Rating: 
Summary: Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone
Review: That was such a good movie! I really recommend it...not only 'cause I love Harry Potter, but because it truly is a fantastic film. Of course, the book is much better but the movie is still great. It was extremely faithful to the book, even if it went a bit faster (totally understandable; I mean, it went by very quickly and it still lasted 2:30 hours! Imagine if it went by as detailed as the book!) it was still pretty much the same. The special effects rock (I especially liked the Quidditch match), and the actors are wonderful. I think Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint are everything I imagined Harry and Ron to be...Ron is hilarious and Harry is sweet and innocent...they were adorable. I also like Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy...he was really good. All in all, I really liked it and I think it deserves all five stars i gave it!
Rating:
Summary: A very good movie!
Review: The movie doesn't meet the perfection of the books, but it's still great on its own. There are many scenes from the book that I really loved seeing, such as the letters pouring out of the chimney, the centaur rescueing Harry in the forest, the giant chess game, the Mirror of Erised, the invisibility cloak, and best of all, the Quidditch scene. There is very well done acting done by the actors, both the adults and the kids, especially by Alan Rickman who played Snape and Robbie Coltrane who played Hagrid. The trio is probably in store great fame in the future. I also really liked the visual affects, which provided soome very beautiful images. The castle setting was also very lovely. I have disagreements with critics. I've seen reviews that say the movie captures the details, but not the magic. Actually, the film is very magical, creating a very poignant mood and tone throughout the whole movie. There also are a great deal of details from the books that weren't in the movie, such as the sorting hat song, Harry and Malfoy's midnight duel challenge, less scenes with Norbert, and I don't remember seeing Peeves in this film. I almost took away a star just because of the absense of Peeves. But the movie is good on its own, and even if you've never read the books before you'll probably like this movie. Don't worry about the film being scary either because it's more of middle-school age movie than a little kid's movie. When I saw "Monster's Inc."(good movie by the way), I saw kindergarteners. When I saw "Harry Potter" two weeks later, I saw kids from ages 9-11 sitting around with their little Harry Potter bags. So it's more of an older kid movie. Length is not a concern either, because I thought that the pace moved along very well and the story was always very interesting. If you haven't seen the movie yet, you better go see it. It's certainly worth seeing and I know I'm going to see it again and again!
Rating:
Summary: A nice surpise!
Review: I didn't want to see the movie much less read the books. My husband, who had already read all four books, dragged me out to see it. It is incredible. The movie prompted me to read all four books in a week. Anyone who read the books will not be disappointed in the film. I am now looking forward to the fifth book in the series and the next movie.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, Whirling Fantasy Suitable For Family Viewing
Review: HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE is an extremely well-made, well-acted fantasy film which follows the titular 11-year-old character from the time when he is dropped off at the home of "the worst Muggles (non-wizards) around" as a baby, through his miserable home-life with his adoptive family, until he is mercifully rescued by the huge, pear-shaped, and bearded Hagrid (wonderfully played by the larger-than-life Scottish comedic actor Robbie Coltrane) who takes him away to the mysterious Hogwarts Academy for Wizardry. It's good that it doesn't take long for the film to get to this point (maybe half an hour), because we get to spend the next two hours following Harry thru his many adventures while being a student at Hogwarts.As I found when I saw it in the theater last week, this film is not just spectacle; it actually has an interesting story, which is why J.K. Rowling's novel of the same name has sold so many millions of copies (not to mention each of the following novels in the series). On the whole, HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE is well-acted by Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (his best friend Ron), Emma Watson (the wisecrackingly funny female friend Hermione), Dame Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, the always wonderful Alan Rickman (as the disagreeably forboding master of Slytherin), the aforementioned Coltrane, and even little Warwick Davis (in TWO roles, no less: one as a grumpy Hogwarts Bank teller, and the other as a Hogwarts professor). HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE is a feast for the eyes and the imagination, is perfect for ages 8 and up, and is easily one of the very best movies of 2001.
Rating: 
Summary: Pretty good, falls short
Review: Good acting, I was impressed. the only person i can say otherwise for is richard Griffiths, who plays Harry's uncle Vernon. He wasn't intimidating enough. I imagined Uncle Vernon as a big, old, scary, man, which he wasn't. He was to nice, he was like my grandpa, which was a bit weird. Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint were amazing though. Alan Rickman was a wonderful Snape, and Robbie Coltrane was cute as Hagrid. I loved his 'I shouldn't have said that' line, which was cute. acitng definitly gets a 8.9/10 from me.
I definitly thought, and willalways think that Harry Potter should have stayed a book, even though I have only read the first one. I feel that it ruins half the purpose of the book, which is to use your imagination. All thoguth I suppose it was kind cool to see what someone else imagined what Harry's world looks like.
All in all, it was a pretty entertaining film, and i would like to see the second and third one, after I read the books of course.
Rating:
Summary: POTTER IS MEZMORIZING!
Review: I thought that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's/Philosipher's Stone was amazing! It is definitly not just a child's movie! There is so much imagonation and the special affects are great. It sticks pretty much to the story...except without a lot of unnecissary info. Rated PG! Go SEE IT!
Rating:
Summary: The Greatest Story Ever Told
Review: Forget all those musty old propaganda stories put together in the 1600's, this is the only instruction you will ever need! Harry, our protagonist, comes from a bad situation with his family but he goes on to achieve great things! He is good, loyal, mostly honest and would do anything to help a friend. The only reason I gave this a 5 is because I could not add even more stars! This movie is absolutely the best and even though not 100% in accord with the book, is nevertheless a wonderful adaptation. Run, don't walk, and go see it!!
Rating: 
Summary: Perfect cast, but...
Review: A perfect cast for Harry Potter all sequels to come, if they could keep them through. But rather disappointing in script and editing, and directing the kids. Director didn't seem to bring out the best of all the leading kids. They're all very talented and gifted and very eager in their roles, but they didn't shine their bests, unfortunately. ALAN RICKMAN worked his best again, as always, as Prof. Snape -a very menacing teacher indeed and at the same time was subtly goodhearted in a way. It's a pity that a film like this should have a time constraint. We all are for 4 hours film, with or without intermission, if it had to be so, to get to the very heart of HARRY POTTER.
Rating: 
Summary: A boring experience
Review: This film could have used a few lighter moments as it gets too solemn and frankly, no one laughs at all. The performance I attended had about the same amount of young people and adults.
The problem, perhaps, is in the casting of the main character, Harry, as he doesn't register an emotion in the film. I think I was the only one that laughed a couple of times, but everyone else sat without any reaction at all!
Chris Columbus could have turned this film into a fun experience by infusing some happy moments. The adaptation of the book is too literal, and perhaps it was a misjudgment.
Since the film was going to be a blockbuster, even before it opened, someone either at Warner Bros., or Ms. Rowling, if she had any say in the matter, could have improved a whole lot by giving it another treatment where that "magic" which is lacking here could have given it a different feeling
Rating:
Summary: Somethings Missing
Review: I've read all of the Potter books and I'm a mom - I loved them...but the movie left me feeling empty - like something was missing - The special effects were great - and I know with all that is in each book - you can't fit everything in a 2 1/2 hr movie - but still I felt like something was missing - (maybe if I had not read all of the books) only the first....I feel the 3rd book was the best...I'm real anxious for the next...Anyone who says these books are bad for children have not read them...Children need imagination in their lives - or they are not children at all...When I was growing up I read all of the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys Books - they are no different...just 30 yrs later....thanks for your time....
|
