Rating: 
Summary: Not as good as the books
Review: This is a good movie, but not as good as the books. Its slow moving sometimes, and the special effects and acting are great. I just think that the books are better, and the movie is not as great as I thought it would be. I was expecting something a little more than I saw. Clearly everyone's going crazy over this movie, but I think this movie is more one of those "rent it on video" movies. In my opinion its a dissapointing transition from book to film.
Rating: 
Summary: Dare I Say I Thought the Movie Was Better!
Review: I adore "Harry Potter", the book. But, with a capital B-U-T, The movie was absolutely awesome. It stuck very close to the original story line, only deleting a few scenes that had no effect on the movie. I was in awe of the visual effects. I haven't seen anything so alive , real, and "wild" since "Labyrinth" or "The Adventures of Baron Munchaussen". The characters, some you would not believe COULD be brought to the screen are, with absolute perfection. Not a single drop of their quirks and funny dialect lost. I mean, I never expected Hagrid, the sorting hat, or the Quidditch game to be as visual as they were in the book. I was dead wrong. My husband would look over at me in the theater (which at 2pm, was filled with adults trying to see the movie without the kids) and would tell me to close my mouth. Apparently I had my mouth hanging wide open through the whole movie. I have a countdown calender in my house for the movie's release. I have no children. This movie only requires a love for the unbelievable.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: Harry Potter is a very faitful adaptation to the book, this is a higly unusual thing that has happened, so far this film, "Stand By Me", and "LOTR", truly do keep up to the spirit of the book, the storyline is very good, but it could have been excellent if they shouldn'have cut the Norbert stuff, it felt that they butchered the book there, but is still acceptable, the special FX are really good, though in LOTR are better, this ones are still sharp, the acting is very good, but Daniel Radcliffe needs to express more his feelings,he did a better job on David Copperfield, but otherwise he will improve, but he still is a very good actor, the camerawork is excellent it truly does feel like magic, the music is really good, is almost as good as all the music by John Williams, but it dosen't become one of his top five, but it still works truly to the film, anyways this film ranked number 2 on my 2001 top ten list, if i hadn't seen LOTR it would have been number 1.
Rating:
Summary: Just the Beginning
Review: This was a wonderful adaptation of Rowling's Harry Potter - the 1st in a series. Very faithful to the book - although I must admit the text was much more 'complete'. You don't have to read the book to enjoy the movie. While some may view the story line as lacking, this is just the 1st in the series and serves as the basis of all that is to come. It's your introduction to Harry and friends at Hogwarts. What follows is even more creative.
Rating:
Summary: What can you say?!
Review: What can you say about one of the best movies (if not THE best) ever made?! The movie makers obviously had the fans in mind, which all great movie makers do. Kudos to Chris Columbus and Co. for doing it the way the fans wanted it done. I've heard a lot of complaints about what they left out, the special effects, etc. and I have one thing to say to those people "Were you and I seeing the same movie?" Stop being nit-picky and enjoy it! The movie in no way replaces the book, but it came pretty darn close. The only way that it could've been better if the directors handed a copy of the book to each actor and told them that was the script. The acting was AWESOME, the special effects were dazzling and I cannot wait for Chamber of Secrets!
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Review: I have read all the books and then on opening night I saw the movie. A lot of the story was breezed through missing 2/3's of signifigance. For instance the loathing of the Dursley's that Harry feels, why the Dursley's hate magical people so much, how extensive Harrys fame is in the magical world. But the thing that great fantasy movies have which this film lacks is a narative at the begining. like the scrolling script at the start of Star Wars, or the spoken narative at the start of the Highlander. That's why I can't wait to get the DVD, so I can see all the cool extra stuff.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Review: The movie "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (better know in Britan as "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone) cast a spell on me as I sat on the edge of my seat on November 16th! I immediately fell in love with the Harry Potter books, and of course the hot, loveavle Daniel Radcliffe! I now have read each book about five times. The script was witty and exhillarating, and the acting was superb! Whether you are a Muggle or a wizard, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is the best movie ever made, since the "Wizard of Oz"!
Rating: 
Summary: two minute clips don't make a movie
Review: Columbus's adaptation of JK Rowling's Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone ultimately fails. Columbus wants to do the book justice by including as much as possible but he only ends up with a long series of two to three minute clips, each presenting an "important" event that never allows any of the characters to develop properly. At most, each character has maybe one or two lines per scene. Can Radcliffe act? We're not sure.
If anything, the film plays out like late nite sports highlights. Or, to use another analogy, it's like reading the coles notes for a good book --all the necessary information in the most concise manner. Most people, even if uninitiated to Rowlings wonderful books, will get the overall gist of the storyline, but is this anyway to introduce them to Rowling's work?
People that have read the book prior to seeing the film will find the movie a visual delight with an excellent cast, but for those that haven't read the book I highly recommend reading the book first. The film just isn't a good gateway to Rowling's rich world of wizards, quidditch and ignorant, bloated muggles. Which reminds me... did anyone else find that the Dursleys were not mean enough to poor Harry?
Rating: 
Summary: Let down by the animations
Review: The film is great, the actors fantastic but I feel given the budget of this movie that it was let down by the animations of the Quidditch game and the troll scene. Given the technology we have seen in the matrix, Star Wars and Lord of The Rings I think they could have done a lot better. Sticks close to the book, which is unusally good to screen Having said all that it is still well worth watching, and I will be getting a DVD for my HP mad girlfriend.
Rating:
Summary: More energy than a tub of dead fish
Review: I think this movie sucked. I'm a fan of the books, and I say Mr. Columbus worried too much about being too faithfull. It had no life of it's own. One example; John Hurt is normally a good character on screen, and he should have been in this, also, especially as the fun character that the wand-seller in the book was. He wasn't. It was one of the most boring scenes in the movie. I only give it two stars because of the Quidditch match.
Thanks Chris, for putting Harry Potter images into my head which are far less stimulating than my own imagination.
|
