Rating: 
Summary: Visually cool, but the book is better
Review: This is a visually beautiful movie, even though I thought the book was much better. That's what your imagination can do for you.
Rating: 
Summary: Hooray for Harry Potter
Review: I didn't read the Harry Potter books although I did buy them for my Grandchildren. I now intend to read them all immediately!!!!!!!I can't tell you how much I enjoyed this movie. From beginning to end, I didn't move from my chair. I'm a science fiction fan and a fan of English authors here I have the best of both worlds.Daniel Radcliffe is perfect as Harry Potter and his performance was "enchanting". The whole cast was perfect. I could have done without Harry's miserable Aunt and Uncle but in every life a little rain must fall. Hogwarts is a delight. Too bad there are no schools like that in real life. Or are there? The adventures are mind boogling and the movie itself is "awesome".I wish we could all experience a real "quidditch" match. Wouldn't that be a wonder.The author has an imagination that I truly envy. The movie is wonderful. A delight for the mind, imagination and the eye.It will truly cast a spell over you.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter and the Socerer's Stone
Review: Very very good kids film. Imaginative and fun. Could not find the seven deleted scenes that were advertised on the back of the package?
Rating:
Summary: Not nearly as good as the books
Review: I am a fan of the Harry Potter books; I read them all the time, so I would say I am VERY familiar with them. The movie was disappointing to me though, it wasn't altogether that realistic, I imagined characters acting/looking different, and it was too childish and lame. Also, they left out key characters like Peeves, and key scenes that gave the story more depth and developed the characters better (not just action all of the time.) I think that Harry Potter would have been better left just as the book, to let the kids imagine their own scenery and views of the characters, and maybe a movie would be ok years after the books were published, like Lord of the Rings (which, by the way, is my favorite movie ever :) ) so as to give the books more credibility. Now people who saw the movie but have never read the books are given a false impression of Harry Potter. Also, as I said before, it is geared too much toward younger kids, which takes away from it quite a bit. It is obvious that they were trying to make as much money as possible out of it by targeting the younger kids as well. However, there were some good things- I liked most of the acting, I think that the young actors did a good job for being their first or one of their first productions and the music was well done. But I suggest watching Lord of the Rings instead!! (and reading the book, which is just as awesome as the movie.)
Rating: 
Summary: Enchanting, but will it withstand the test of time?
Review: I devoured the first four "Harry Potter" books--even driving over to a friend's house to borrow #4 when I couldn't find a place to buy a copy at 9 p.m., when I finished #3. "Not as good as the book" is such a cliche that, of course, I didn't expect the movie to be as good as the books. I was pleasantly surprised--until the end of the "Harry Potter" movie. We'll get to that in a moment. The look of the movie is just what I thought Hogwarts and Harry's world would look like. I love the cupboard under the stairs. I love the owl mail. I loved the Great Hall's ceiling change, and the different holiday decorations floating above the students' heads. The Quiddich match was fun to watch. Diagon Alley was more than I could take in. Watching the chocolate frogs jump around was a nice surprise. Wow! On reflection, the depth of the "Harry Potter" series comes in the later books, as Harry learns more about his parents, and the one whose name we shall not utter. The fun of the first book was the how Rowling created Harry's world. So in that sense, I think that the movie works well in recreating that world. After the previews came out, I read criticism that the movie did not appear "dark" enough, that Hogwarts appears to fresh and clean. Granted, the Quiddich scenes and the broom-riding lesson scene take place under bright sunny skies, but the interior scenes seem gothic enough to satisfy those wanting a darker look. The young actors chosen to play the three leads--Harry, Ron and Hermione--have a great chemistry. I hope that they will continue through the remaining movies. While I loved the movie, I do have a few criticisms. First of all, where was the Potions Room? Everyone I know who both read the book and saw the movie was disappointed that this room was left out. For those few who have done neither, I will back up a bit and explain. In "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," Harry, Ron and Hermione gradually put together that a mysterious package that Hagrid the Giant picks up at Gringotts Bank, a break-in at Gringotts, the warnings about staying off the third floor, and other incidents all seem to be related. Thus, as the novelty of Harry discovering the world of wizardry wears off, the movie delves more into this mystery. Ultimately, the trio decide they need to try to get past the various magical barriers to protect the Sorcerer's Stone. One of the strengths of the book was that this process involved critical talents of all three friends--Ron's chess playing, Hermione's riddle solving, and Harry, well, that would be giving away too much. Hermione's key contribution comes in the Potions Room, where she and Harry have to select from among several drinks--some poison--in order to advance closer to the Sorcerer's Stone. In the movie, however, Hermione merely recognizes the plant in which they are entangled--thanks to her overzealous studying--and explains what to do to get through. The scene merely enforces her being a "know-it-all." My other criticism is that, for all its wonderful "eye candy" qualities, "Harry Potter" seems to lack the warmth of "The Fellowship of the Ring." Perhaps had these two movies not premiered so close together, the comparison would not so immediately come to mind. Both deal with fantasy worlds in which magical creates and an unexpected, seemingly unpowerful hero emerge. Of the two, "The Fellowship of the Ring" shines as a classic that no doubt will stand the test of time. As for "Harry Potter," let's hope that the sequels develop the depth that of the subsequent books.
Rating:
Summary: Intimate Harry Potter-is DVD better?
