Rating: 
Summary: Harry Potter and the Socerer's Stone
Review: I watched the movie twice and found it a lot more interesting each time. The effects are wonderful. However, if one has not read the book, he might find it difficult to catch up and figure out what they were trying to express. This was what happended to me. I watched it once, then read the four books and found that the movie had helped me visualise the characters which seem to come alive in my mind while reading. Then I watched it the second time and find it a lot more interesting!
Rating: 
Summary: Muggles 4 Harry
Review: I am 33 and I have read all 4 of the HP books! I loved them so much that when I finsihed them I was having withdrawls (this was during the summer). My only consulation was that the movie would be out in another 3-4 months. Patiently, I waited. I was at the theater the day it opened and I was NOT disappointed. The movie was just a wonderful extention of the book. It was like they went inside my mind and mimicked what I had imagined while I read the book. Please, do yourself a favor and see this movie. I personally am going to see it for the third time this week!
Rating:
Summary: Where's the rest
Review: Great, the best, i enjoyed it so much i want to see it again! my brother who used to hate harry potter now (after seeing the film) loves it, of course he's only a kid so it probably would take a movie to get him to like it. But the only dissapointment was that they had to cut out so much of the book to make the movie shorter. for example there is one quidditch match and then it's never heard of again, what happened to the quidditch cup?
we can only hope they brng the directors cut to DVD, it's over 4 hours long.
Rating:
Summary: Bring to life your imagination
Review: WOW¡ This is the best movie Id ever seen in mu whole life, why?
because my imagination was brought to life you see Hogwarts the same way and all the casting brought to life, when the movie goes out ill be the first bying it. So I recomend the movie to you. Also the books.
Rating:
Summary: The Best
Review: IT IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD AND EVERYONE SHOULD THINK SO TO!!!
Rating: 
Summary: It should be fabulous...
Review: Before I get slated for giving this movie only 3 stars, let me explain myself...This film is a very faithful adaptation of an excellent book.
It brings the book alive and works as you would expect the book to be.
The actors are excellent and play the roles just as they should be. The problem is, the movie is a bit too perfect. It is so true to the book that for someone who has already read the book, it seems to offer not much new. I know that a lot of people disagree with this, but it's just how it left me feeling. The movie is so as you would expect it to be that it isn't interesting. You can't be interested in the new spins put on the characters, because there aren't any. It also loses some of the fine details of the book that made it so heartwarming, because it is trying to fit a book-length plot into a movie-length movie without changing it whatsoever. Therefore it becomes a mechanical relay of the plot in places. However, it did remind me of the genius of the book, and I'm also sure it would delight: a) Fanatical fans of the book.
b) Those who haven't read the book.
Rating:
Summary: A promising attempt
Review: Harry Potter opened in Australia yesterday, but didn?t manage to get a ticket until today. Anyway, the movie is pretty up to standard. Cannot say extremely good, but the director managed to keep most of the essence of the book. The special effects and the settings are very professionally done; despite you could still see and feel things are computer constructs. The story did try to include most of the important parts, however, may be due to the fact that it could be very long if everything was included, you could still noticed quite a number of difference between the novel and the movie. The good part is that Chris Columbus did not add anything out of his head but following the story strictly, so avoided the risk of ruining the story. One of the major characters ? the poltergeist in the Hogwarts School was not put in and some other parts were abridged to avoid losing the intensity that films needed, which is quite reasonable, but strict hardcore fans of the original book might feel a bit disappointed from time to time. After all, audience requirements for books and films are different, that kind of adaptations are understandable. Overall speaking, Harry Potter is a movie really worth paying money to watch it. For friends in Hong Kong, avoid going for the yucky Cantonese dub versions, for I am pretty sure those arrogant film makers in the industry could change it in a way that the movie would become a piece of junk. So do go for the original version, if both versions are available. If you intend to buy the DVD after watching it, of course don?t buy pirate stuff, but even for originals, I might suggest to wait for the director?s cut, for I do think the director would restore quite a number of scenes in the DVD Director?s Cut version (if available). This is because there are some scenes which are available in the trailers that were missing in the actual release.
Rating:
Summary: Superb if a bit stodgy
Review: The only thing keeping me from giving it a 5, is that it's undeniably slow at times and the acting of the three lead kids are listless, but improving. But I am forced (forced? ^__^) to give it a four because of the more-than-excellent acting from the likes of Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall) and Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy) At the beginning, Daniel Radcliffe is a bit uncertain, but he quickly warms to his role as the movie progresses. His eyes are quite the actor as I've noticed that 'they' act also during the movie. Rupert Grint is undeniably cute as Ron Weasley. He plays up the role of 'sidekick' well, if a bit campy at times. The brilliant of the three however, is Emma Watson, who procured the role of Hermione Granger. She pulls off the snobbery of brains and the arrogance of youth well. Richard Harris disappointed me horribly as Dumbledore. He's not focused on the role and Dumbledore is a weak prescence in the film. Hopefully, they'll change the role, or at least force him to shape up. Knowing that he was 'forced' into the role does little to raise my regard for him. Alan Rickman delivers THE best performance of the entire cast. If anyone remembers Robin Hood, he reminds us of the classic Sheriff Nottingham through his smooth gestures of Severus Snape, easily one of the most enigmatic and multi-faceted characters in the books/movie(s). His dry and dark tones are switched well, and his whispered words shivered my bones. Excellent. Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane pulled their characters off superbly. One could see McGongall in her every movement and Hagrid's line-display, "I shouldn't have said that" is executed at the right moments. Never too much or too little. Now, Tom Felton is the most experienced of all the child actors. This is shown by his good grasp of Draco Malfoy's arrogance, conceit, deceit, cowardice (at times), and subtlety. He manages to pull of the title role of 'villain' without making it into a completely campy role of villain. No 'breathing' here like in Star Wars. There are small supporting roles throughout of various characters in the HP universe. The ones that were executed the best was probably Sean Biggerstaff (Oliver Wood), Chris Rankin (Percy Weasley), Warwick Davis (Flitwick and Lead Goblin), and Zoe Wanamaker (Madam Hooch). The most surprising was Sean Biggerstaff, who delivers a performance that probably has the entire population of teen girls in hysterics because of his looks. (And me being barely past adulthood, I'm liking him too. But I saw him in "The Winter Guest" and he was excellent in that) Percy Weasley makes a surprisingly strong addition, especially since he's not looked on well in the books. Flitwick is perfect; he is almost exactly how I pictured him. Moreso, he displays the perfect amount of gravity and cheerfulness (Cheering charms anyone?) Hooch was Hooch. Quidditch-minded; but little scenes to display her acting ability. Julie Walters (Molly Weasley) is barely on for more than three minutes, but she'll have a stronger prescense in the next movie, so never fear. Ginny Weasley appeared for about 2 seconds so I can't judge yet. The main fault is that it follows the book TOO closely. There are no deviations or risks taken. Therefore, for those who have read the book, no surprises. For those who haven't, this will be TOO surprising. Confusing for non-Potter fans. Otherwise, a movie I would recommen. I'm not that harsh in picking. I've seen it 4 times now, I'm still planning to go.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was awesome! It was amazing, adventurous, and funny all rolled into one! But if you hope that it's going to be the exact same thing as the book, (then you are in for a surprise).
Rating:
Summary: the greatest show!(...)
Review: The show was totally awesome! I loved it! I thought Harry Potter was retarded & didnt want to read the books or anything! Ithought that it would be totally lame! but the show was sso cool!(...)once again it was the best show ever!(...)
| 
