Rating: 
Summary: Cool
Review: Well, it all starts when a young kid lives with his horrible aunt and uncle. He finds out he's a wizard and goes to Hogwarts: School Of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
Rating: 
Summary: Close adaptation, stunted direction
Review: Chris Columbus has got to be the worse successfull director in history. His camera is still, his shots boring, his pacing perplexing and his lighting banal. The problem with this movie is him, he is not making a movie, just filming a book. The problem is, you can't film a book you have to adapt it to a visual medium, this is not a visual man working here. Want to understand my POV, then read this book & Fellowship of the Ring, then go watch the two films. Both are faithful adaptations, but one is interesting, one boring. I can't wait for the third film and finally, a new director.The bright spot, the cast. The kids are great, Emma Watson as Hermione Granger is perfect, but if you notice, Daniel Radcliff, Harry, get's very little good dialogue, he's like a supporting player in his own film. As for the DVD. The deleted scenes should be in an extended version, not hidden behind some inane game you have to play to watch them on the second disk. ... How about a real, decent documentry next time? A real extra we don't have to waste precious minutes of our lives looking for.
Rating:
Summary: HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE
Review: I actually read the book before I saw the movie, something that's usually the other way around for me! And I can say it really follows the book pretty well. I love the books, they're pure magic. They stir up excitement in my inner child- something that really takes something special to do. And the film is wonderful-- It's exellently cast, just as I imagined the characters, and better! The cinematography is lush, the special effects are exciting, the script is fantastic and funny. And the sets are amazing. The young actors are really good- very believable and so cute. I really enjoyed their preformances, especially Daniel Radcliffe.
Emma Watson was great as the perfectionist (slightly know-it-all) Hermione, Tom Felton is really funny as Draco Malfoy, the snob(with greased back hair) who's attracted to the dark arts. And Rupert Grint as Ron is the best support, he's wonderful. :-) But all the children are great. I also enjoyed Alan Rickman (as the mysterious Snape) Maggie Smith (who always delivers a wonderful preformance!) Robbie Coltrane (who is marvelous & hilarious as Hagrid) and Ian Hart. I'm also glad the cast were British. Since the story takes place there, to hear the real accents, rather than bad fakes, was (maybe trivial) but a nice touch anyway. And I adore the story. The people who protest these books, are out of their skulls! Harry Potter is about how good triumphs over evil and how love is the most powerful magic. The story (and the movie) moves all emotions---
It'll make you laugh and it'll make you cry, both from sadness and happiness. I can't believe this movie only made a four star rating. Who'd actually vote for less? it's a fantastically made film. And this first one is and will always be my favorite. A film I can watch again and again. The soundtrack is also very beautiful and magical on it's own. Long live Harry Potter!
Rating:
Summary: A faithful, bedazzling adaptation of Rowling's novel
Review: It is really quite amazing that a major motion picture not only remained very faithful indeed to Rowling's original novel but actually succeeded very well in recreating the magical scenery and extraordinary environment of Hogwarts. The special effects in the movie are, on the whole, fantastic, a fact which becomes obvious upon Harry's first entrance into the Great Hall. Most amazing of all may be the spectacular presentation of the game of Quidditch. While almost all of Rowling's descriptions in the novel come leaping off the page, it is a little difficult to get a real picture of Quidditch in one's head; thanks to the movie, my days of struggling to really visualize the game as it is played are a thing of the past. There are a couple of occasions upon which the special effects look just a tad hokey, but the overall effect of the film is so magical that I'm not complaining. Indeed, I find it quite refreshing indeed to see a film follow the author's original words and scenes so faithfully; there were minor adjustments to the story along the way, and in a couple of cases the changes actually proved more effective than the original scene would have played on the big screen. The cast is excellent up and down the line. Daniel Radcliffe is Harry Potter as far as I'm concerned, but I was even more impressed by Rupert Grint as Ronald Weasley and Emma Watson (my favorite) as the incomparable Hermione Granger. Richard Harris' brilliant performance as Albus Dumbledore will be sorely missed in future films. I would be remiss to forget Robbie Coltrane's critical contribution as the one and only Hagrid, but by far the most effective job is done by Alan Rickman, whose performance as Professor Snape ranks among the most impressive acting jobs I've ever seen. Everybody knows the plot of the movie by now. The only weakness in this epic production comes in the form of snippets and scenes from Rowling's novel that were not included - this is understandable, as the movie runs a good two and a half hours as it is. The ending seems to come up just a little short, yet it is quite enjoyable as it is. A few plot points that reveal more about some of the key characters can only be found in the book, but the fact that they are most important in terms of what they betoken for future novels and movies makes them a little less than crucial for this first Harry Potter motion picture. Overall, as a full-grown adult clinging to what few fancies of youth he has left, I have to say I loved every minute of this movie. Its commitment to Rowling's vision is to be commended, and there can be no doubt that there are bigger and better adventures yet to come in both book and movie form. The DVD features are, at least to a certain point, rather fun to mess around with, but they probably appeal more to young people than adults. I for one began to grow a little bored after touring Hogwarts, but the fact is that anything on top of the movie itself is just a bonus. I've watched Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone several times now, and I have enjoyed it greatly each and every time.
