Rating: 
Summary: It Lived Up to My Expectations..
Review: I can't think of a single movie in history that had so many preconceived visions to conquer. Not since the decision to cast Tom Cruise in Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire" had there been so much "audience" speculation as to the capability of a movie to match what readers had built up in their minds.But Harry Potter was truly amazing. Having read all four books myself (and repeatedly, at that) I too had a mind full of imagery associated with the characters and locations in these books. The kids in the movie (Daniel Radcliffe et al) had HUGE expectations to meet. Not only was this the screen debut for all three, they were playing roles of kids that millions of readers had come to know and love. Without exception, I think all three lived up to expectations. Next is the scenery. While some of the actual settings didn't match up to what I had pictured in my mind, the movie is visually stunning and shows a painstaking attention to detail. Detractors may complain that the movie itself didn't compete with what they had envisioned, I enjoyed the differences in what I had pictured and what the director put on film. With 100 million readers, it would be impossible for any director to satisfy everyone. I think Chris Columbus did a fine job and produced a film worthy of its literary roots. Add to that a host of bonus features and a second disc, this is a purchase worthy of the asking price and will make a fine addition to my collection of DVD's and to my Harry Potter books.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Too Shabby...but
Review: As a prof. of mine says, "you can always tell what's good about somehting so there's no need to discuss that" so I'll just address the parts that were a bit of a disappointment.
I first picked up a Harry Potter book for a course I was taking on the role of the adolescent in literature, in which I was supposed to do an annotated bib of modern YA novels. I begrudged Harry all the hype surrounding him, assuming that I would never fall for somehting so publicized. I was wrong. I read all four books back to back in two monthes and this was with a 15 credit course load at the same time, so enough said. So in terms of the film, you can only imagind my excitement over its release on video (I'd been interested in it in the theaters just based on the adverts but couldn't get anyone too see it with me, at the time).
I preordered the DVD from Amazon.co.uk and when it arrived my family insisted on my waiting for them to watch it, since my interest in the books had spread to them like wildfire by then (My fifty-one year old dad is just about to finish his turn through them all). The movie was so much like the book with the exception of the end that it left little for me to see new - that is I had already watched it as such in my mind and so if felt like nothing I was seeing was anything different.
I enjoyed being introduced to the characters for the first time, but I was surprised to find Harry the tallest of the group, when in the books Ron calls him a midget. Also, I personally thought Herminoe was almost too cute, since I always pictured her as being a bit homely - although my dad had a fit over how well she was cast, so I suppose good protrayal is a bit subjective.
That aside, I liked the characters. I didn't even mind Daniel Radcliffe being the tallest eleven-year-old I've seen to date, he did such a nice job - exactly as I pictured Harry, aside from the height.
While a lot of reviews criticized Rupert Grint for not being sarcastic enough in his role as Ron, I was pleasantly surprised after reading them, to find that I enjoyed him. I think there were essentially three drawbacks to the movie that promtped me to give it four stars instead of five: The movie, prbably due to time constraints, had almost none of the satire that I loved so much in the book - it was like all the Harry Potter story with very little of the heart. I think this was not so much a fault of the actors, but that they just tried to fit too much else in. I would have preferred more good dialogue, even if it meant lengthening it or cutting out something. It was just lacking in this dept, which kept me from being completely "into" it so I felt very little empathy with the movie, unlike the book. The one exception was in the "Mirror or Erised" scene, which I thought was touching. The other thing that I thought caused the movie to suffer was that they had Harry being much sharper and more sure of himself than in the books. Hermione was really the one who solved most of the mystery and the way they discovered Flamel on screen threw me a bit. Also, the entire encounter with Voldemort was changed. That bit felt more like "Harry Potter meets the Mummy," which was a letdown. I thought it odd that they would be so careful about detail and yet alter the most important scene so dramatically. Lastly, although I enjoyed the Quidditch scene, it too fast moving and at times, hard to follw, and looked a bit fake, especially when people got knocked askew on their broomsticks - more like puppets than people, really. Although I outlined primarily what I considered to be flaws, I did enjoy the movie as a whole and am looking forward to the sequal. I was not thrilled with it, but pleasantly surprised, especially with the performances of the children, since child actors usually have a tendency to act too young or old instead of their supposed age level.
