Rating: 
Summary: Mildly Dissappointing
Review: Sorry, but this movie really dissappointed me. If you had not read the book, the movie would have made no sense at all (Why is Dudley wearing a brown hat with an orange pompom?) and they cut out too much. First off, the cut out Hermione's big scene with the logic bottles, which was one of the best parts of the book. And when they got detention, it wasn't because they went to go give the dragon to Charlie, it was because they were "walking around school grounds." And no one hated them when they got 150 points taken off! Not to mention Harry was a terrible, terrible actor with no talent whatsoever. Especially during the last half of the movie (Ow! My scar hurts!). Of course, it gets marks for Hermione and Ron being great actors, and when McGonagall morphed from a cat. They didn't focus enough on the Dursleys, Neville, the twins, Percy, or any of the other secondary charachters. I would have rather had it be five hours long so they could make it more accurate then the lackluster piece of film it is now.
Rating:
Summary: Boring Boring Boring- Too Much Taken Out
Review: Hello. I have read all 4 of the Harry Potter books over and over. When I heard this movie was being made, my first thought was "Boy, that will (...)" And, I was right.
I had just read the 1st book right before seeing this. So, I recognized every single line from the book and every line that was not. They amazingly didn't stray far from the book, which was good. However, the 1st book was no where near my favorite book, and I had originally thought it boring anyway. So, nothing changed there.
The computer animation. Wow. It was sort of impressive. That is, how bad it was. It wasn't that it looked fake, it was that there was too much of it that it started to look cheezy instead.
Also, I felt that there was too much taken out. I know, my earlier comment said otherwise. Well, actually, there was a ton taken out. Little bits and pieces were taken away. Norbert was almost nonexistent. Character development was not good at all. Who is Harry Potter, anyway? Some kid with a scar who seems really dumb. That's pretty much what you think while watching this. Important storylines are only a second. A lot of time is wasted on Hermione and the troll, which I felt was just stupid. Anyway, back to character development for a second. Hermione seemed right off the bat to be friends with Ron and Harry, when in fact they didn't actually like each other until after the troll. You get no reason at all why Ron and Harry are friends (which isn't really said in the book either). Are they friends because Harry bought Ron a ton of candy? Well....good lesson there...
Now, my complaints about the actors. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) was...well...icky! He seemed to be a dumb kid who is never worried and doesn't care about anything. Is he a good Harry? Well, kind of. But he needs a ton more facial expressions. The kid (sorry, sorry!) who played Ron Weasley was really good, I thought, except he needs a few more facial expressions too. The girl who played Hermione Weasley was really good, too. My favorite characters, actually, were Ron and Draco Malfoy. My mom's favorite actor in the movie was Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) who was also pretty good. That reminds me. Crabbe and Goyle (Draco's lackeys) were not mentioned in the whole movie. That will cost them in the next one.
Overall, if you are a diehard Harry Potter fan or a review person looking for a really bad movie to comment on, go see this movie!
Oh yeah, I really missed Peeves in this! He was a great character! Oh well, guess that 25 million dollar budget just couldn't afford him.
Bye!
Rating: 
Summary: What a shock! Better than the hype says.
Review: Here is a movie everybody was dying to see. My wife & kids saw it a week before me (I work Fridays). When I finally went to see it the following tuesday I was pleasantly shocked that the movie more that lived up to all the kudos.First Castwise. If you love character actors (and I adore them) this movie is for you. We see Robbie Coltraine (Who excells at everything from CRACKER to Nuns on the run. To James Bond movies), John Hurt (A far cry from the Mad Caliguia in I CLAUDIUS), Richard Griffiths, Fiona Shaw, Alan Rickman etc... The list goes on and on. As a rule the British Isle's produce some of the best character actors in the world. This movie displays that fact once again. I think its safe to say that young Radcliffe and his cohorts all did a splended job. It isn't an oscar performance but who cares they needed to make us invent in them and we did. THE STORY: With the exception of the move to the lighthouse (which confused the few like myself who haven't read the books.) the story was solid. I would have liked to know who the "muggles" react to seeing people walk through a column in a train station but other than that we're golden. The story developed at a pace that was perfect. I didn't notice the length of the film and neither did the kids. (quite a statement since they saw it once already.) This must have been what it was like watching PATTON at the movies, a long movie so good that nobody notices. I believe movies can be made and/or broken in the editing room. The editors made a great decision to keep the movie as it is. Well done. The visual effects are well done. (I don't care for the floating candles, fire hazard you know.) This movie is not only great, it is fun. Go see it.
