Rating: 
Summary: Boring
Review: I really enjoyed Harry Potter, but I thought this movie was going to be great. It was, but soon when I saw Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, this movie was almost about to get boring. It would have been great than the second. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is better. This movie, I think is for 4 year olds. It's not the best Harry Potter film in my opinion.
Rating: 
Summary: A Great Film!
Review: I remember when the Harry Potter craze first broke out. I couldn't understand why everyone was going so wild over the books. It wasn't until I watched "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" that I became a Harry Potter fan. After watching this fun and whimsical movie, I immediately went out and bought the books. I fell in love with the books just as much as I loved the movie! It made me realize that you don't have to be a child to love this series.I loved everything about this movie, especially the casting. I don't think the characters could have been cast any better. Even though the movie is close to three hours long, it doesn't feel like it because you truly get caught up in the story and the characters. Anyone who wants to watch a film full of fantasy and fun, watch this movie! You will not be disappointed!!!!
Rating:
Summary: You Can Never Get Enough Magic
Review: In the last analysis, there is only one real plot: the clash between good and evil. Harry Potter and his friends bring this fact home to us, and remind us that everyone, of every age, is caught up in the conflict.
For this reviewer, it took the film "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" to make a connection with the Potter phenomenon. I had read the book; and while I was impressed by author J.K. Rowling's achievement in getting children to read I was only mildly impressed by the work itself. Then one day I was able to pop the movie into a vcr and magic happened. And you can never get enough magic.
(By the way, on a radio program not long ago I heard a film director describe the Harry Potter films as totally lacking in magic. People certainly are entitled to their opinions; but in this case I believe some sour grapes might well have been involved. After all, the man didn't get to direct either of the Potter films that have been issued to date.)
I call numerous things about "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" magical. Not least is Daniel Radcliffe's perfornance as Harry. He is a very charismatic young actor, and it is hard to take your eyes off him. He combines an appealing sweetness with the toughness necessary to survive for a time when the Forces of Evil have a deep personal grudge against you.
I would be very happy to recommend this film to anyone. Especially to children who can learn a great deal about the world through this well-crafted and entertaining story.
Rating: 
Summary: A Great Movie to Watch
Review: I am not a fan of the Harry Potter books but this movie was entertaining. I watched it on cable one day and found myself sitting down to watch it instead of flipping the channels. This movie will take your mind off of other things. It did mine.
Rating:
Summary: Philosopher's Stone is a Winner
Review: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the best thing to hit children's literature and film for many years. It has everything it needs to be a long-lasting icon of the film industry. And yes, I say the Philosopher's Stone, not that other horrible name, because that is the true name of the book and movie. The alternate name was plastered onto the American edition because... well, I won't go into details of those rumours.
Suffice to say, this movie was brilliantly done. Kudoes to Chris Columbus for a magnificent job. It seems he was criticised from a number of different angles (unfairly, in my opinion) for either sticking too closely to the book, or for not including various scenes.
One, he couldn't have included everything. It would have been a logistical impossibility. Two, had he strayed from the story given in the book, it would have lost a lot of its magic. Pun not intended.
I was a little disappointed at some things being missed. In particular, Hermione's momentary panic when Harry and Ron are caught in the Devil's Snare, and the alterations to the entire 'Norbert the Norwegian Ridgeback' saga. But all in all, I think it was a great effort that resulted in the sort of enjoyable movie that you can watch again and again.
The stars are all brilliant. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are all perfect in their roles. Emma Watson in particular - she has Hermione's mannerisms down pat.
As for the adults, they too were all wonderful. Especially, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman. And a special mention for Tom Felton - he has really made Draco Malfoy into someone that we can love to hate.
The Philosopher's Stone is marvellous enough in its own right without people deriding is as a Lord of the Rings copy (which it isn't), or saying that it is too 'airy-fairy'. And, what is with the accusation by a latter viewer that it (book & movie) is a blatant copy of Star Wars?
Okay, there are people who don't like Harry Potter. That's acceptable. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But to start making ludicrous claims is just off the planet. Harry Potter is not a copy of Star Wars, and the Quidditch match is not a copy the Episode 1 Pod Race. Try reading the book again, and then having a look at the copyright date in the front of the book. Then check out the production date for Phantom Menace. Then, grow up and get a life! Sheesh....
