Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Widescreen Edition)

Rating:
Summary: Excellent adaption of the book
Review: I was very impressed with the adaption of the book for the big screen. Generally, good books are made into bad or maybe decent movies. This was an excellent adaptation. The Quidditich match was very well done, and the casting was perfect. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint absolutely steal the show as Harry, Hermione, and Ron. Richard Harris as Dumbledore and Alan Rickman as Snape are excellent support for the young actors.

Rating:
Summary: THE GREATEST HIT
Review: J.K. ROWLINGS HAS THE WAY OF GETING THE RIGHT WORDS SHE BRINGS
OUT INTRIGE,SUSPENSE,HAPINESS,RAGE EVERY THING YOU COULD IMAGIN , THE EFECTS ON THE THE MOVIE ARE AWSOME.
THE MOVIE IS AWSOME I JUST LOVED IT.I LOVED IT BECAUSE IT OPENS THE DOOR OF THE UNNOWN OF THE MAGIC, OF THE MOST SWEETEST,POLITE,BRAVE, CUTEST BOY AND THE BEST FRIEND EVER,OF THE MOST INTELIGENT GIRL EVER, OF THE BEST CHEST PLAYER EVER ,A GIANT WHOS THE BEST FRIEND YOU COULD HAVE, A DEAR OLD PERSON WHOS VERY WISE AND MANY MANY MORE......
HARRY POTTER IS THE BEST MOVIE EVER NO OTHER MOVIE IN THE UNIVERS
IS BETTER THAN HARRY POTTER.
I LOVE HARRY POTTER
THE CUTEST PERSON IS :
HARRY POTTER!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE YOUR GREEN EYES U ARE A GREAT ACTER
AND U HAVEA SPECTACULAR SMILE. PS I HOPE U GET RED WHEN U READ THIS}

Rating:
Summary: harry potter movie
Review: Well, it kept to the story line and didn't switch much around. The acting was great but after you see it one question remains on your mind: Where was peeves? It kind of [made me mad] that Peeves wasn't there. One other thing that bother me was that it was really short. They cut out several things in the book which I personally thought were important. It was only 2 and a half hours long. They should have made it 4 or 5 if they had to. ALSO, they kinda gave Neville the short straw there. When they went in the woods for detention Ron went with them and it was for being at Hagrids late, not because of Norbert. Neville got pushed to the side a bit and my last bit of complaint is towards the casting of Harry. The three things that make your image of Harry in his first year were changed. ONE, isn't he supposed to be skinny from lack of food from the Dursleys. TWO, He had dark brown neatly combed hair instead of black messy hair. AND THREE, was it just me or were his eyes blue instead of Green? I give it a 4 because it didn't match the book perfectly but it was close enough.

Rating:
Summary: Good movie for children...
Review: I found "Harry Potter..." to be a good movie for children, although I found the message of love as the saving "spell" to not be as strong as I would have expected it. Effects played a major role in it, but still it's highly likeable and definitely comes down as one of 2001's most notable visual achievements.

Rating:
Summary: enchantment at hogwarts
Review: i rated this movie at five stars because i feel it truly captures the spirit of the books and presents the film from a childs perspective that adults love too. while some of the characters were not portrayed by actors i thought "looked the part", the whole was very well done. one could almost feel they were at the banquet table with gryffindor, or involved in the quiditch match, or even shopping in diagon alley. cant wait for the sequel!

Rating:
Summary: The Best Movie Of The Year!!!!!!
Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was the best movie of the year. I do not think I have a seen a better movie ever. It sohuld win oscars, people' choice awards, and many other awards. It is SIMPLY THE BEST!

Rating:
Summary: Excellent but still not everything the book was
Review: I am completely obsessed with the books and have read them a good 3 or 4 times each so I know them cover to cover and word for word. The movie was excellent but not really as good as the book. I feel that they didn't spend enough time dwelling on Harry's misery in the Dursley's but it was ok because the rest of the movie made up for that slight lack of information. I would get irrattated during my veiwing of the film by skipping of scenes, such as the whole deal with Norbort, and also by lines that weren't exactally the way that they were said in the book. I was also very urked by Snape. Anyone who has read the book knows that he is tall, thin, has a long crooked nose and long greasy black hair. The actor that was casted to play him had none of these traits. Overall it was an excellent movie and Oliver Wood was very hott, this reveiw is really about what is wrong with the movie, everything else was fantastic.

Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Review: One of the best movies to come out in a long time. Have seen it 3 times already and can't wait for the DVD release. I have a 14 year old and an 8 year old, they would go everyday if I would take them. Thanks for some great family entertainment to stretch the imagination. Thinking outside the box is great for children.

Rating:
Summary: "Arry, you're a wizard"
Review: Through the movie was cool...I liked the book better! I wanted to hear the sorting hat song, but I didn't hear it which, was a great dissapointment. But the costumes were great and specktacular! (Espeacially the invisibilty cloak!)
I hope you will enjoy the movie as well as the book .
oh, and beware you know who is quite funny!

Rating:
Summary: Go see Lord of the Rings instead!!
Review: I cannot imagine how so many people have such good things to say about this movie. Where are your standards!? I have read the books (as an adult), and enjoyed them. However, the movie was just *horribly* done. My main gripe was this: the books have many serious undertones to them, such as Harry's harsh treatment at the hands of his Aunt and Uncle, and ecomomic or racial discrimination (ie ron weasly being teased since his family has no money or because he comes from a "mixed-blood" background of magic & non-magic users). The movie goes out of its way to present these items in the most ridiculous slapstick sort of way possible (particularly with the scenes involving Harry's Aunt & Uncle). As a result, there is not the same feeling communicated to viewers of Harry's emotional suffering or of any real danger at all. What does that create? TOTAL LACK OF SUSPENSE. Then there are a million little things that were changed for the movie such as Harry's scar was moved from the center of his head to the right side...Hagrid is not upset/surprised when he finds out Harry doesn't even know wizards exist..No one bothers to mention when Hagrid is hiding his dragon egg that dragons are illegal (hence the hiding of the egg) etc, etc, ETC!! Not only does this mean that the movie is not true to the book, but that the changes *decrease* the quality of the story!! My companion for the movie had not read the books and was thouroughly confused on many points. Confusion is the mark of a poor storyteller, or in this case, moviemaker. The only positive thing I can say is I liked the efforts of the children actors. The special effects were no more than what you would expect. If you like Harry Potter, read the books again! If you want to spend your time watching a long movie, skip this one and go see Lord of the Rings.