Rating: 
Summary: Book or Movie?? hmmm...
Review: When I first heard that the movie was coming out, and as the premiere date came closer, I started to feel really curious to know about this so-called wizard boy, Harry something. Of course, by that time, why someone like me would have heard something about this 11 year old boy, or maybe about his friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger? I was sure getting away from something I couldn't skip, and that is the much-hyped media phenomenom Harry Potter.After being harrassed by my own sister and bored as hell in one rainy day, I finally decided to read the first pages of this book called "The Sorcerer's Stone", the first of four books available at the moment. I was caught by the magic of the book and read it within two days. I couldn't stop looking at it! it was like an obsession, thiking 24/7 about what would that package at Gringotts have inside and things like that. It was then when I started to follow the new trend, the Harry Potter one. It was finally time to go and watch the movie at the theater. After a superlong line, I got the enter the theater and I could watch the most faithful adaptation of the book to the screen that could have been done. The movie itself is a really well-done picture, where all the characters look exactly as you pictured them when you read the book and re-created the scenes in your mind...you could have swore someone read your mind and put what you thought on film!! Although the movie has countless magnificent special effects, and some breath-taking scenes such as the impopular Quidditch match, I definetely prefer the book, which in my opinion is 10x better then the movie. But at the end it's not so bad, that's why it will get 4 stars ... If you haven't seen this movie yet, it's something I recommend!!! I'll be definetely getting the DVD version of it, not because of me but because of the whole family!
Rating: 
Summary: Could of been better
Review: I really was expecting more after loving the book so much. They left out several scenes, including the troll that Quirell put in for gaurding the sorcerer's stone and the potions scene, which I was really looking foreward to seeing because it's hermione's (emma watson's) way to help to the stone. The Quidditch was excellent, though. I rated this three stars because there were some good scenes (such as the Quidditch, the forbidden forest, and...erm...the...view of the castle?) but there were numerous bad scenes (like the sorting hat scene, i really think the person who wrote the script should go back to preschool and learn his/her ABC's again, and the sorting hat didn't even sing, plus there's the little fact that they excluded the potions scene, peeves, and several other pretty important scenes) but the acting was very good. i think that you should only see this if you a) really love the harry potter books (like me) and simply HAVE to see it or you'll explode, or b) haven't read the books, so CAN'T see the faults in the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Who says Harry Potter's not a good movie?
Review: Well i didn't see the dvd but i saw it on the big screen.
Who says Harry Potter's not a good movie? Who cares if they took out a lot of stuff? Would you want to sit there watching the movie for 10 hours? No. I didn't think so.
Rating:
Summary: BEST MOVIE EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: I used to HATE Harry Potter and think it was for little kids. The day the movie came out my best friend dragged me to the movies. I LOVED IT! It was the best movie I have ever seen! I saw it 4 times after that and read the books! I DEFINITLY reccomend it so people of all ages, no matter what type of movies you like. SEE IT!!! It's the best!
Rating:
Summary: Good movie, but not quite as good as the book
Review: Harry Potter has spent his entire life with his relatives, the Dursleys, who try to make Harry feel as miserable as possible. But things change on his 11th birthday, when he finds out that he is actually a wizard, and is invited to go to Hogwarts, an enormous castle that is a school for wizards. At Hogwarts, Harry is surprised to know that he is a legend, and that everybody knows who his is. It turns out that Harry was able to [pull] out all of the powers of the evil Lord Voldemort when he tried to kill him after killing his parents, who were also wizards, when he was just a baby.
In Hogwarts, Harry makes friends in Ron and Hermione, and goes on in adventures around the castle with them, often getting into trouble in the mean time. Harry makes it on the Quidditch team, and becomes a Quidditch legend in no time. (Quidditch is a game that wizards play on their broomstick.)
Eventually, after all the fun, Harry and his friends encounter a deadly secret, which they will have to deal before its too late.
The movie is really good, the cast really know how to bring the Harry Potter story to life. The one downside I found to the movie is that it doesn't include everything from the book, which sort of makes sense, because if the movie went exactly the way the book did, the movie would last all day.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone is a good movie for people of all ages. All this talk going on about the movie being satanist is out of control. Any mature person over the age of 10 would know better than to base their beliefs on a fictional story.
Rating:
Summary: The most faithful book-to-screen adaptation I've ever seen.