This is a great movie. It is about friendship and courage, and just happens to be set in the fantastic world of wizards and witches. If you really think this movie is brain-dead, try watching half an hour of Teletubbies, or that insipid...'Blues Clues'. (Anyone who freely uses the phrase 'handy dandy' seriously needs psychiatric help, quickly)
At least the stars in Harry Potter can act. Daniel Radcliffe is no Macaulay Culkin (thank God), and he leaves other child actors (ie, Haley Joel Osment) in his dust. Okay, now I'm ranting. But 'The Philosopher's Stone' has far more redeeming features than negative ones, and I find it sad that there are people who - as a wonderful Australian critic stated - feel that they are entitled to trash a movie just because they don't personally like it. You may not like something, but that doesn't always mean it's bad.
And for anyone who derides it as being 'just ordinary', I really feel sorry for you.
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Movie, But Something Was Missing...
Review: I LOVE the Harry Potter series, there is almost NO book(s) like it. I have already pre-ordered #5, and am crazy about the series. When I heard that a Harry Potter movie was being made, I was, in a funny yet true word, HYSTERICAL! I was so excited (I was 13 at the time). Well, a year later, I went and saw the movie, and while it was a good movie no doubt, parts of it were just...stretched? Heres what I thought of HP and the Sorcerer's Stone. 1) Plot: This movie follows (DUH!) the record selling book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling. This movie, as promised, is FAITHFUL to the book. And if thats all you were looking for, seeing the book for the most part brought to life page by page in a movie, then this movie was PERFECT for you! I even enjoyed the movie because it was so faithful. But while nearly every scene, literally, in the book made its way on to this film, a lot of it had NO insperation whatsoever. For example, when they were in a lot of the classes, it showed maybe 30 seconds. A charm being completed, a potion being made. Why not have a bit of the class actually shown, like Proffeser McGonagall reading text from her book, or perhaps even all of the STUDYING for the exams, or being assigned homework and projects. They literally skip from scene to scene to scene, and while I did enjoy going "Oh yea, I remember when Snape said that" or a few seconds later "that was one of my favorite parts of the book", it gets dull after while, and NO scene really seems to grab you. In Lord of the Rings, they stayed in one spot or situation for at least 5-10 minutes (one reason it was such a GREAT movie), but in this, thats counsidered a LONG scene, and you never really get in to it. Another problem I had was a lot of things I thought were important still WERE missing. For example, the EXAMS in my mind were a HUGE part of the year, cut out. The Elders Mirror or whatever, they spent 15 minutes on. I think that could have been trimmed down to perhaps 5-7 minutes. Quidditch games? Only one game shown, about 5 minutes. Daily classes? They only go to each class once for the most part, and they don't even go to every class. They tried to cram so much into this movie, it became almost too little EVERYWHERE! They cut out the visits to Hagrid except for 1 or 2. And you really don't get to know the characters. Everything seems to happen AROUND Harry, never to him. He almost NEVER gets hurt, he never gets in fights with Malfoy (ANOTHER big part). Except for Harry, Ron, and Hermione, almost no one did more than a few minutes of acting. But for everything they did put into this movie, and I know I sound criticle, they DID do an excellent job and created in many's hearts, a classic to the book. What they DID do well was the last 30 minutes or so, the tasks, Voldemort showing up, the Forbidden Forest, etc... These last few scenes set the drama, and for a movie aimed at kids, this one was GREAT. But for the teenagers and adults, this film lacked some things. Still a good movie and worthy of your owning (I DID buy it on DVD), Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was done very well, and I would reccomend it! 2) Graphics: Very well done. Everything in Hogwarts is put together FANTASTICLY! The castle, classes, robes, wands, spells, Quidditch matches (EXCELLENT), the unicorns, etc... The one part I think they didn't do well on was when Harry grabbed the bad teacher (can't say who...not a spoiler) and his head feel apart. Could have been done a LOT better, but I guess they had the kids in mind. Everything looks convincing, and while it's no Lord of the Rings, it was done EXTREMELY well, 4 stars! 