Rating: 
Summary: THIS FILM IS FUN AND EXCITING.
Review: THIS FILM IS ONLY ONE OF MANY HARRY POTTER FILMS. THIS FILM IS FUN AND VERY IMAGINATIVE. THE SITUATIONS THESE ADORABLE KIDS GET THEMSELVES IN ARE BOTH EXCITING AND DANGEROUSLY FUN. THE WHOLE FAMILY WILL LOVE THIS FILM AND THE OTHER HARRY POTTER FILMS.
Rating:
Summary: A phenomenal, surprisingly good movie
Review: Let me start off by saying that I am a fan of the Harry Potter book series. I did sincerely hope that the movie would follow the book, because many big screen book adaptators take creative license to visualize their own interpretation. In other words, they mess it up. Overall, I was pleased with the first book's giant leap to the big screen, in spite of a few minor discrepancies.
First of all, every actor hired to play a part in this movie was perfectly suited for his or her role. Daniel Radcliffe IS Harry Potter! If I ever see him on the street, where he will undoubtedly be mobbed by thirteen-year-old girls, I will probably slip up and call him Harry a few times! I do hope that little guy becomes a big star and not just the next Macaulay Culkin. He seems like a good kid.
As I was saying, now when I read the other novels, I can picture these actors and actresses in my mind. Bravo to the casting directors for giving accurate visual representations of the characters. And another bravo to the actors themselves for doing an excellent job all around.
The special effects in this film were fantastic, especially in the Quidditch scene. It is SO much better to see this game played out on the big screen than to read about it in the book. You can never quite see the action in your head while reading, so this movie pieces that scene together for you. That is why I call this movie "a great supplement to the book." It fills in gaps where your imagination may not have been so strong.
This film is destined to be a kid-movie classic, right alongside films like "The Wizard of Oz" and "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." Not many kid-movies are for kids anymore ...but this one is relatively safe to show in schools on Movie Day Friday or during recess. "Harry Potter" has brought a little respectability back to the children's films genre.
The story is great and magical with some very true-to-life themes about uniqueness, bravery, and friendship. Yes, there were a few moments that didn't stick to the book, namely Hermione's exclusion from the final challenge, but I couldn't help but feel like the movie at least did the book justice. I understand that screenwriting is a difficult process that does not allow for everything in a book to be included in the film version. That's the way it goes.
As far as the DVD is concerned, the movie transfer and sound is very excellent, but the special features aren't so special. I enjoyed the deleted scenes, but I did not enjoy the mess of a maze I had to endure to unlock them. A word to the wise: find a website that specializes in DVD easter eggs. Print out the directions to finding the deleted scenes and follow them to save time and frustration.
In the meantime, enjoy this first installment in what will prove to be a very profitable franchise. I know lots of people, myself included, who are DYING to see "Chamber of Secrets." It's addictive!
Rating: 
Summary: I didn't want it to end!
Review: Though by no means the only example of the subject, Joanne Rowling's imaginative book about an eleven year old boy discovering his new-found talent for magic, reintroduced the age-old genre of the fairy story to modern children. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" benefits enormously from modern CGI effects to bring to life a film which will entertain everyone. The basic story concerns an orphaned boy living with his appalling cousins who are determined that he should not find out that he was actually born a wizard. Through outside help from the magical community, he finds himself enrolled at Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and the fun starts.Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane and Alan Rickman help to back up the principal child stars and give this film some real presence. Daniel Radcliffe is rather flat as Harry Potter and Emma Watson, as the precocious Hermione Granger, is excessively theatrical and both are shaded by Rupert Grint who is excellent in the role of their cynical friend, Ron Weazley. No doubt all the child actors will improve with time, given that they stay with the series. At the moment they are still finding their feet. There are plenty of special effects to amaze and amuse and I can't imagine how such a film could have been made without them. The cinematography by John Seale, ACS, is excellent and the whole film has a very pleasing look. The two-disc DVD set has many extras, some of which seem to require an intimate knowledge of magic to access. On the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and I wait with baited breath for the sequels. It is not a five star film; I did not expect it to be, but it certainly rates considerable merit. I have yet to figure out why WB chose to release it as anything other than "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", since that is both the title of the original book and the title of the film in any other market than the US. Apart from a few little blemishes, an excellent movie. Kids will give it five stars; parents will enjoy it, too. Thoroughly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Middle school girls love it -- too scary for little kids
Review: "The Sorcerer's Stone" is a good buy for parents of girls in grades 5-7. That group seems to really love this film. For adults there is very little depth to the characters or the story and one viewing is probably enough. Still, this film is more entertaining for moms and dads than many other kid films. The child actors are enjoyable to watch and the scenes are well done. No expense was spared on scenery or special effects so the three-headed-dog looks just as realistic as the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. For younger children the effects are a little too well done, and therefore pretty scary. The book version I will recommend as entertaining for everyone.
