Rating: 
Summary: Hope It's As Good As The Books!!!
Review: Like every other second person on this planet I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of the first Harry Potter movie. Like everyone else I also share some concerns that justice will be done to this story book hero and that the movie will be an apt representation of the world of wizards which we have all constructed in our own imaginations and come to love. I also hope that the movie versions of these wonderful novels are not an excuse for kids around the world to ditch the books and wait for it to hit the silver screen before finding out what his next adventures contain.Despite all this I will be first in line at the cinema and going by the reports on the closed set I think we are in for another splendid Harry Potter product!!! I want to be able to come back to this page after the movies release and give it the five stars that Harry Potter and J.K Rowling always deserve!!!
Rating:
Summary: so gooooooooooooood
Review: it is so good i couldn't believe my eyes.The first day it comes nationwide i'll be the first one in the theatre you'll see.tHE FIRST TIME I READ ONE OF THE BOOKS .Icouldn't take my eyes of it.It was the most interesting mosssssssssttttttttst book i had ever read.I hope harry potter's books go for eternity
Rating: 
Summary: Magic on the big screen
Review: Muggles from All around, the 1st Harry Potter is now coming to a theartre near you! This production is based on the widely read novel by J.K. Rowling Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's stone. This movie will truly draw younger people as most children are the readers. Shots from all around U.K. where needed to make Hogwarts as real as possible. This movie has an all British cast and some language may leave you saying What? I think the turn out will be great and it be a must for christmas! - Ryan Schmidt
Rating:
Summary: Great!
Review: This is definately a MUST SEE film! Trust me, if you love Harry Potter, You HAVE to see this movie!
Rating:
Summary: ... It still remains the best of the 3.
Review: I can remember back when the 1st installment of the Harry Potter series entitled HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERERS STONE, came out in theaters back in November 2001.It still to this very day remains the best installment. I think its because back then everybody wanted to see it. It was just very magical the way it was released because no one really knew the real deal of the h.p. films. This is a great movie if you like h.p.. This is my favorite of the 3. Rent the Sorcerers Stone, and The Chamber Of Secrets, and then go see The Prizoner Of AZkaban.The point of this movie was a wizard whos parents got killed, that lives with his abusive aunt and uncle it a brilliant wizard but he doesnt know that. And then he enrolls in a magical place called hogwarts, a school for witches and wizards. After that things start looking up for him, He makes friends, gets away from his stupid fat uncle, and wrinkly old mean aunt, and joins a place where he is protected and cared for. I strongly reccomend this wonderful film.
Rating:
Summary: Just like the book, but on the screen
Review: Overall, it was a good movie. At no point did I find myself thinking, "That looks wrong." That seems to be to be an important criteria on which an adaptation should be judged. Sometimes scenes or characters didn't look exactly the way I remembered picturing them when I read the book, but that's to be expected. The best I could hope for is that nothing was too jarring, and that turned out to be the case. With a cast including folks like Alan Rickman, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Zoe Wannamaker, Richard Griffiths, and, of course, Robbie Coltrane, it seems pretty pointless to praise the acting. I did feel that Rickman, as Professor Snape, seemed to be played a little too obviously sinister, but then, that's how he's written in the books as well. Truly impressive, however, were the three lead kids. Daniel Radcliffe is Harry Potter, no question, just as Rupert Grint makes a fantastic Ron Weasley. Here's hoping that the movies are successful enough that all seven books are adapted (which seems a foregone conclusion, but who knows?) and that it happens quickly enough that they can use the same actors throughout the whole series. The real surprise for me was Emma Watson as Hermione Granger. When I saw photos of her, she absolutely did not match the Hermione in my head. Seeing her move, hearing her speak the lines, I take back everything I said about her. Now I don't mind at all that I'll be picturing her every time I read future Harry Potter stories. And then there's Chris Columbus, the director. I had initially been disappointed to hear he was directing this film. (I had been rooting for Brad Silberling, husband to the lovely Amy Brenneman of Judging Amy fame, director of City of Angels and Casper.) I was afraid Columbus would be too light and superficial. Of course, what I was forgetting was that Chris Columbus didn't just make Nine Months and the weaker bits of Bicentennial Man. After seeing Harry Potter, I didn't feel like I needed to watch Young