3) Acting: This is where the movie struggled if it did. Harry Potter (played by Daniel Radcliffe) did a very good job for the most part, but in certain areas, ex. when Ron was nearly killed, Harry (without even looking at him) asks offhanded "You okay?" "Yea!" gasps Ron. Harry never even looks at him! Little things like this popped up every 15 minutes or so, but as these are young actors and should without a doubt get better, they did a pretty good performance. As for the teachers and Hagrid, etc..., acting was done EXTREMELY well. Within a few years, I'm sure this cast of Hogwarts will improve dramaticly, and while it may not sound like it, the acting was well done. 4) Overall: This was a good movie. The acting was good at most parts, the graphics were above par. The plot, while sometimes un-inspired or strechted, follows a book that won countless awards. Everything here is wrapped up into a pretty good package. There are little things here and there that I didn't like, and I think this could have been trimmed (ex. The Mirror) to about 2 hours, or added more important events. But overall, this is a good movie, and in my book, worthy of a purchase. While this isn't going to ever win an Oscar, its loyal to the book, is a great movie for kids and a good movie for adults, and even though parts were kind of choppy, this is a great movie, and being the first of an epic adventure, I expect this is just the beggining of the great moments of Cinema still to come in the series. 3.5 Stars / 10 Thx!
Rating:
Summary: A Response to the review entitled "The Trouble with Harry"
Review: I wonder if the author of "The Trouble with HARRY", an Amazon review of this movie, was talking of the movie or the books, or both. He/She says "classic is not a word" to be used when discussing or reviewing the Potter series of books or movies. I must respectuflly disagree. While C.S. Lewis' novels of Narnia are widely purchased and presumptively read, they are a bit too moralistic for my taste. Lewis has a well-grounded Christian basis, but I prefer my moralizing more from the pulpit than from supposedly secular fiction. As to Frank L. Baum's books on Oz. . .the first three or four were realitively imaginative and entertaining. After that, it was clear Baum, like his contemporary Edgar Rice Burroughs of "Tarzan" fame, was milking the series for every dime it could produce! Rowling, on the other hand, has reconstructed a macro-cosmology, seated fully in her own unique imagination, and populated same with characters and events to serve her own literary aims. All I mean is that Ms. Rowling is telling her own story in her own way. She has no theological, philosophical, or even teleogical axe to grind that I can discover The movie version does the book proud! It essentially sticks to the book's plot, events, and sequence without losing the sense of innocence of childhood poised on the threshhold of adolescence while being faced with problems and situations of adult proportions. Harry must make choices, and Ms. Rowling does not allow her creation to get away with making wrong choices without the accompanying consequences and results of such choices. Harry must study hard, work hard, choose correctly, and be true to himself and his friends, and his beliefs. Such sad, tramautic events, to be sure. . .but at least Harry ACTS. . .unlike Dorothy in Oz who simpers and whimpers her disire to go home.Harry has friends, yes. But Dorothy has a deus-ex-machina to rescue her. Harry has to think and act for himself. I love Dorothy and Toto. I don't care much for Lewis . But I ADMIRE Harry, Ron, and Hemione. That trio has to get it right. Dorothy has Glinda and the Scarecrow, Lion, and Tinman to help when Dorothy is hopelessly confused and lost. Harry and company have to get it on their own. . . .Well, there it is. The basic conflict. Get it on your own, or wait for the miracle. . .Miracles do happen, I admit, but sometimes we must make our own. And that's what Harry Potter does, that Dorothy in Oz, and NEVER happens in Narnia. I thnk "classic" means these books will be read over. And again. And again. And again. My humble opinion.