Rating:
Summary: This movie is so much fun!
Review: Between an excellent story, brilliant young actors, and awesome effects I enjoyed this movie fully! The young lady who plays Hermoine is an absolute scene stealer, I'd never seen her before but she brought her character to life charmingly. As an elementary teacher I hear my students and parents speak very enthusiastically about this film as well. I know there is some religious controversy at times, which makes no sense because the movie is not about any religious aspect of Witchcraft, it is just a fun fantasy.
Rating:
Summary: Charming
Review: Harry Potter and the Socerer's Stone is a charming movie, just like its conterpart book. The movie is beautiful and the graphics excellent. Each of the characters are wonderfully crafted. My only complaint is that the girl who plays Hermoine is far too pretty. Hermoine was not a pretty girl. Most importantly, the plot sticks closely to the book. I was very impressed with the young actors. They bring the combination of childishness and craft which such roles demand. The DVD is wonderful, with tons of interesting extras.
Rating:
Summary: Everyone I know who has seen it loves it
Review: Chris Columbus did an excellent job putting this book onto the screen. One of my coworkers has 6 copies of this film because she is scared of not having a back up. My teenage sisters (13, 14 and 16) love it along with my 31 year old boyfriend and I (25 years old). The only annoying thing about the dvd is that whenever you want to see the extra scenes you have to go through a whole series of stuff. Very cool the first time but irritating to have to do it everytime. The casting was perfect. The actors really look like the characters from the book. The magic was also very well done and believable. I don't recommend this movie for children too young as my friend's 5 year old daughter was scared (although she loves the movie) other than that this is a must own movie.
Rating:
Summary: Sorry wrong year
Review: This movie had it been released at a different time during the year, or a different year it would have been much better and recieved a much higher rating. So let me explain myself. The director's adaptation was weak at best, and left the true Harry Potter fans wishing for more. Who is Hermione Granger, where does she come from, how about Draco Malfoy, all we know is that Hermione and Harry are friends and Draco and Harry are not. Why does Draco hate Hermione and Ron so much? There are so many plot holes you could drive a fleet of Mack trucks through them. Yes I know that there are going to be a lot more movies coming out and they have to introduce the characters slower than in the books, but still they should have provided a background of some of the students.
With that said the acting was only ok. Very rarely could I even sense the hatred that Draco Malfoy has for Hermione and Ron, and feelings that Harry, Ron, and Harry have for Snape and Malfoy. Granted the acting is done primarily by children, so hopefully with time they will become better at staying in character and following character true to the books. Stone is so recent that the majority of moviegoers have read the book, and Stone leaves out quite a bit of information and skips very good scenes. Because of this Harry Potter die hard fans did not like the movie. Also the special effects team had a great opportunity to impress the audience through the Quidditch matches, however it was too short, and in all honestly didn't look real. My desire and the desire of many is to actually feel what it would be like to ride a broomstick and dive for the golden snitch! Luckily they now have opportunities to make the effects better and develop the characters more in Chamber.
Rating: 
Summary: What WERE they thinking of...