Sherlock Holmes, Only the Lonely, or Heartbreak Hotel to remind myself why I used to be a Chris Columbus fan. (Okay, he only wrote Young Sherlock Holmes, but if anything proves that he can handle an adventure movie set in a British school about much-beloved characters...) Yeah, okay, there were a couple of times when things seemed a bit too concrete, not quite magical enough. But more often than not, there were bits like the Quiddich match: breathtaking, exhilarating, and, well, magical. Hopefully, things will only get better with the second film. Is it a flawless masterpiece? Not at all. Perhaps the biggest problem is the film's struggle to get everyone's favorite bits in, sometimes at the expense of good storytelling. There are some awkward transitions where the filmmakers seem to be relying on the audience's knowledge of the book to explain how characters got from point A to point B. Even more frustrating is that some scenes were rearranged to help with the compression/adaptation from the page to the screen. So if that could be done in some cases, why not make other changes when necessary to make things flow more smoothly? On the other hand, maybe we'll see a director's cut on DVD with all the missing information. After all, the movie is 2 1/2 hours long as it is, so maybe some of that stuff was cut for time after being shot. But it was a fine adaptation, and a good movie in its own right. I'd pay to see it again in the theater, and that's about the highest praise I can give it.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Movie of 2001
Review: Harry Potter is a great movie that the whole family can sit down and enjoy. And the Harry Potter series has a big future. This is the first one in the series that introduced the school of withcraft and wizardry that Harry Potter would be going to. It's called Hogwartz. It introduces many characters such as Harry himself, Ron Weasley who becomes Harry's friend, Hermione Granger who also becomes Harry's friend, Draco Malfoy who is Harry's enemy, Albus Dumbledore who is the headmaster of Hogwartz and many more. Get your kids, get this movie and watch it. Trust me your going to love it. It's great fun really. Then when your done this one go to the store and get Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and then see Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in theatres.
10/10
Rated PG for Some Scary Moments and Mild Language.
Rating:
Summary: "A rather BIG surprise"
Review: When Harry Potter came to the big screen, I did NOT go to see it. I was of firm standing that it was kidd stuff. Then, a few weeks ago, the people on abc2 news had it on as a "movie event". I figured since it was free, why not watch it? Needless to say, I was realllyyy surprised. I sat, spellbound through ALL commercial breaks, so I would'ent miss any of the story. I've never read a single book in the series, so I can say with out them, this movie still can stand on it's own. P.S. John Williams' score is amazeing!!!! P.S.S. Still, I will say that "The Lord of the Rings" are much better movies, and if you LIKE Harry Potter, You'll LOVE them.
Rating: 
Summary: Abombination
Review: Words Can't express just how aweful these movies are compared to the books. I have been a Harry potter fan almost since the begining. The books have and continue to be a beautiful source of inspiration for me. But the films fall utterly short of even mediocre. I understand that there must be changes when a book is adapted for film but too many vital complex characters, such as Hagrid and Ron, are reduced to one-dimensional comic relief. Every character lost at least one-dimension - even harry. I felt that if I hadn't read the book I probably wouldn't understand the movie.
Not is only a horrible adaptation, it is horrible as a film. The actors feel as if they're either trying to hard, or don't know what they're doing. Daniel Radcliff has to gasp before every line! The corniness was almost too much to bear. I felt embarressed for the actors.
The special effects sucked. The troll in the girls bathroom should have at least looked convincing. The trees in the forbidden forest were too far apaart to be menacing.
I will say though, that Argus Filch the caretaker was portrayed beautifully. The one star I give this film is for him.
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic Film for any Fan
Review: I love this movie! Chris Columbus did an excellent job directing it and was able to capture the spirit of the book. He really spiced up the Quidditch match by adding some exciting scenes and good computer graphics. John Williams composed good music that you just don't get tired of hearing. Richard Harris plays the part of Professor Dumbledore perfectly. He has a look in his eyes just like Dumbledore has in the book. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint make a great trio and each performs the character's part well. I was a bit disappointed with Hogwarts because it didn't look entirely realistic. Even if you haven't read the book you can still easily follow the plot. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a movie I am sure anyone would enjoy, fan or not.
|
