I have a confession to make. I have never read "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone."

There is the sound of Filmboy ducking for cover as he avoids a violent barrage of raw eggs and rotten tomatoes thrown by fanatical Harry Potter fans. After a tense silence, a pair of timid eyes survey the landscape. Once the coast is clear, Filmboy returns.

Yes, yes, I’m a big illiterate slob. One of three people in the entire world that hasn’t read any of the Harry Potter books. I admit it. And even worse, I’m probably a Muggle, too. All praise J.K. Rowling for making reading cool again for our children and curse my lazy bones for not picking up the finest piece of children’s literature since those lion’s wardrobe books or that kid and his fudge factory.

But please don’t chastise me any further. The movie version of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone" was punishment enough. It’s not like watching the movie was a torturous experience, but I definitely think I was missing something by not reading the book beforehand. I can’t personally confirm how faithful the movie is to the original, but based on comments received from the few Harry Potheads kind enough to speak with me, I have surmised that it’s a fervently loyal adaptation. Which could explain why I felt like an outsider during most of it.

I'm pleased that Director Chris Columbus and Screenwriter Steve Kloves were respectful of the book and its stalwart legion of fans, but I do wish that they'd been more dedicated to simply making a good movie.

I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary to read the book on which a movie is based in every instance. In fact, doing so can be a confounding experience given the license that Hollywood usually takes with literary properties. Tom Hanks as Sherman McCoy in "Bonfire of the Vanities" and Demi Moore’s version of "The Scarlet Letter" come immediately to mind. While I’m pleased that Director Chris Columbus ("Home Alone" and "Bicentennial Man") and Screenwriter Steve Kloves ("Wonder Boys" and "The Fabulous Baker Boys") were respectful of the book and its stalwart legion of fans, but I do wish that they’d been more dedicated to simply making a good movie.

"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone" has some wonderful moments and fine performances by a strong cast of seasoned pros and wide-eyed newcomers, but it’s less a film based on a book than it is a book committed to the screen. You’ve heard of books on tape? "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone" is definitely a book on film. Books and movies are two distinct beasts. What works in one medium doesn’t always translate into another. These filmmakers’ slavish devotion to its source material has produced a rote entertainment.

There were several instances during this movie when I thought, "Wow! This must have been fun to read." Is that really a good thing to think while actually watching the movie? I have a feeling that the majority of Harry Potter fans — both young and young at heart — will absolutely love this flick since it reportedly brings so many of the book’s treasured moments to life in explicit detail. Columbus, Kloves and Co. make few, if any, changes.

Daniel Radcliffe is a good fit in the title role.

If you’re not overtly familiar with the gang from Hogwart’s, however, then you’re going to wonder why the story takes such a long time to get moving. Clocking in at nearly two and a half hours, this flick’s languid pace certainly does a number on your attention span. There are only so many tidbits about broomsticks and ghosts and talking paintings you can endure before your butt starts to itch.

The filmmakers worked so hard to be true to every detail that they forgot the big picture. Guys, it’s important to keep the story line progressing in any movie — even ones based on cherished children’s books. We’re served scene upon scene of life at Hogwart’s School for Witchcraft and Wizardry — which I’m sure the Harry-philes ate up with a spoon — but we don’t learn about "The Sorcerer’s Stone" until the movie’s almost over. Here’s a quick tip: if something’s in the title of your movie, it’s best to mention it before the last 30 minutes.

The story — for the other two people out there that haven’t read these books — concerns Harry Potter, an 11 year-old wizard-in-training at Hogwart’s, a secret school hidden away in the British countryside. Harry is brought to the school after being raised — without knowledge of his birthright — by his banal Muggle (non-magical) aunt and uncle. He was left with them following the murder of his parents by the evil wizard Voldemort.

While at Hogwart’s, Harry learns to control his magical powers and starts to discover his place in the world with the help of his faithful friends and kindly professors. But not everybody at Hogwart’s is out to help him. It seems the vile Voldemort may not be dead as suspected, but only weak and in hiding — waiting for his chance to strike. Harry uncovers a plot to steal the enchanted "Sorcerer’s Stone" and restore the nefarious wizard to full strength, which would put everything Harry holds dear in great danger!

The lead trio seems devoid of the odious cuteness that afflicts so many child actors.