Rating:
Summary: The Magic Within Us All
Review: "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" uses many tried and true elements of legend and myth to touch both the imagination and the heart. It is a story of wonder, adventure and friendship, as a young man overcomes adversity to realize his true potential and to find himself. Harry reprises literary devices used so successfully in other legends. Like Cinderella or Pete of "Pete's Dragon," he is a kind of hostage to a dysfunctional family who treats him as a servant. Like Cinderella, Pete of Pete's Dragon, like Batman and Superman, Harry is an orphan who overcomes personal tragedy and circumstances when he finds a wondrous magic within himself, the power to transform his life into something much greater than it was. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is a wizard, who upon reaching the age of eleven, is invited to become a student at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. But first he must be extracted from the clutches of his Uncle and Aunt Dursley by his protector, a huge, hairy man named Hagrid (Robby Coltrane). Once he is at Hogwarts, Harry learns potions, incantations and how to fly on a broom. Hogwarts is a fascinating place, a castle-like arrangement of stone buildings where ghosts and magical things abound, including paintings where the subjects move and speak. The scenes, costumes and special effects are exciting and fun. Harry makes two great friends at Hogwarts, Ron and Hermione, a boy and girl, respectively. The three of them conspire and cooperate in an effort to learn the secret of the Sorcerer's Stone, which can grant eternal life, but which is hidden in a section of Hogwarts that is guarded by a three-headed, giant dog. They overcome obstacles like a giant Mountain troll who wants to kill them, and find magical tools to aid them, like the cloak of invisibility. This first installment of the saga of Harry Potter introduces the young Harry and serves as a compelling invitation to learn more. There are those who have criticized "Harry Potter" as being some sort of advocacy of the occult, an affront to established religions. It is none of that - the students of Hogwarts even celebrate Christmas. "Harry Potter" is an adventure story that seeks to rekindle our childhood sense of wonder, that time in our lives when anything and everything seemed possible. It is ultimately a story of hope: how an unremarkable person can change his life for the better by discovering great reservoirs of courage and resources within himself, of which he was previously unaware, and go on to accomplish things he previously believed impossible. That's not a bad message by any means.
Rating:
Summary: Really excellent movie-required viewing for any Potter fan!
Review: Harry Potter has captured the imaginations of people-child and adult-around the world. And I, as a true Harry Potter obsessive, was the first one waiting in line to see the movie the day it first showed in my city. I had been waiting for this movie to come out for a year, and as Nov. 16 rolled around I was anxious to find out how Warner Bros. had translated the book to the silver screen. Nothing could top the excitement in that theatre when the theme song started playing and Dumbledore strolled onto the screen. It is a FANTASTIC movie! It has just the right amount of suspence, action, and fun of the books. Most of all, it really captures the essence of the books. The movie had the audience cheering right along at the Quidditch match, hissing at Draco Malfoy, and to tears at the Mirror of Erised. The cast is, as Ron put it, "BLOODY BRILLIANT!" The cast is made up of high-caliber actors and actresses such as Dame Maggie Smith (Prof. McGonagall), Richard Harris (Prof. Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Prof. Snape), and Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid). But I was most impressed by the three new stars who play Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Dan Radcliffe IS Harry. He perfectly portrays the determination and courage of our bespectacled hero. Emma Watson displays Hermione as being smart and talented but slightly on-edge. Rupert Grint, though, was my favourite. He PERFECTLY captures Ron's personality. His facial expressions and the way he delivers his lines are all excellent. My only problems with the film were its lack of character development for characters like Neville Longbottom and Draco Malfoy. Neville's few moments of glory aren't as poignant when he isn't described as being clumsy and bumbling but a true Gryffindor at heart. There also isn't enough screen time to show Malfoy and Snape being horrid to Harry. Snape is such a wonderfully complex character that he needs MUCH more screen time than he's gotten. Overall, though, an absolutely brilliant movie.
Rating:
Summary: CAN YOU SPELL WOW?!?!?
Review: W-O-W!! I've seen it twice already and plan on going back to the theater yet again. I feel that Daniel Radcliffe was the ultimate perfect actor for the famous Mr. Potter. There are some things of course that you discover are in the book and not in the movie, but you find yourself able to forgive these minor flaws. I've read each of the books nine times so I didn't miss a beat! The first time I saw it I wasn't sure if I enjoyed it or not...it slightly ruined my view of just about everything in the books. But then I saw it a second time and more appreciated the finer points of the film without tarnishing my own perspective. BEWARE!!!!!!!If you've read the book and haven't seen the movie you might wan't to think about what it might do to how you see and imagine things! But (of course) you get over that! I can't wait for the second movie (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets) to come out! Rock on Harry Potter!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: EXCELLENT MOVIE!!!!
Review: That had to be one of the greatest movies ever!The special effects were amazing!But I think you should read the book before you see it.I asked my friends what ther favorite part was, and they said the Qudditch Match.Same here.But the whole movie was awsome!Except...Peeves the Poltergeist didn't make the movie! I LOVED IT AND I THINK YOU WILL TOO!
Rating: 
Summary: This is a great movie
Review: I am writing this review because I am a tad bit pissy on something. How long has harry potter been around? what two three years. And now that they have made a movie....all the sudden people are trying to tear a good thing down...a product for satan...give me a break. What weak minded people we have out there. yes the tellie tubbies were scary....but a product of satan..i don't think so. Come off it people. It is a good entertaining movie for all ages....I can not wait to own it.
Rating: 
Summary: Good but not great.
Review: This was a pretty good movie. It certainly has some wonderful visuals. However, the problem I have with HARRY POTTER, is Harry Potter himself! Harry is simply not very involving. Clearly the more interesting characters are his two friends Ron Weasley and especially Hermione Granger. As for its visuals, the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is very impressive. (Loved the paintings that moved). The giant troll, I thought looked too much like a bigger and uglier version of SHREK. Fluffy, the giant three-headed dog was great. Other characters like the centaur less so. (Ray Harryhausen's centaur in THE GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD was much more interesting). Folks, just because a movie has a lot of CGI effects doesn't necessarily make it a great movie. Character development also counts, and Harry Potter simply lacks some of it.
Rating:
Summary: The Harry Potter movie
Review: The movie was very great, they stayed loyal to the book most of the time, although they had to change some of it to make it shorter or else it would of been hours. Some people say a lot of the suspense was missing because it was fast passed, I think they could of had a little bit more suspense, but other then that it was GREAT!
|