I would recommend this movie to anyone, whether they read the books or not, but would say to read them first, anyway. I think it was better for me that I did.
I'll probably end up buying the American version as well, and go to the Borders midnight Harry Potter party to do it, too.
I am a loyal fan, so although I'm a little bit let down, I have faith in the future releases, and will be fairly content, as long as they're as good as the first.
Rating:
Summary: HP RULES
Review: i am a 13year old reviewer i read all the books they are awsome how j.k. rowling came up woth it i have no idea the movie was awsome it stayed true to the book except at the ending this is a must have DVD i am reserving a copy NOW i went to the movie with my family we all loved it the acting is great and then i went to see it a second time it is awsome parents who think this is evil its not it is just fun and kool nothing evil about it : ) hope my review was helpful oh 1 more thing BUY THIS DVD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: Wait... wasn't there more than one Weasley?
Review: Really, whatever happened to Percy, Fred, and George? Or to Neville Longbottom, Lee Jordan, and Marcus Flint? I realize that you can't translate a novel to the screen and be entirely faithful, but it seems to me that a bit of character development outside of our three heroes wouldn't be entirely out of place, either.
That said: if you've read the book, then the movie is fun. Ron and Hermione are excellent, as is Harry (so much for having his hair be permanently messy, but oh, well...). Some people are complaining about the lack of experience that the child actors have, but it's a rare eleven-year-old who has a lot of stage experience, I find.
The real problem with this film, I think -- aside from the lack of character development for anyone who isn't Harry, Ron, or Hermione -- is the pacing. We're sped right through the Dursleys' and Diagon Alley, only to spend what feels like far too long listening to the Sorting Hat (which, apparently, speaks to the entire Great Hall and not just into the wearer's head). During some of the scenes in the Forbidden Forest, Quidditch, et al, I was having some difficulty sitting still in the theater -- and I'm seventeen, not eight. I wish they'd sped up a few of those scenes and used the extra time to include things like Peeves and the Potions puzzle before the confrontation with Voldemort.
There's a reason why I'm not comparing HP to LoTR, incidentally: because Harry Potter *isn't* Lord of the Rings. Two entirely different franchises.
This was as good as it could possibly be, especially since as a novel, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone necessarily had a lot more exposition than its sequels. But all of that entertaining, dry-wit dialogue that made the books so much fun ("Don't cry, Ginny... we'll send you a Hogwarts toilet seat") was gone, and I for one missed it.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't bother
Review: I wish I had read the book first. I am sorry to say that this is the first movie I've seen in a long time that was a complete and utter waste of my time. Not even worth getting out on video, I'm afraid. The plot is shallow and unexplainable and the acting is terrible, mostly by newcomers. They should never be featured in another movie on the silver screen. Hopefully they won't make a sequel (or three), and kids will decide stick with the books. Apparently they are much better.
Rating:
Summary: A brilliant british film.
Review: The Harry Potter film was released on the 11th May over here in England. I hadn't seen it at the movies, and was eagerly anticipating it's release on video. It was worth the wait! I had previously read the books, and was hoping the film wouldn't ruin it. Thankfully it didn't, as I can now imagine the characters when I read the books. Daniel, Rupert and Emma were all brilliant considering their age. I can't wait for the next installment, both the movie and the book.
Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly good
Review: Honestly, I'm not a Harry Potter fan, but I have to admit that Daniel, Emily and Rupert have the stuff to be the three lil wizards. When I sat down in the theatre, I was like: Sheesh. I don't like the book (I haven't read it, not even now!), how in the world will I like the movie? But I was wrong. This was good. All had their special parts in the movie, like Daniel was really Harry-Potter-looking; Emily had that tone of voice which I thought was really suitable; Rupert, well, the newspaper wrote that his real personality, eg kind, caring, was somewhat the same as Ron in the movie. Definately recommand it to HP lovers.