Review: Those were the words that kept flashing through my mind as I sat speechless in the cinema watching the credits roll. I couldn't believe I had spent two years eagerly anticipating this...well, I can't even think up a name for it that wouldn't anger other readers. I can only think of one word in relation to the movie: why? Why would someone want to take one of the most remarkable children's books ever written and reduce it to a pile of special effects, all for the sake of making some cash? The whimsy and magic of the book are dumped by the roadside in favor of a lot of CGI designed solely to make people go 'wow'. These children live in a school, but you would hardly know it from watching the movie, because the three main characters say scarcely a single word to any other child apart from each other. They appear to live in almost complete isolation. The interrelationships between all the children, the small details about their teachers, their lessons and their general routine, the little things that make the books so special, find no adequate equivalent in the film. They were probably considered too ordinary or too boring to be put on screen; but in that case, Chris Columbus should realize the fact that some of us go to the movies to see more than just neat special effects (not all of which, come to think of it, were all that neat). If you're interested in character development, do not look here for it. Very few of the supporting cast got as much screen time as they deserved. Often there was only enough time to introduce a character and then leave them hanging in the air. The animosity between Harry and Malfoy, or in particular between Ron and Malfoy, was barely explored. This was not helped by the fact that Malfoy looked hardly threatening enough to hurt a fly. I sincerely hope someone will give Tom Felton a few more acting lessons before the next movie comes out. The dislike that Harry and Ron felt for Hermione at the start of the book is also largely ignored by the filmakers. I realize that when making a movie like this one a lot of things have to be cut by necessity, but some things really are crucial to a plot. The movie is devoted to the special effects. Scenes without a 'wow' factor in them are cut out, unless they are really needed to explain the scenes with lots of special effects. I know also that when hiring children actors, it is unwise to expect a lot, but this is completely ridiculous. Harry seems to have three facial expressions throughout the movie: the mildly surprised one, the very surprised one, and the one where he is in a state of utter shock. Oh yeah, and now and again, he nods thoughtfully at one or other of his friends. Rupert Grint tries far too hard to act; he's constantly overdoing his part, whether he's trying to be funny or scared or amazed or whatever. At first, I found him rather endearing, but afterwards he quickly got on my nerves.
Robbie Coltraine is really good as Hagrid, in one of the few convincing performances of the movie, and so is Emma Watson as the law-abiding Hermione. Ian Hart is a brilliant Professor Quirrell, and John Hurt brings a rare moment of magic to the screen as Mr Ollivander. Besides these, the performances are fairly solid, but never memorable, and the actors generally miss that spark that would make them great in their respective roles. Children will probably enjoy this film because it is, after all, Harry Potter, and they may like the sets and visuals.
If you're an adult and you wish to see a great fantasy movie, check out Lord of the Rings. It's got great characters, great action, a screenplay that is a worthy adaptation of the original book, wonderful cinematography, actors that can actually act, and a beautiful score. What more could you ask for?
As for this movie, I gave it two stars because out of respect for the book, which I love with all my heart, I could not give it any less. However, be warned. I am very surprised that J.K. Rowling approved of this movie when she saw it.
Rating: 
Summary: Why is the entire population of the US and the UK so amazed?
Review: Lets be honest here folks, Harry Bloody Potter. An annoying eleven year old wearing oversized glasses claiming to have special powers. If he has special powers, why does he not fix his sight...which is obviously impaired, seen as he wears those ridiculously oversized frames on his nose that make his look like something out of the Addams family, (only that was a decent movie).
But of course my review is not all about pointless jeering. The acting in the film is not good either, and the guy that plays Harry Potter (I'll be damned if I know his name) seems to spend most of the time in a trance like state, wide eyed, and in awe of yet another seemingly amazing sight...although the all too poor special effects make it hard to be in awe of anything here, except of course for the terrible script. If you want some good examples of amazing movie making, try anything by Stanley Kubrick, Taxi Driver, Star Wars Trilogy, and anything by Stanley Kubrick. (Yes I realise I typed it twice. It was an attempt at humour, small and suttle, but definatly present).
|
