Usually, films encumbered of this much hype can never live up to the lofty expectations of eager fans, but Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is, thankfully, a rare and welcome exception.  The picture will, without question, be the most over-analyzed and eagerly anticipated movie since The Phantom Menace, which didn't come close to satiating the hopes of its drooling, rabid fans.  Even though Stone and Menace both feature an effects-heavy centerpiece (Quidditch replaces the dull pod race), a ham-fisted composer (John Williams), and remarkably similar stories, the former is much more enjoyable and may be more of a Holy Grail for the Gen-Z set than Star Wars was to the Xers.

Stone, in case you're, like, ruled by the Taliban or something, is the first in a series of seven novels (only four have been published so far) written by J.K. Rowling, who used to be homeless but now can buy and sell the average reader a million times over.  The books, which are targeted toward children, loved by adults and outwardly damned by Bible-thumping twats, have sold oodles of copies in hundreds of countries via dozens of translations (Töpfer Harry ist ein Schlechtes [geschlossen Ihrer Öffnung]!) and have now generated a film that cost over $125 million to make.

Stone, the first of the series, is about young Harry Potter's (Daniel Radcliffe) initial involvement with wizardry and witchcraft.  See, Harry's parents died when he was a baby, and he was raised by his wickedly evil aunt and uncle (Richard Griffiths and Fiona Shaw), who dote on their own bratty offspring (Harry Melling) while raising Harry like a veal in a tiny room underneath the stairs.  On his 11th birthday, Harry learns his dead parents were both powerful wizards when he is summoned to attend Hogwarts, a private boarding school for the wand-waving set.

It is at Hogwarts that Harry befriends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and learns how to tool around on a broomstick, cast spells, play Quidditch and generally stand up for himself - all things he never knew he was capable of back when he lived with the Muggles (the wizard word for us regular folk).  And, of course, there's an adventure involving the titular stone that enables Harry and his two sidekicks to show off their smarts and special powers.

Stone will probably be surprising to nearly everyone who sees it for the first time.  All three viewers who haven't read the book will be bowled over by the quality of Rowling's story (adapted by Wonder Boys' Oscar nominee Steven Kloves), and faithful readers (myself included) will be astonished at the filmmakers' ability to recreate the entire movie just as they imagined it in their heads as they devoured the book like a cupcake within a three-mile radius of Rosie O'Donnell's good paw.  Which brings up a couple of interesting points:  Why bother spending this much money to make something that isn't any more imaginative than what the mind of an eight-year-old reader can create?  And isn't there a paradox in making a film version of a book that has somehow managed to get kids interested in reading after rotting their brains with bad television, video games and internet porn?

Even if you agree with those cockamamie statements, you'll still enjoy the flick.  Stone is probably the most faithful page-to-screen adaptation in the history of cinema and is blessed with both a top-notch British arthouse cast (including Richard Harris, Robbie Coltrane, Ian Hart, John Hurt, Alan Rickman, Julie Walters and Maggie Smith) and brilliant behind-the-camera talent (like The English Patient cinematographer John Seale and Titanic visual effects wizard Robert Legato).  Only Williams' annoying score, which resembles a cross between Batman and Star Wars, and John Cleese truly disappoint.  The highlights, in my mind, were the amazing Quidditch match and the paintings that come to life.

You have to give credit to Stone's creators – in addition to hiring the best talent in the business, they could have completely sold out and raked in an ungodly amount of cash if, like the typical kiddie pic, the film clocked in at 90 minutes.  This puppy is over two-and-a-half hours long (but it's still paced like a sprint), which will somewhat restrict how much money it's able to inhale.

There are all kinds of stories in the news about the young actors not making much money for their work in Stone, but they'll be in prime bargaining positions when the sequels are made.  Of course, by the time they crank out the other six films, Radcliffe will be old enough to be teaching at Hogwarts (although it remains unclear if he will be addressed, in Freddie "Boom Boom" Washington style, as "Mr. Pot-tair").

2:32 –

for some scary moments and mild language