Rating: 
Summary: An Excellent Movie!
Review: For those of you who have read the book, but have not yet seen the movie, you'll be pleased to know that it does do the book justice. The casting was brilliant! I can't imagine anyone else in any one of the parts! There wasn't a slow spot, not a scene in which I found myself thinking that it wasn't as I had envisioned it when reading the book. Absolutely the only negative thing I could possibly say is that, at 2 1/2 hours, it was too short. A wonderful movie for any age!
Rating: 
Summary: Mildly disappointing, but very entertaining nonetheless
Review: Having read the Harry potter series I had high hopes for this film upon hearing the painstaking processes that the filmmakers and author went through to to make sure this was a faithful adaptation. In my opinion the half failed and half succeeded.
Sure the film has all the characters, all the big scenes and all the magic that fans of the books would expect. The casting was perfect, the score by John Williams is great and the FX are noteworthy. Is the heart still there? Not really.
From the opening frame the film moves at breakneck speed to get through all the major events that leads to the conclusion. It doesn't take time to marvel at the world created by J.K. Rowling, like The Phantom Menace before it.
My main complaint is that if you haven't read the book, you'll be lost in the quagmire of references that are never explained or delved into as in the novel. I can understand why the entire subplot of Norbert the Dragon was shortened considerably... run time. But why would they eliminate a simple line of dialogue that would've explained who sent Harry the Invisibility Cloak or why Professor Snape tried to save Harry on the Quiddich field?
Don't get me wrong, I like the film a lot. It just baffles me why Chris Columbus would edit out the little details that helped make the books so lush and intertwined. I just hope that in Chamber of Secrets they don't forget to leave out another major detail, like why Ginny read that diary that would eventually possess her.
It just can't be done.
Rating:
Summary: Pure Magic
Review: I purchased my tickit 4 hrs. before the 3:30 showing was to begin. After i got my tickit the film quickly sold out. So at 3:00 i went to the theater & there was already a line for the movie. They wouldnt let anyone into the theater if they were to see Harry Potter. ANd i must say that it was worth it. I'v read the book & this film isnt some big hollywood big budget film. Its was told like it came straight out of the book which it pretty much did. This film has everything in it. Action Comedy Drama Horror Suspense Sci Fi. It really doesnt matter who you are & wheter or not you know who Harry Potter is. There's so much in this film it feels like theirs a movie within a movie within another movie. No wonder it was nearly 2 & 1/2 hrs. but for some reason i wish it a bit longer. But next november 2002 the follow up will come to the big screen. And i will be there with my tickit in my hand
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter Cliffnotes
Review: First I have to say that I liked the movie and you don't have to have read the books to enjoy it, now the BUT................... the movie hits all the points in the book but the connecting parts are the most fun and they are missing. You don't get the textures that you get from the book, how really rotten the Dursley's are, how afraid the kids are of Filch and Mrs. Norris, how much Harry longs for his parents (spoiler). Dumbledore mentions it, it is so much sweeter in the book(and I don't mean sickeningly)All in all it's just a great reason for everyone to go grab a copy of the book and enjoy the connecting embrodery.They couldn't have gotten a better cast, the kids are right on. Maggie Smith could have been alittle sterner as McGonagall. Alan Rickman was perfect as Snape. For some reason Sean Biggerstaff as Oliver Wood stood out as being really good in a very small part. Rupert Grint gets all the great lines. It was worthit.
Rating:
Summary: Magical, but at what cost?
Review: When a book, especially a magical hit like Harry Potter, is transformed into a movie there is bound to be few kinks. Most of the time, the kinks lie in the script. What do you cut and what do you leave in? Most book to movie adaptations follow a simple rule. There is no way you can make the entire book into a screenplay, you would end up with a 8 hour film. So you cut plot points and lesser story lines and concentrate on the main theme. Now Harry Potter took the other route. They made the entire book into a movie and pared it down to two and a half hours. And the movie suffered. Instead of concentrating on main points (mythology, relationships, character development, etc.) and making them solid, they touched upon every little aspect only slightly. The result was a rushed movie with no pay off. They left scenes in that, had nothing to do with the story or plot and cut scenes that should build relationships and background so we care about the characters. I was crushed when I read that Ron had to sacrifice himself for the others, in the movie, with no emotional tie to Ron I thought "That's too bad." That's not the writing, but the direction. For example, they left a 5 minuet scene in about Norbert, Hargrid's Dragon. It had nothing to do with the over all story...it was so rushed it didn't even explain the strange obsession Hagrid has with Magical Creatures. The scene stayed in, but a 2nd and 3rd Quidditch match was cut. It appeared to this hopeful movie patron that the powers that be (Chris Columbus and crew) made an 8 hour movie. Then cut it down to make the fans of the book happy. But the result is a rushed story where we don't see the wonderful relationship of Ron, Harry and Hermione. A story where we don't see the relationship with Hagrid and the 3 students. A story where we learn in the last 20 minuets that "You Know Who" only fears Dumbledore (McGonagall , played wonderfully by Maggie Smith, explains it in one line and then moves on) A story where I was not afraid of the villain or what he could do. Everything that makes Harry Potter, Harry Potter was gone. I would have loved to have seen the fatherly admiration and duty Dumbledore has for Harry. I would love to have seen the previous visits to Hagrid's cottage. I would have loved to have seen Harry and Ron go through the stress of school. I