Rating: 
Summary: Enjoyable
Review: I enjoyed watching this first feature film of the Harry Potter Books, but I believe until the next movie the actors and actress's were more accustomed to the character they were portraying. Otherwise I enjoyed it throughly and I can't tell you how many times I took pleasure in watching The Sorcerer's Stone.
Rating:
Summary: A Great but a little too rushed adaptation
Review: I did enjoy Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone but it lacks that magic that makes the books so hard to put down (while for this you swear you die of boredom and let your thoughts wander to things not related to the movie). You can tell that the film is rushed from the first scene. Unlike the long conversation in the book they just have the stars say a few lines before Hagrid arrives. The movie then quickly rushes through the Dursleys so they are not as mean as in the book. The letters seem very rushed as it gives Harry, and the audience for that matter, no time to actually see the great mystery as it was in the book. After a rushed rescueing from Hagrid ( where the conversation instantly goes from one topic to another without any connections in between). We rush through Diagon Alley without much of Harry's feelings as in the books. Hagrid explains his past but the movie just doesn't seem to make the evil as evil as it is in the books. Also they didn't really keep the fact running Harry is an orphan and you swear you forget Harry defeated You-Know-Who and hes a celebrity because of the real-world franchise! The movie makes Muggles seem fat, ugly, and stupid while in the books they are the normal people. Harry doesn't show any fear of whats to come on the Hogwarts express. The emotions are only 10% of how strong the books were. I thought Dumbledore was a joyous, happy man but serious when the matter was serious. In the movie though he is serious all the time and he doesn't put much strength into the would-be funny lines. They don't introduce the fact Ron is poor and they took the sensitive and smart Hermione and turned her into a smart, uncaring, selfish female. The movie, though 150 minutes, doesn't put much strength into the plot and more into stupid kiddy details. Warner Bros. is ignoring about 60% of the original HP fan population- teenagers and adults. Yes, the movies will bring in young readers but my age group remember the good days where Harry was just a book series, not a franchise full of toys, video games, soaps, action figures, board games, and even- oh the horror of it- legos! Excuse me while I vomit due to Warner Bros. lack of full audience attention!
Rating:
Summary: Great Adaptation of the Book!
Review: I thought that this movie did a great job bringing the novel to life. Actually seeing Diagon Alley and Hogwarts was great! However, as I have found in the past, books are almost always better than the movie, and this is no exception. Although the movie was great...the book was so much better. There are just so many more intricate details in the book that you just don't get in the movie...hence the 4 stars. All together a great movie, and a must see for any Harry Potter fan!
