the movie any day.

J. Clark
London

:

Washington, D.C.: I absolutely loved the "Harry Potter" movie. Even though not everything was how I pictured it, I felt that they did a really good job of keeping the movie like the book. All of the actors were stars in their role, and I think that the set was really cool. My favrite part though, I think, was the Quidditch scenes. Although I loved reading about them in the books, I could never really picure them well in my mind, so the movie was really helpful. All in all, I really enjoyed the movie. As it for just a movie, I would give it a 5 stars, and compared to the book, if it were 5 stars, I would give the movie 4 stars!

:

Greenbelt, MD: I saw the movie last night and I loved it. Yes it was predictable and but it had to be. There really couldn't be any twists and turns without legions of fans rioting in the streets. The essence of the book and the characters was indeed represented quite well on the screen, hats off to Snape. Bravo Mr. Rickman!! Other than that, I really felt as if I was watching a classic lift off the ground. After watching it I believe I may go see it again to feast on all the visuals I didn't catch in my awed state of confusion.

:

Springfield, Virginia: My daughter and I, both fans of the Harry Potter books, greatly enjoyed the film. The movie kept pretty much to the book, except for leaving a few scenes out--for time reasons we suppose.

We were captivated by the Quidditch game and the special effects for the game, as well as throughout the film. When Harry's team won--the theatre audience burst out with applause. It also was interesting to see how the filmmakers imagined what the characters would look like--if they imagined how we would imagine. In most cases, they we agreed.

When we left, we noticed the film left out who gave Harry his invisibility cloak. We know who did because it's in the book. Moviegoers who didn't read the book should read it--they will find out the answer to that question, and some others.

--C. Cassidy

:

Manassas,Virginia: I think the movie had things the book didn't have. But I was realy sad that they didn't put in all the Quidditch maches.

Sing Katie Ouellette

P.S The movie was great!

:

Manassas, Virgina : I thought the movie was awsome including all the neat graphics and the flying and all. Some of the beginning was long and dragging and didn't include the "other" details of the book. I didn't really expect that with a time limit and all, but it was cool all the same.

:

Manassas, Virgina: I thought there was a lot missing in the first part of the film but the rest was actually awsome. I just think it was kinda sad that they didn't include the rest of the Quidditch matches for the other houses.

:

Bethesda, MD: The movie is exciting because at the end Harry burns Professor Quirrel all up. I also liked Harry, Hermionie and Ron play real wizard's chess. But, the Forbidden Forest wasn't what I expected. Well that's what I think about Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

Dana Marks, age 8

:

Washington, D.C.: Review of Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone :

We saw the movie at the Washington D.C. premiere on Nov. 11. The first lady spoke to the audience before the movie started.
The movie was awesome! I loved it! They changed a couple of scenes, but it pretty much stuck to the book. The actors did a really good job. I couldn't believe how good the special effects were, especially the Quidditch game. Everyone in your family will love this movie!

:

Damascus, MD: A very enjoyable movie if you go in with the right attitude. Kids will appreciate it a lot more than adults who tend to pick things apart and compare/contrast book to movie.

Radcliffe did a commendable but not extraordinary job as Harry. Grint, in the supporting role of Ron, was superb, and Watson is a delightful Hermione.

The movie will be a little confusing to those who didn't read the book. In streamlining the plot, I think the filmmakers assumed everyone has read the books and that it wouldn't be necessary to explain some important issues at the end (like how You-Know-Who survived and the exact nature of his current condition). My husband needed some clarification at the end.

All in all, a fun movie and worthy of the big screen experience. My 4 year old thoroughly enjoyed every minute and wasn't bored once through the 2 1/2 hour movie.

--MR

:

Fairfax, VA: Although the film was enjoyable in parts, Chris Columbus came nowhere near fulfilling the potential in the story. It had nothing of the very real sense of danger and magic that was in Young Sherlock Holmes (his screenplay) or other truly great fantasy/mystery films. They tried to stick too faithfully to the narrative of J.K Rowling's book, and the film was a series of connect-the-dot moments. They definitely skimped on special effects as well--way too much computer animation.