Rating:
Summary: Great adaptation from the book
Review: For those who doesn't know (a think there will be very few people) Harry potter tells the story about a boy ,who lives with his uncles and at his 11 birthday, is told that he will become a great wizard just as his parents were. From that point and on, the adventure begins.... We are witness of the magical enviroment harry is living. As he said, he's home. And that home involves 3 head dogs, owls who deliver the post, moving newspaper pictures, a football-kindof game on brooms, and on and on... It contains all the elments from the book! Even most of the dialogs are loyal to the book. This may not be the best movie ever, but for those who enjoys a great movie with a lot of innocence and adventure, without any war , disasters, or any other sad event, this is a must buy. One fact that i find very interesting is that the harry potter book series had brought back the reading habit for a lot of people , especially the youngs. In a world where Playstation and nintendo rules, it's grateful to know that a story so simple and entertain could steal some fans from the tv screen's. That could fight any bad review from any critic.... besides, is a great DVD: the movie has excelent john williams' music, great performances from british actors who portrays the teachers, a lot of features, deleted scenes, a tour to howarts school, etc. One thing is for sure, you won't regret buy this one. Follow the saga and you'll know is worth it.
Rating:
Summary: Just the book
Review: This movie is good, but I see no differtence in storyline over the book. There is some humor, but the special effects are cheap, and the result is a very overlong cash cow. Thank you for taking the time to read my review and feel free to leave me a helpul/not helpful feedback. God Bless America!
Rating:
Summary: A near exact film adaption of an O.K. book
Review: Any comparisions to "Chronicles of Narnia" or "Wizard of Oz" are simply erronious and insulting, .... These series are well written and read classics. The word 'classic' does not come to mind when viewing or reading "Harry Potter". It's an alright book, but not phenomena like "C.O.N" or "W.O.O.". Someone pointed out that this drivel will be read again and again, and that makes it classic. Go to it, but good writing will always be the preference of those with taste. Certainly, "C.O.N." Chronicles' is moralistic, but more, it's well written, and will be read over and over again (entering a 3rd time, as many will attest). So too, will 'The Earthsea Trilogy' by LeGuin, and L.O.R. be read over and over again. However, this should not be a test of a 'Classic' novel; for most people (accurately) consider "Moby Dick" and "War And Peace" classics, but few will ever read them more than once. Who cares if the miraculous happens over and over? I don't see how it is missing in C.O.N., but then, talking animals and a interdimensional portals to lands full of mythic and magical creatures happens every day in my house. The miraculous occurs often in a lot of namable dime-store novels and children's books that are long since forgotten by most, (the 'Mushroom Planet' series comes immediately to mind). People read 'Nancy Drew' over and over again, good stories, but not classics. This goes beyond the point of the DVD, but people in search of good fantasy fiction should not be lead to believe this is on the level of these other stories. So, this review addresses the story, which is in both the book and film.
Essentially, in this installment, Harry Potter discovers after growing up a group of "muggles" (non-magical people, usually displayed as boring and bigoted people by boring and bigoted witches and wizards, the "moralization" being here that magical people are better somehow, or at least think they are) that he is accepted to a Wizard's School, (a topic given far better treatment in Ursula K. LeGuin's "Earthsea Trilogy"), and begins his fabulous journey. He arrives at wizard school, and becomes something of a celebrity who quickly rises to the top. He discovers a transparent conspiracy (one that any of the adult magicians should have been able to see) and sets off to solve the mystery.
This movie, like the book that's based on, is fairly boring and superfluous. The tasks Harry has to go through to defeat the villian are not very difficult, and thus not very interesting. It is ludicrous that this series of books and movies are controversial, where it doesn't have anything of true value concerning magic, wizards or witches. Nor does it have interesting lessons, analogies or allusions.
The special effects are fairly clunky CGI work, (watch the centaur scene for jilting movements). The sets and the look of the film are both fantastic, and the 'quiditch' scene is fun to watch, though you never get the sense that Potter is ever in any real danger. The extras on the DVD are silly, and don't warrant a second disc. Though extra scenes are always nice to see.
Though a children's film, there is nothing here to make a comparison to any of the classic stories realistic. It compares better with Nancy Drew or Encyclopedia Brown than some of those that have been loosely thrown about (perchance by people that have not read the series they insult by comparing it to Harry Potter). I actually enjoyed reading Harry Potter's first book though I'm not a child, but there was really nothing warranting the high praise it has gotten aside from good marketing. It just reminds me that there are better children's stories out there, such as the now defunct "Mushroom Planet" series. This movie is an enjoyable watch, but don't expect "Lord of the Rings" quality of storytelling.
|
