Rating: 
Summary: The best movie I've ever seen!
Review: I've never seen any other movie like it. I especially like the part where Ron says, "Well, good thing we didn't panic." I have been reading Harry Potter books ever since fourth grade, and I've always wondered what the characters would look like in reality. Well, now I know; I got to see the movie on my birthday, which was three days after the movie came out. My best friend Michelle and I even started a club at our elementary school. We've both read the books countless times, and were absolutely ecstatic when we heard the movie was coming out so soon. I'm in seventh grade now, but I still love listening to the tape versions of the books. As a matter of fact, as I write this, I'm listening to the third Harry Potter book. The only fault I could find was that Peeves wasn't in the movie at all. I just hope they don't forget him in future movies. Otherwise, the movie was great.
Rating: 
Summary: It lacks...something
Review: I'm a Harry Potter fan and I really, really, really tried to like this movie, but I couldn't. Perhaps I would have liked it more if I hadn't read the books beforehand. For those who don't know the story, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is about an 11 year old orphan boy named Harry Potter whose parents die in a car crash (or so he's led to believe) and goes to live with his aunt, uncle and cousin when he's only a year old. Of course Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon treats Harry horribly in favor of their own spoiled and greedy child, Dudley. Harry seems resigned to live this terrible life until one day on his 11th birthday a mysterious letter from the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft andWizardry appears. Soon after Harry learns the truth about his past, that his parents were wizards and that they really died at the hands of the evil wizard Voldemort (mostly known among the wizard world as You-Know-Who). That he is famous in the wizarding world because he is the only one known to survive an attack from the evil Voldemort with only a lighting shaped scar on his forehead to show for it. Soon Harry is off to the magical world of witches and wizards, destined to learn to be a wizard at the famous Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.The movie actually followed the book pretty closely, which may or may not have been part of the problem. However, there were some parts that were cut that should have been left in mainly because it aided in the development of some of the characters. For the most part, the actors where cast well, Daniel Radcliffe did well as young Harry Potter, Rupert Grint was hilarious as Harry's best friend Ron Weasley, Emma Watson was excellent as bossy Hermione Granger, and Robbie Coltrane was every bit the Hagrid of the Harry Potter books. Other supporting actors were also excellently cast with Alan Rickman as the imposing Potions master Snape, Maggie Smith as the strict and stern Professor McGonagall, and Richard Harris as the wise school headmaster Professor Dumbledore. Strangely enough, the trio portraying the Dursleys, Harry's mean relatives, seemed oddly miscast. For example, in the book, Aunt Petunia was a blond and in the movie she was a brunette, which would be a minor point if the other characters weren't cast as well as they were. The most exciting and visually stunning part of the movie was during the fast paced Quidditch match, a wizarding game played on broomsticks. But all in all, the movie appeared be to rather slow, especially for children who haven't read the book or for those with fairly short attention spans. It also seemed to be missing...something...the something that makes reading the books so magical. It could be because the plot lines and character development in the Harry Potter books are too rich and well written to make an effective translation to the screen. The scenes that read as witty, quick paced and funny in the book appeared to fall flat and drag on the screen. I'm hard pressed to decide whether I'll buy the movie or just stick to the books.
Rating:
Summary: The Boy Who Lived
Review: "Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone" Was a great book but it leaves you with the thought of how these characters would look like in real-life. The movie takes you to that imagination! Looking at Quidditch as a true sport, seeing a three-headed dog growling, and seeing the face of evil! The movie made a great hit as the books. At first I thought that the movie wasn't going to survive but was I wrong! I loved that movie! That is why I gave the movie 5 stars!! A show of how much I love the boy who lived...lived in the imaginary(magical) world and in the real-world(muggle)!
Rating:
Summary: The best movie I ever saw
Review: This movie was fascinating.Only sometimes I had to close my eyes.
It was so good I want to see it a ton more times!!!!!My favorite
character is Harry Potter.The lightning bolt on his forehead is
cool.I read all the books.My favorite book out of all of them was
Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban.
Rating: 
Summary: Souless and Cold
Review: This film was pure, glitzy drivel. It clearly had no heart. How sad.
Rating:
Summary: Riley twins vote this as THE BEST MOVIE IN THE WORLD!!!
Review: This movie rox!! We have read all the books and the movie is just as good. We cannot wait until the other movies come out but as for this one:
1:) It special effects are cool
2:) It has extra things like when Dudley got stuck behind the glass at the zoo.
3:) It has MOST of the events in the books. If you want to see a good movie, watch Harry Potter!!
Rating:
Summary: Loved It
Review: I read the books for the first time just before the movie came out so everything was fresh in my head. I loved the movie, but not as much as I loved the book. Don't get me wrong, the movie was exceptional and wonderfully done, but there were some things left out of it. This is understandable. If they brought the book over exactly as it is written it would be too long.
The movie looked excactly how I pictured the book. Everything was a treat for the eyes. They casted incredibly well. I didn't see anything that was contradictory from my mental image. That is saying a lot for an adaption.
The movie is great fun to watch, but for the avid Harry Potter fan, I think the book is twice as fun.
Rating: 
Summary: Pretty good
Review: I'm a huge Harry Potter fan, I loved the books. And the first time I saw the movie, I was very impressed with it and I was ecstatic that they kept true to the book. But then I saw it a second time....
It's not that it's a bad movie, but, like someone else said, it DID feel rushed. They tried to hurry along scenes that should have been way more drawn out. I know it's a movie aimed at kids, but it could have been longer and people would not have minded if the movie had just gone at an even pace. But it was rushed and it skipped over important scenes and rushed on to the next one. And, although the kids were cute, their acting was not top-notch. I know, I know, I can't demand Oscar-winning acting from kids, but their expressions of fright were so fake and they just didn't act natural. Seriously, when you are scared, do you slowly back away with your eyebrows up and your mouth open and your eyes bugged out??? They were just trying too hard. Nevertheless, I gave the film 4 stars because it was very faithful to the book which I appreciated and it was a good movie.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter Comes to Life on the Screen
Review: I have been a Harry Potter fan for quite some time and have read all the books out so far, some more than once. I loved the first movie and even tho Harry seemed like a real character the movie gave him a 3D quality all his own. I think it helped to understand the story line better to have read the books. Now when I read the next book I will be able to see the characters in my mind's eye and live their adventures along with them.
Rating:
Summary: I liked the movie but
Review: I liked the movie, I really did but I think the only reason that I liked it so much when it first came out was because I got to see it before a lot of people. The movie is good and the acting is good among certain characters, mainly the adults, but what can you say because the kids were in their first movie. A lot of people said the movie was nothing like the book but it actually was totally like the book, which it should be! The only main differences were just the parts they had to leave out which makes sense because other wise the movie would have been anylonger. The movie is so much like the book that I couldn't read the book after I saw the movie because it was exactly like MOST of the scenes. Notice i did say most. The movie is a TON like the book but it's not totally exact with every detail but it's very close. People will argue but they'll get over it and if they don't they are just doing it for show as everyone does. Anyway the movie is good but if you've just read the book DON'T go see it. I hadn't read the book for over 2 yrs and I'm glad I hadn't because it left me wondering what happened. If you have just read the book I would really not reccomend seeing it just because you'll be bored, in my opinion. If you are going to see the 2nd movie but want to read the book, READ IT NOW because the movie is said to be out in Novemeber and you shouldn't be reading it any later than now because otherwise you'll remember it all and I think it's best that you don't so it leaves the movie interesting.
|