:

Alexandria, VA: I loved the movie! As a huge fan, who has
read all the books (even "Quidditch
Through the Ages'), at first I was
disappointed when certain details were
left out. But as I realized that the movie
could not include everything in the book, I
settled in and throughly enjoyed it. The
visual effects were stunning. The
characters were all perfect. I especially
loved Hermione and Dumbledore. I do
agree with some reviewers that the movie
does assume sometimes that people will
have read the book, but it is still fantastic.
I would see it again and again, and
eagerly anticipate the next movie! Two
big thumbs up!

:

Pasadena, Maryland: The movie was FANTASTIC! With 5 of us ranging in age from 7-60, we all gave it a full-blown "10!" Special effects were great, the story was incredibly close to the book and many of the characters were exactly as you pictured them in the book. Our hats are off to Chris Columbus for being one of the only people able to adapt a movie from a book that actually parallels the book!

:

Olney MD: I saw the movie with my mom on the 11th. We waited in line for about an hour and forty-five minutes. I have read all four books in backwards order from the 3rd to the first to the 4th book. All the characters really seemed to know what they were doing. Daniel Radcliffe seems to have the same characteristics as Harry.Rupert Grint looked exactly like I imagined him. Emma Watson was an excellent Hermione. The movie is mostly true to the book. I would have liked to see the other Quidditch match mentioned in the book.(Gryffindor vs. Hufflepuff)The movie played scenes fast.(The hut on the rock could have been longer like it is in the book)Otherwise the movie is very good. Ilike the Quidditch special effects. I also liked the Giant Chess set scene.

Paul Scanlan

:

Evan Field, Washington, DC: It was pleasantly entertaining and kept my attention despite it's considerable length; a good show.

:

Mclean,Virginia: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was a great movie. All the pictures were perfectly clear, the actors enunciated perfectly, the fictional characters (the trolls, the unicorn,the centaurs, the ghosts.)acted realisticly and looked realistic. I think kids ages 8 and up should see this movie at least twice.The reasons are mild language,
scary moments, and small bloody scenes.

-Greyson Lewis

:

Rockville, MD: I have just read many of the comments
about the new film, Harry Potter. I know
that second graders have read the books.
What age level do you think the movie is
right for?

: washingtonpost.com: My sense is that you have to know the child and how he or she responds to films and stories. Some second graders may be able to handle it just fine. However, I would say that, given some of the special effects, it might be more appropriate for children 8 or 9 and older.
What do others think?

silver spring md: Harry Potter was "bloody brilliant" in ron's words, but in my own it was great. suspenseful and outgoing. perfect for children of all ages. a little different then the book, but that just gives more room for imagination. never once will you be bored of watching this fantanstic film.

:

Fairfax, Va: Great movie - but NOT for children under age 8 - unless you want to answer a million questions and have possible side effect of nightmares. They just can't comprehend at that age between what's real and what's not. I'm 30 and was quite scared during some of the scenes!

:

Damascus, MD: I wouldn't set an arbitrary age limit to who can and can't handle the movie. Like the WP moderator said, you really do have to know the child before you make that decision. My son is only 4 1/2, but he is pretty exceptional. I have read the first two books with him and we went to the advanced screening on Sunday. I have explained to him and I know he knows that the story is fiction. He has handled the experience just fine. In fact, he said it was the best movie he ever saw. He enjoyed every single minute and was even cheering and clapping during the Quidditch match as if he was really in the stands. But not all kids, especially ones his age, are ready to sit through such a long movie, and some just can't handle the suspense and graphic visuals. For example, at one point there is a rather quick but gory moment where the Gryffindor ghost shows the students exactly why he is called Nearly-headless Nick. But basically, the movie isn't any scarier than many of the Y-7 rated kid action TV shows (like Power Rangers).

:

   |      |