would have loved to have seen the small sections in the book that made Harry Potter a magical reality where I as 22 year old still wish I had an owl, a wand and invitation to Hogwarts. Where was the character development that made the world fall in love Harry, Ron, Hermione and the others? Who were the ghosts? Who gave the cloak to Harry? Why was Dumbledore called out of town? Where was the mythology of wizards and witches? Where was the 2nd and 3rd Quidditch match? Did we know that Harry gave up the last match that would win his house the cup to find the Stone? What was the significance of the puzzles guarding the stone and who put them there? Where was Snape's loathing and personal grudge against Harry and his family? Was Ron poor (an aspect that made me love Ron even more)? Who were the teachers? What is the deal with Neville Longbottom? Where was the perfectly constructed web that J.K. Rowling created with mythology, wonder, intrigue and fantasy? I didn't even get the sense that Hogwarts was a school. All these wonderful elements of the book could have been in a 2 and half hour movie but they decided to leave a scene with Dragon and others. Those of you who read the book could answer these questions. They were my favorite parts because they dealt with the characters and relationships. I didn't care about the characters as much because there wasn't enough about them to care bout. Everyone from Snape to Quirrel to Draco even to the Dursley's. Now, it may be hard to believe but I did enjoy myself, because I was able to fill in the blanks in the movie with pages from the book. I enjoyed it as a movie, but it's hard not to think about what it could have been. The performances were brilliant. Daniel Radcliff was charming, sweet and carried all that weight that Harry should. Hermione Granger, whose role could very easily have been over the top, was a perfect mix of cockiness and longing to be part of the group. Robbie Coltrane was everything that Hagrid should be and more. I could go on and write about everyone but you get the idea, the casting and performances were perfect. Overall, it was rushed. No moment was complete. No idea was finished. When I read the first book, I fell in love with the world of Harry Potter. When I saw the movie, I enjoyed it, but missed the things that made fall in love the little boy who lived in the cupboard under the stairs in the first place.
Rating:
Summary: An actual movie review
Review: We were there on Nov. 16th when the movie opened in our area and were thrilled with the movie! My 8 yr. old son and I have read all the books (he's read them several times) and were delighted with the "transfiguration" of Ms. Rowling's novels into movie form. As for the actors, it is now difficult to imagine anyone else playing the roles, which is a high compliment to the cast. The scenery is gorgeous: the Hogwarts Express, the Gryffindor common room, the Great Hall, the Quidditch Field and Hagrid's hut are all just as I'd imagined them. Is it a perfect adaptation? Perhaps not, but I couldn't envision how to do it better. Is it for pre-schoolers? No. What do I think of some of the criticism of the movie? Well, as Hagrid would say, "Codswallop".
Rating:
Summary: Excellent portrayal, acting
Review: The first Harry Potter movie is by far the most anticipated film of the year, and it leaves viewers who have read the books deeply satisfied and those who haven't had the chance to read them even more curious.
While the movie leaves out a few characters that would benefit it as well as a few scenes that add personality to the story, the 2 1/2 hour movie is received in an excellent light.
The actors are perfectly cast. The movie's portrayal of Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger are all similar to my personal mental perception of the characters. The "best-cast" characters would have to be Severus Snape, Albus Dumbledore, and Minerva McGonagall, however.
The most delightful part of the entire film was undoubtably the Quidditch game. With 14 players on broomsticks, 4 flying balls, and a stadium like no other it is truly an amazing experience.
I highly recommend this movie to magical folk and muggles alike.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining Movie despite lacking a coherent plot.
Review: Without a doubt Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was a fine movie, and certainly better than what I expected. (A poor, cheesy, cash in on the phenomenon) Harry Potter the movie was certainly quite the popcorn movie, and is a fast movie despite being 2 1/2 hour movie. However it isn't easy to cram that much book into a movie, and the result is at some points shoddy. The plot isn't very coherent, as we don't see enough classroom time, not enough time is put towards developing the character of Draco Malfloy. (Though from the start he looked the sinister snob that he is with his slicked back hair) In fact its lack of detail in the final 20 minutes makes it seem very rushed.
Putting all that aside it was certainly good entertainment, and anyone who didn't read the movie will not be disappointed with the superb acting.
Overall a worthwhile movie to check out.
Rating:
Summary: A New Hope
Review: This is cinematic enchantment on a level not seen in years. It's as joyous and wonderful as "Almost Famous", but with a mythological sense of magic and wonderment that makes it seem spectacular. The entire film carries the spirit of one that will someday be the first chapter in a grand, beautiful epic- the same feeling one gets when watching "Star Wars- Episode IV: A New Hope", the magical epic of twenty-four years ago. It doesn't have the same power as that film, but it has all the promise and most of the fun. A classic for a new generation. All I can say is: Who needs "Episode II"? We have Harry Potter.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Review: I saw the new Harry Potter movie twice yesterday and the second time was even better than the first! The book really did come to life, and although they left out many parts in the book (for running time), the story was still told so that people who hadn't read the books could understand what was going on. (I of course have read all four.) Although some of the special effects looked like just that, it still looked realistic enough that I was captivated from beginning to end. I can't wait to see what they're going to do for the next one!
|
