Rating: 
Summary: Not bad but not great
Review: While this movie was a fairly faithful rendering of the Harry Potter book, it wasn't nearly as magical as I had hoped. The three young lead actors were competent, but certainly not compelling. Perhaps the most disappointing performance was Alan Rickman who I had pictured as being perfect for the part of the evil Professor Snape. Rickman seemed uncharacteristically expressionless, and his heavy makeup was very distracting.The quidditch scene was entertaining to watch, but not integral to the plot and could easily have been left out (though I'm sure a lot of loyal Harry followers would have called foul). The movie was about 30 minutes too long (lots of squirming and coughing by the end), and according to my 6-year-old it was 'too scary'. She spent a good portion of the film hiding her face, and this is a little girl who LOVED 'Tomb Raider'! All in all, not horrible, but not great.
Rating: 
Summary: WORST MOVIE EVER
Review: Alright, so I read all of the Harry Potter books, and waited years for this movie toc ome out. I preodered tickets and was very excited over it. What a flop. The movie has horrible acting except for Professor Snape, goes way overboard with the effects, and seems to avoid the use of a plot in it. What happened?? The first book came out in 1997. You would think that four years was enough to develop a decent movie. Let's hope the second film is better. If I was Rowling, I would of cried over how Columbus ruined my vision.
Rating: 
Summary: The best film in this century!
Review: After I had read Harry Potter I want to back in the past when I was young. I want to be a student in Hogwarts.I want to have a magic.Harry Potter is the best story and best film in this century.
Love Harry Potter,
Anchalee
Rating:
Summary: The Best Movie I Ever Saw!
Review: I like the movie a lot.It was sooooo exciting.There were a lot of special effects.I loved to see all the excitment.I was astounded at the end of the movie.In the movie people were trying to save other peoples' lives.THE MOVIE WAS OUTRAGIOUS.
Rating:
Summary: Oscar Magic Brewing?
Review: It's finally here! We have been waiting for this picture for years. Pottermania has made it to the big screen. The book is better, as is normally the case; however, Chris Columbus has captured some of Rowling's magic and transported it from the minds of readers to the eyes of the Muggle population. The cast is outstanding with Daniel Radcliffe playing the young Harry Potter. Rupert Grint is Ron Weasley and Emma Watson portrays Hermione Granger, his young Hogwart companions. The adult actors fared pretty well themselves. Throw in great stars like Richard Harris (Albus Dumbledore) and Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall) and add to these great supporting performances from Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) and Alan Rickman (Professor Snape) and you have brewing some serious Oscar magic. The movie follows the main storyline as Harry is delivered by owl to the home of his Muggle Aunt and Uncle Dursley, who become his guardians as a result of the deaths of his parents. The Dursleys neglect and abuse Harry and pamper their own son, Dudley, making Harry wish he were someplace else. The story suddenly turns dramatically when Harry is invited to Hogwarts, the school of wizardry. It is through the friendship of Hagrid and at Hogwarts that Harry discovers his true identity as a wizard. The rest of the movie is the adventure of a lifetime with Harry, Ron, and Hermione clashing with the Dark Arts, led by Voldemort. The visual effects are phenomenal, bringing the story to life; creatures such as Fluffy, the three-headed dog, the giant ogre that is loose in the school, the goblins at Gringott's Bank, the lifesize chess pieces, and the Quidditch match to name a few. Young viewers might be a little frightened at some of the scenes in the movie, but this picture is merely a harmless romp into the mind of JK Rowling. Pottermania will be around a while with a fifth book expected in 2002 and movie sequels to follow. Do not let your child miss out on the magic of Harry Potter. With all of these ingredients thrown into the boiling pot, one can expect a perfect potion in time for the Academy.