Review: Most adaptations of books to the movies or television depart from their source material; sometimes it's a matter of a few liberties, but in many cases it's more a matter of systematic abuse and torture, often leaving the viewer wondering what the heck the point was of using the title if you weren't intending on filming the story CONNECTED with that title. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, however, hews very close indeed to the book from which it's derived; not surprising, since J.K. Rowling was given an unprecedented amount of control over the entire project. The major changes are cuts and compressions, something which is inevitable; even a relatively short book contains more material than can be put onscreen even in a long movie. Unfortunately, this does slightly damage the story. The original novel is a rather interesting fusion of three subgenres: the English Boarding-School adventure, the "child with mysterious background/powers" story[related to the Cinderella trope], and a classic mystery novel. The movie severely damages the mystery-novel aspect of the story, eliminating or downplaying important clues and rushing us along in the final solution. Reading the book permitted a clever reader to figure out what was going on before it was all revealed at the end of the book -- it was a "fair" mystery, one that did give you the chance to solve the problem without hiding crucial information. The movie, unfortunately, does leave out or severely understate some important clues. It also severely compresses several sequences, most notably Harry's time with his "evil step-family" the Dursleys. However, the rest of the book is kept virtually intact, with much of the dialogue taken verbatim and the scenes precisely as described. The casting ranges from "good" to "inspired"; I can't think of a single bad casting choice, and all the acting (which in a production with this many child actors is a major concern) is at worst workmanlike and at best is excellent. Alan Rickman as Snape and Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid put in stellar performances, making the book characters spring to life perfectly. The edits -- especially the compression mentioned earlier and removal of the fiendish logic puzzle that protected the way to the Sorcerer's Stone -- do, in the end, rob this movie of its potential for perfection, but it remains an excellent, fun, and wonder-filled diversion, perfect for any age.
Rating:
Summary: standards
Review: I am a sixteen year old girl and in my opinion, the movie was good but it was not fully true to the book. I went to see the movie two days after it appeared in the theater with some fellow fans and we saw everything that was not there and that was changed. We noticed that there were some characters that were missing from the movie. also, neville longbottom was supposed to be in detention with Harry potter, fang, Hagrid, hermione and malFoy.
For the most part, the movie held true to the book but for the minor mistakes, I think j.K Rowling could have done something to help. after all, she is very talented and I admire her for what she writes and the fact that she struggled before she became famous. Keep writing Rowling and if possible, will there be another book after all seven just to explain what harry does after his years at hogwarts? I hope so because I enjoy her writing.
Rating:
Summary: HARRY POTTER.....AMAZING
Review: this movie is so cool! If you haven't seen this movie or read the books you should. It is based on the first of the Harry Potter books about a young boy born to wizard parents who were killed when Harry was just a baby and is forced to live with his evil cousins. Then he gets invited to Hogwarts where he faces many challenges and dangers as the evil Lord Voldemort attempts to kill him several times. Harry is willing to risk his life to have fun with his friends and be a normal kid. The acting is this movie is amazing. Daniel Radcliffe sure did an awesome job playing Harry. The movie is over 2 hours and 30 minutes, but easily could have been over 10 hours long if everything in the book was included.. Go out and buy this movie if you are a Harry Potter fan!
Rating:
Summary: The best movie in the world!!!!!!!!!
Review: The Harry Potter movie is the best movie in the world!! Daniel Radcliffe did an excellent job as Harry Potter. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson were wonderful at portraying their characters. Grint and Watson should get the same amount of credit as Daniel Radcliffe. Chris Columbus did a brilliant job directing the film. David Heyman did a spectacular job as the producer. And the rest of the cast did an amazing job playing their characters. The special effects were done wonderfully and were very life-like. The movie is a must own movie. I have never seen any movie like it! The movie stayed true to the book by J. K. Rowling. Only few things were changed and cut out. If you haven't seen the movie yet, I say to go see it. It will be worth it. Trust me!
Rating:
Summary: Lord of The Rings was better (sorry Columbus)
Review: Well, over two huge movies that I have viewed over the late-fall-early winter time, which were this and Lord of the Rings, I would have to say Lord of the Rings was better: More action and thrills than this movie (and the time they spend in classes are so boring in HP.) So, even though this movie was better than The Road to El Dorado (I warn you) I think that you should not go see it even if you are handling extreme urgency.
... But back to the subject of Harry Potter. This movie is one I recommend skipping. I was waiting for the end in the boring parts, and the end wasn't even that satisfactory! A great scene, though, with ample amounts of detail, was the Quidditch match. Otherwise...
|