Rating:
Summary: Better than I expected.
Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone...features an all British cast of pro-actors. Suprisingly, Daniel Radcliff did a wonderful job of playing Harry Potter, and I thought he would be too young to do it! The movie has the exact same story as the book, brought to life with some of the best special effects I've ever seen. The sentret part is awesome. This is just the beginning of the 7-part Harry Potter saga, so we still have 6 years to go. Let's hope it dosen't fade away by then...
Rating:
Summary: A DVD to promise along with a fantastic film
Review: On May 28, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone will finally be released in a Special Edition 2-disc set, available in a Full Frame (why can't full frame die!) and Widescreen edition. For a movie as big as Harry Potter, you're going to have a very packed DVD. It looks like they're packing it as much as they could, with many extra features and DVD-ROM games along with the original theatrical film. But first, let's talk about the movie. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is an adaptation of J.K Rowling's fantastic and successful novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (original UK name; movie and book dubbed in America). When I first saw the teaser Trailer, I was screaming! Harry Potter looked so fantasic on film! But when I saw it in theaters, it was far from the teaser trailer but still, it was a great movie. And the film was so true to the book, probably even more true than Peter Jackson's epic, The Fellowship of the Ring. Almost everything from the book is in there, with a few scenes and a particular character cut for an overlong running time (the movie's 152 minutes). Besides the faithfulness, they've cast some of the best British actors to play Hogwarts Staff and supporting characters. But the actors were looking at is the main trio. Harry is played by the extremely well look-alike, Daniel Radcliffe, Ron by funny Rupert Grint and Emma Watson playing the bossy but clever Hermione Granger. Surprisingly, the children hold up a definite performances, with most emotions expressed. The adults play well too. Maggie Smith plays the strict Professor McGonagall and Richard Harris playing the old and wise Professor Albus Dumbledore. But by far, the best performance of the whole film was Alan Rickman, playing the silky and sinister Severus Snape, the Potion's Master. You simply couldn't get a better Snape. He expresses everything Snape contains, sly, sinister, moody, mysterious and striking. Perfect cast, really. And you simply can't review this film without talking about John Williams' score. He's definitely not been original the last few years but still, he gives off the Harry Potter feel almost fully (Howard Shore's Fellowship of the Ring score takes best). The CGI effects are some of the best in recent filming, from a troll, to a baby from, to a CGI villain wizard bent on destroying poor Harry. Though some CGI effects could've been tightened up a bit. You could definitely see poor computer generation when a CGI Harry interacts with the CGI troll and The Quidditch Match. But then, Radcliffe did do most of his stunts. Now, the DVD. The DVD is to promise a lot of things. You can buy the original theatrical picture Widescreen edition or an evil Full Frame edition. But enough about that. The features, along with the film, is to bring Harry Potter to life. The British are absolutely jumping at its features. You have interviews with director Chris Columbus, producer David Heyman and (I think) screenwriter Steve Kloves. You have a 360-degree tour of Hogwarts School, introduction to the ghosts, information on characters, Hogwarts School and the grounds. You have interactive Quidditch games, many Diagon Alley mini-games, Hogwarts "classes" containing games and seven scenes that didn't make it into the film. Most British are giving it thumbs up, but are a bit tired with some of the menus and tasks... Overall, this DVD is going to be packed, with extra features galore, DVD-ROM features, a few little novelties with the package (Snitch and Broom) and of course, the feature film...
Rating:
Summary: A Phenomenal Movie That Isn't Just a Kiddie Movie
Review: I never wanted to read the HP books, and I am bored by most all the movies that get released, let alone a mere "kiddie" movie. But somehow the reviews for HP when it was first about to be released piqued my interest so I went to see it in the theatre...and I was HOOKED. I learned the error of my ways that day, HP is not just a story for kids but for anyone who wants a truly entertaining movie (and I might add I've since bought the books and found them worthy of spending the extra cash to own in hardback). Of course, if you prefer pretentious artsy movies that trade entertainment for self-absorbed depth then HP is not a movie you will be able to appreciate. For anyone else, I recommend get this movie!
|