Rating:
Summary: A good movie, but read the book
Review: Harry in the book is the modern day Cinderella. He was a reviled slave in the Dursleys' home and getting the tar whipped out of him on the playground, but he wasn't submissive to the abuse. And his parents were murdered for god sakes on top of that. He fought for his own freedoms but took the punishment as well as anybody, in other words exactly the kind of rebel who always gets the short end of the stick and you want to fight for in any sort of a brawl. This version of Harry, the everyman, strong, independent hero kid didn't exactly come accross in the first half hour of the movie. That means that people who haven't read the book can't really get into the movie because they can't root for Harry, and that's what the whole series is about, and that's why you'd sit down for two and a half hours of kiddy fantasy. The same thing that happens when you've read the book in Harry's case occurs with practically every other character. Everyone just blossoms, and you notice nice details that fly completely under the radar when you haven't read the books. One thing that fans may notice is that the literary HP series has more jilted visual style than the movies do, but I say you've got to let that go. Just because Hermione isn't in dire need of braces, and you can actually see Hagrid's face, doesn't diminish the good realization of each characters' personalities. In conclusion, if you're willing to spend the two and a half hours watching the movie, you can afford to spend one night sitting down to read the book, it reads a lot faster than it's couple of hundred pages might indicate.
Rating:
Summary: "You're a wizard Harry." "I'm a what?"
Review: The year 1997 was the beginning of a literary phenomenon with the release of the first Harry Potter book entitled "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" (a.k.a. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone") by J.K. Rowling. Following the release of the fourth book in the series ("Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire") in 2000, Warner Brothers released the first Harry Potter film titled based upon the first book in 2001. Directed by Chris Columbus, the film received a lot of assistance from J.K. Rowling herself and remained very true to the original book, but with several changes, artistic interpretation and editing. The story is about an 11 year old boy named Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), who is an orphan being raised by his very unpleasant Uncle Vernon Dursley (Richard Griffiths) and Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw). Unknown to Harry, he has magical powers and occasionally (and unknowingly) makes things happen that greatly upset the Dursley's. However, the Dursley's know that Harry has magical powers because Harry's deceased parents (James and Lily Potter, played briefly by Adrian Rawlins and Geraldine Somerville) were a wizard and a witch. A very powerful wizard named Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris) had left the infant Harry on the Dursley's doorstep following his parents' deaths. The Dursley's own son, Dudley (Harry Melling), is the same age as Harry and treats Harry very badly. Upon Harry's 11th birthday, he receives a letter: something that has never happened before. The Dursley's won't let him open the letter and become very upset when they read it, but more letters begin to arrive for Harry. In spite of Uncle Vernon's efforts, Harry finally gets to read the letter when Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane as the groundskeeper at the Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry) bursts in to personally deliver Harry's letter, which is his invitation to attend Hogwarts. Harry at first doesn't believe that he is a wizard, but agrees to leave with Hagrid and his life is never the same again. He learns about muggles, goblins, wizards, witches and magic. He also gets to meet Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), Albus Dumbledore, Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith), Professor Snape (Alan Rickman), Professor Quirrel (Ian Hart), the unpleasant Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) and a host of other wizards, witches, ghosts and other creatures. Watching this film and its sequel based upon the second book ("Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets") inspired me to start reading the Harry Potter books. I was very impressed with the amount of detail in the book that did not make its way into the feature film and understood how much the film deviated from the original story. One of the biggest differences is the amount of attention given to characters in the book that only had minor roles in the film including Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis), the Weasley twins (James & Oliver Phelps) and Dudley Dursley. Also, a few characters in the book don't appear in the feature film at all. The other major difference between the story presented in the feature film and the book is changing of when things are said and done, which is understandable considering the length of the film. (It took me about 8 hours to read the book as compared to watching the film, which is 2.5 hours long.) Memorable scenes in the film include Harry under the Dursley's stairs, Hagrid's arrival at the lighthouse, Diagon Alley, the train station, Harry & Ron meeting Hermione, the boats, Harry's first class with Professor Snape, the Quidditch match, raising the feather, the mirror, the forest, Fluffy, the keys, and the ending scenes. Overall, I rate "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" with 5 out of 5 stars and highly recommend it to everyone.
Rating: 
Summary: If not for the heckling, I would have snored.
Review: What should have been a light hearted, whimiscal children's movie becomes an over drawn tale of boredom and eye candy. The major problem is that the director treats his material like Lord of the Rings when it is much closer to Cat in the Hat. Instead of telling a story and giving children a new idea for playtime, every little detail of is spelled out for us. This is not a rich and fully developed world, however, and the more we're shown, the less it is believable. Two and a half hours of film wasted.
|
