Rating: 
Summary: Excellent special effects
Review: We took the kids to see the movie and they loved it. I was surprised by the special effects in it and even though it is a long movie the time goes by fast because of all of the action in it.:) It is a must see for those who like the harry potter books.:)
Rating:
Summary: Magical!
Review: I saw "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" on opening night. Now, for those of you who think you're too old to enjoy this movie or the books (which are amazing, let me tell you!), I would like to let you know that i am 16 and completely in love with them! So is my 20 year old friend! So trust me, Harry Potter is for all ages! Anyway, the movie was incredible! I think it stayed as close to the story line as it possibly could without becoming far too long (3 hours is almost long enough!), and Daniel, Emma and Rupert were an absolutely perfect cast for the Harry, Hermione and Ron! They were completely adorable and they all acted really well! I've seen the movie twice and am definitely planning on seeing it again! I hope Christopher Columbus continues to make these amazing books into more amazing movies! Under the condition, of course, that he uses the same cast! If you haven't seen the movie, you're missing out. And if you have seen it, see it again! Thanks to Ms. Rowling for creating a fantastic, magical world, and thanks to Chris Columbus and the rest of the movie crew for bringing that world to life!
Rating: 
Summary: "HARRY POTTER A VISUAL FEAST, BUT NOT A CLASSIC
Review: "Harry Potter" has great visual design, magical special effects, impressive casting (Maggie Smith is great in anything!) and lots of action and adventure. Chris Columbus (director of "Mrs. Doubtfire" and "Home Alone") has imbued this film with a literary faithfulness that is noteworthy. However, that is both a strength and a weakness. At times, I felt I was watching a book by numbers movie, as the audience routinely murmured and applauded at each character and scene as if to keep gleeful score with how much of the book ended up in the film.
The greatest movie fantasies have always relied on their source books for core material, but departed from them to a great extent so as to create a vision distinct to the movie world.
"The Wizard of Oz", "Mary Poppins", and "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" all bear little resemblance to the original books, yet one doesn't feel shorted when watching the films.
Perhaps if Terry Gilliam( director of "Time Bandits" and "Brazil") tackled the project, we would have had a real celluloid treat. As for now, we are left with an enjoyable movie and a marketing blitz, which will hardly be remembered 50 years from now.
Rating:
Summary: Fun and excitement for all
Review: Harry Potter and all the other characters in The Sorcerer's Stone come to life in this well-directed film. It is fun for every family member but particularly for those over eight.Enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter brings Magic to the Big Screen
Review: After hearing much praise about the books, I read them all in about a week and a half in March. I loved them, and being a future teacher, I found them wonderful for kids to read. My brother is 13 and doesn't read much. He has read them all twice, and he treated me to the movie opening day for my birthday. The movie was brilliant. Of course, the books are better because they can go more in depth as far as character development, descriptions, etc. I was also peeved that Peeves the Poltergiest was left out, but I hear he will be in the next one, so I am placated. The movie brought the characters and the world of Harry Potter to life, and it was a wonderful adventure. Daniel Radcliffe is the perfect Harry...it is kind of scary. This movie does not teach witchcraft. It is a wonderous journey through a fantasy world where children's minds are filled with a brilliantly fantastical world with Harry and his friends. It was amazingly done, and I am going to see it again tomorrow. For those who feel it "teaches" witchcraft need to take another look at classics such as The Wizard of Oz, The Sword in the Stone, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, etc. They all involve witches or wizards and spells and magic. It's fantasy, it's fun, it's all in the imagination!
Rating:
Summary: FANTASTIC FILM !!!
Review: This is the best! fantasy film OF THE YEAR. This film is the best way to reach and develop the great fantasy that was created for the book.
Harry and his friends are Great actors and very likable. Dont Miss !!!.....
Rating:
Summary: Have you seen this movie? If you haven't youv'e missed out!
Review: My name is Mischa, I am an average 13 year old girl. before I started reading I hated reading, until my mother a GENIUS, started me on Harry Potter. i'm not joking, but i have read all 4 books 7 times each and i have waited for the 5th for a while now. when i saw the movie it was great fun although i expected some of the humour that was in the book to be in the movie. despite the non humour, my friends and i went deliberately to the theatre
and went to watch it again. i have seen the moivie 4 times now and i finally spent all my holiday energy and started 4 files full of the movie- actors, scenes etc. and the other remaining 2 files on the book. i'm totally inlove with the character of Harry Potter. If your kidds hate reading start them on Harry Potter.
Rating:
Summary: This Movie Is One For The Ages!!!!
Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer'stone was a awesome movie as well as an excellent book! The kid actors Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), and Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) really brought the movie to life. I seriously doubt that the movie would have been that great if they hadn't picked such a great cast. I especially liked Daniel Radcliffe. He played his part extremely well and is exactly as I pictured Harry Potter to be. His great emotions really helped the audience get the feel for what Harry is really like. I hope that they keep the same three kids for all the other movies because they are such great actors and it wouldn't be the same with three different kids. I also hope that Chris Columbus can stay for the rest of the movies. He's doing a great job!
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.
|