Rating:
Summary: great moive
Review: this movie was great i loved it i thought the special effects were great. you got a great actor's and actress. it was like nyou read people's mind, that's how good the movie was. i have seen it twice alrightie. can't wait for the next movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but too Americanized
Review: While right to make sure the cast was British, by hiring Chris Columbus, I felt a deep stirring in my stomach that they'd made a big mistake. First off, the acting was good, but could've been better. Daniel Radcliffe was very good in 'Young David Copperfield' and I expected him to carry that on. And he did...for the most part. Chris Columbus never allowed Harry to develop into the wizard we all know and love- a loyal, intelligent, emotionally screwed up, mischievious, witty kid--and turned him into a loyal friend, not too bright, and left Daniel with little more to do but wait for the camera to cut to him so he can either frown, smile, or look worried. Rupert Grint, fresh from school plays (or so they say) delivered excellent work, with well timed 'wickeds' and a humble but funny kid that enchanted me through all four books. He was, in short, 'bloody brilliant' throughout the whole movie, especially the Wizard Chess scene, a very dramatic part. Unfortunately, it is never conveyed exactly how poor the Weasley family is, which is a very important point, and sometimes Ron comes off as nothing more than a funny sidekick. Emma Watson was excellent as brainy Hermione, who is well known for her snide remarks that are usually bestowed upon Ron. But Chris Columbus put too much of that famous 'American sentimentality' with her 'it feels weird, you know, going home' thing at the end, and Harry's overtly cheesy reply, 'I'm not going home, not really' which left everyone in the audience stunned at how low that blow was. Malfoy never develops, Dumbledore is reduced to nothing more than a more human looking Yoda and McGonagall doesn't ever get to convey what a real 'witch' she is (no offense to Dame Maggie Smith, whose acting I love to no end). The plot was good, but good parts in the book were left out and there were some parts in the movie, that while good, could've been replaced. And I think all Harry Potter fans can agree that changing the Devil's Snare scene from a funny, high-tempered scene, to a kind of joking, short and not so witty scene was a disappointment. Some parts are boring, some parts are fun, but the movie only REALLY picks up at the end, and before that its just a lot of developing that doesn't develop well enough. The special effects were, unfortunately, not that special. I think they spent so much money on the wonderful sets that in the end, there was no spare money to make it look real. There are more than one Quidditch games in the book, and they are all condensed into one, and a very shoddy one at that. It'd fun, but not as fun as the book. All in all, it was a wonderful movie. I wasn't converted to witchcraft as so many churches have said I would be, and I have seen it twice, and of course plan to buy it on DVD when it comes out, but I hope that in the next movie, Harry becomes his lovable self, Ron becomes his witty, adorable self and Hermione stays just right.
Rating:
Summary: Like Watching the Book!
Review: I have seen many films over the years that have been adapted from books, and have completely destroyed the original storyline they were intended to represent. This, however has got to be the first time I have ever seen one that was absolutely just like watching the book on a wide screen! The adaptation was almost flawless, the special effects were fantastic, and the actors, with one exception, were just perfect for the parts. I had a very hard time picturing Draco Malfoy as a blonde. Dark hair - maybe even black - would have made a big difference. My advice is - if you enjoy fantasy films, run, don't walk, to the nearest theater and have a ball!
Rating:
Summary: A phenomenal book, a fine film.
Review: To call this movie a disappointment is too strong, but I also can't call it a success. Honestly, it didn't affect me much either way.
Problems- Film adapations of books often suffer from three-second-scene syndrome. In order to condense the action of the book faithfully, entire chapters must be reduced to brief moments onscreen. What makes Rowling's books so enchanting are the details that make her world so alive. Also, the mystery of each book is only a puzzle because of the many red herrings that make it impossible for us to know which of her clues are important. When Harry opens the Chocolate Frogs on the train and finds the card mentioning Flamel, we know it's important, because there are so few other details. Characters are condensed, as well, with mixed results. The Weasley twins, so much fun in the book, are reduced to popping in and out of the background, while Oliver Wood becomes quite a star (not that I'm complaining- what an accent!) While I enjoyed the Quidditch scenes and the time at the Dursley's, they could probably have been condensed so that Peeves could have made an appearance. And the ending, when Harry deliberately holds onto and destroys Voldemort- the biggest mistake of the film. In the book, Voldemort's attempt to choke Harry backfires and destroys his present body- he destroys himself using Harry. The movie makes Harry a killer.
Successes- To give the film due credit, it was extremely well done. The sets and scenery are fabulous. Daniel Radcliffe surpassed my most optimistic hopes as Harry. Emma Watson was exactly like Hermione, although Rupert Grint as Ron needed something more to do than grimace in close up over and over. Sean Biggerstaff as Oliver Wood is tied with Alan Rickman as the film's "best voice" scene stealer. If only we could have seen more Snape! I was disappointed in Dumbledore- he didn't have the sparkle of liveliness and mischief described in the book.
And this is the basic problem with the movie. The books crackle on the page with dry wit, slapstick, intelligence, and satirical fun, which is what sets them apart from the thousands of other children's books. This is why millions of readers of all ages have fallen in love with Harry. My chief concern is that children in this media age will watch the movie as a substitute for reading the book. This would be a loss for so many reasons. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is one of the best children's books ever written. Harry Potter the movie is nowhere near the best of children's film.
Rating: 
Summary: Out of focus!
Review: Whenever there is an effects shot, they are out of focus! I got a headache from squinting to try to see what the giant was doing in the long shots. And that's just the begining of the problems with this thing. All I could think while watching this was: If Harry is such a great wizard, why does Hermine do all the magic? WHY? The acrot playing Harry doesn't LOOK like Harry as he is in the book. This film made me sad.
|