Review: Just got through viewing this DVD for the 3rd time and I find new things in the movie that I missed, or overlooked, or ignored...like the huge mass of Fluffy-saliva that drools down onto poor Ron...YUCK! I totally spaced on that part of the scene.Valdemort was more alevolent and vicious up close, also the Devil's Snare looked a lot more realistic in the DVD than the movie. Norbert's birth brought a tear to my eye, really, again, the intimacy of Harry Potter. What can I say, it's fabulous. Gorgeous color, dense black, magnificent Dolby Surround sound track that grows on you, I swear, the more times I see the film, the more I like John Williams scoring..it was kinda fomrula in the theater, but it really is an enjoyable set of notes. I may go out on a limb here without my Nimbus 2000 to catch me, but I think this DVD is superior to the theatrical release, because you can get up close and personal with this film. I feel young watching it.
Rating: 
Summary: Far from the classic this is made out to be.
Review: Many viewers and critics have made this film out to be an instant classic. I don't see
anything in the film that would lead me to believe this assessment. Both the film itself and
DVD are pretty lackluster. I'll start with the film: 1.) The main concept of this film is nothing new. It's the same good vs. evil struggle that
many, many films have featured for a long time. Beyond that, many of the specific details
of the film are ... familiar. The evil-guy-who-lurks-in-the-woods-while-restoring-his-power stuff should have Tolkien
flipping in his grave. The mirror that allows you to see whatever you want is also highly
derivative. 2.) I found the special effects very unconvincing, especially for a very effect-heavy film.
Specifically, I found any scene that involved broomstick-flying to be very bad looking.
When the characters were replaced by CG versions of themselves, it was far too easy to
tell. Also, the quidditch game looked rather silly. The CG, people and backgrounds did
not match up well, and the whole thing just loked like a video game. 3.) Although I have not read the book, I get the idea from other reviews that this was
pretty faithful to it. If that is so, than I think that the book must be rather dull and
uninteresting. If this was far different from the book, than the screenplay is very
uninteresting. To me, the storyline just did not keep me involved. It wasn't terribly put
together or anything, just not really creative or engrossing. 4.) I found many of the names of people, groups and places to be very child-oriented.
Two that come to mind are "Dumbledore" and "Hufflepuff". These words are designed to
appeal to a child's aesthetic sense, and I found them rather annoying to be heard over and
over again. 5.) I think there were some strange messages sent to kids in this film. The girl is insulted
by the red-haired boy on one occassion, but 5 minutes later, she has forgotten all about it.
Then the red-head is portrayed as some sort of hero, despite the fact that he is a slovenly,
lazy and ignorant product of overpopulation. 6.) I didn't really understand the whole concept of dividing the school into houses. I,
furthermore, found it ridiculous that everyone in the school (including the teachers)
seemed to favor one house over the others. Why would there be an "evil" house, if
whoever is put there ends up a bad guy anyway? Shouldn't they just expel any kids that
would be assigned to that house? 7.) If you are going to make a film that is highly derivative, and has themes that are used
all the time, I think it is essential to make the storyline at least interesting and engrossing,
and the heroes likeable. A film like Star Wars isn't anything terribly ground-breaking,
either, but the storyline, to me, is very engrossing, and the characters are well-thought out
and likeable for the most part. Maybe I just have a predilection for space-themed stories,
and against magic-themed ones, or (more likely) Harry Potter just wasn't as well done. I
didn't like any of the characters. Harry's two friends were very annoying to me, especially
the red-haired boy. Now to the DVD: This DVD is one of the most frustrating and worthless ones around, as far as special
features go. It is set up like some sort of video game, in which you have to solve puzzles
to unlock the features. However, for most of them, if you just get the puzzles wrong
enough times, they let you through anyway. Still, once you get to the special features,
there is really nothing of interest. No commentaries, no storyboards or animatics, no
making-of featurettes, just a couple of deleted scenes and 15-minutes worth of interviews. The combination of a lackluster film and frustrating, uninteresting special features on the
DVD make this one to avoid. I suggest going out and getting Fellowship of the Ring, the
Star Wars films and some British humor books instead of this.
Rating:
Summary: What's up with the whining adult reviews.
Review: Appearently too many adults that reviewed the movie failed to remember that this is an adaptation of a childerns book, for those childern. Trying to compare this movie to "The Lord of The Rings", a movie made for adults from a book written for adults is childish and makes the reviewer peavish at best. Instead of complaining about the adaptation, be thankful the director made the movie for the childern who loved the book and did not attempt to convert it to something for adults which probly would end up not pleasing either the adults or the childern for whom it was written.
Rating:
Summary: Sorry kiddies and adult children: this was dull
Review: What gives, with the Harry Potter phenomenon? I tossed the book aside after a couple of chapters, and I found the movie a faithful reproduction of its blandness. Here's a message to Rowling and the directors: a fantastic world is less fantastic if people keep explaining what they see. At every turn, the characters seem compelled to comment on the "wonders" that they encounter. "The paintings move!" "I know what that is, it's a ___________." This short-circuits any feeling of magic that the phenomenon might possess. The kid does a good job acting in a wooden story, and the effects are convincing if not special. The movie gets a star above one for the performance of Alan Rickman, who can compensate for the uninspired direction and writing with his qualities as an actor. For hardcore HP fans only (I know, I know, there are a billion of you or so; why not depart from the example set by your peers and get behind a truly magical movie, like "My Neighbor Totoro?").
Rating:
Summary: Good but not that Great
Review: I'm a HUGE Harry Potter fan. When I first saw the movie in theaters I was very excited. The special effects were great. the actors were magnificent but movie is not that faithful to the first book. If you have not read Harry Potter you will probably give this 5 stars. It did twist some of the scenes to make the movie shorter but as a fan when I saw it I thought "that's not how it happened..." The music by John Williams is definitely the best. The special features on the second disc are not worth it though. If you are a Potter fan this DVD is a must have and the soundtrack too!
|