Like "Star Wars: Episode One," you get the vibe that this film is all set-up — paving the way for future chapters. We get introduced to all the characters and their surroundings, but we don’t get much of a plot. Harry Potter was a phenomenon even before the movie came out so sequels are inevitable. A follow-up is guaranteed — in fact, I think they’ve already started shooting one — especially since this flick conjured up a $93.5 million opening weekend. Author Rowling is apparently planning three more books in this series so Columbus and crew have plenty of material from which to choose.

A splendid cast and whimsical special effects save this movie for the non-Harry people in the audience. Having learned his lesson with Macauley Culkin in the "Home Alone" movies, Columbus keeps the precocious quotient to a minimum with his casting choices. Daniel Radcliffe (who had a small role in "The Tailor of Panama") is a good fit in the title role. He physically resembles Harry Potter (at least he looks like the kid on the book jacket since I never read the thing) and is able to successfully juggle both the innocence and fortitude required for the part.

Fresh faces Rupert Grint and Emma Watson support Radcliffe nicely as Harry’s pals, Ron and Hermione. The trio has good chemistry together and seems devoid of the odious cuteness that afflicts so many child actors. Of the three, Grint exhibits the most personality while Watson’s Hermione gets a bit annoying at times (but then, maybe she’s supposed to). For the most part, Radcliffe, Grint and Watson are very refreshing on screen. Say what you will about Chris Columbus’s movies (and I have. Check out my review of his "Bicentennial Man" in the Filmboy archives), he does know how to work with kids. Even if he does have the rather irritating habit of getting them to yell while looking directly into the camera whenever they’re startled or surprised.

Robbie Coltrane is a scene-stealer as the mountainous Hagrid.

A cadre of some of Great Britain’s finest thespians bolsters these newcomers’ performances. Richard Harris ("Patriot Games" and "Gladiator") is the Headmaster of Hogwart’s while Maggie Smith ("Hook" and "Sister Act"), Alan Rickman ("Die Hard" and "Dogma") and Ian Hart ("BackBeat" and "Enemy of the State") play professors. John Cleese (of "Monty Python" fame and "A Fish Called Wanda") sneaks in a cameo as a ghost haunting the school’s halls while the always engaging John Hurt ("Alien" and "The Elephant Man") pops in as a magic wand salesman.

But Robbie Coltrane ("From Hell") tops them all as the scene-stealing Hagrid, the school’s mountainous groundskeeper. The movie improves greatly every time he’s on screen. Coltrane’s character is a great source for exposition and his oft-repeated line, "I probably shouldn’t have told you that" is a welcome running gag. This guy is just plain fun to watch.

Any time the story starts to lag, the cast and the special effects help perk things up. This movie is a great example on how to use CGI to enhance your film without overpowering it. From stairways that move from one floor to another while you’re traversing them to walls that pull apart one brick at a time and then reassemble to reveal a hidden street, each sequence feels essential.

Rob Legato (who made eye candy for "Titanic" and "What Lies Beneath") and his team have outdone themselves. They are the true magicians at Hogwart’s, bringing the school and all its ghosts, trolls and three-headed dogs vividly to cinematic life. The Quidditch match (a rugby hybrid played on flying broomsticks) and a spooky scene in the Dark Forest with a menacing wraith-like figure drinking unicorn’s blood are major highlights.

This movie is a great example on how to use CGI to enhance your film without overpowering it.

Let it be known that Chris Columbus is not a great director. At his best, his movies are mediocre diversions with an occasional magical moment. His worst attempts are sickeningly sweet and obnoxious. The annoying "Home Alone" flicks, the melodramatic "Stepmom," and the syrupy "Bicentennial Man" are all shining examples of his treacly oeuvre. But as I said earlier, he is very good at working with young actors which is probably what Warner Bros. saw in him when they handed over the reins of this potentially lucrative franchise.

The studio has surrounded Columbus with an impressive roster of A-list talent — from his cast to Screenwriter Kloves to Oscar-Winning Composer John Williams (most recently for "Schindler’s List") and fellow Oscar Winners Cinematographer John Seale and Production Designer Stuart Craig (both for "The English Patient"). This remarkable crew has helped Columbus make his most accomplished film to date.

There’s no denying that "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone" is a great looking movie. And judging from its record-breaking box office tally, there are plenty of people out that feel it’s a great movie period. I’m just not one of them. I am confident that "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone" does right by its fans, but if you’re not already one, then this movie may strike you as average entertainment at best.