Rating: 
Summary: My reveiw of the books
Review: I like the books! The fourth book was a little long. I hope the fifth book comes out soon. My Mom read them, too. She is a teacher. I'm waiting for the movie to come out on TV. I don't go to movie theaters! I've heard that the author copied her Harry Potter stories from another series with Larry Potter. Can you give me more information on this?
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter Movie
Review: I thought it was an AWSOME movie! not to mention that Daniel Radclffe is a total cutie pie! I am going to see the movie for the 3rd time tomorrow! I wasn't much of a fan of Harry Potter then i saw the movie and now i am like totally obsessed!!!
Rating: 
Summary: It was missing lots, but nothing was changed or added.
Review: I was glad to see that they pretty much stayed true to the book. The only thing I didn't like is that there were a lot of things missing, and I felt that you should read the book before watching the movie. Read the book, then watch the Movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Not so hot
Review: While this was an ok children's movie, I didn't think that it captured nearly as much of the feeling as the books did. While it contained most of the scenes in the book, the movie felt somewhat tedious, and I had far less emotional reaction to the characters in the movie. See it, but don't expect to be nearly as good as the book was.
Rating:
Summary: soundtrack ruins everything
Review: Such a pity when brilliant in almost all respects, the movie is ruined by a terribly unappropriate music. The book was all about an exciting adventure, and the soundtrack could have been written for some tragedy. I wish the director gave the task of music writing to some young Harry Potter fan, instead of the guy who obviously enjoys his glory too much to think about the actual mood of the Harry Potter books.
On a bright side, the cast is brilliant! And they really do their best to create magic for us.
Rating:
Summary: See the Movie & Read the Book
Review: Saw this with my boy (who has not read the book). We both enjoyed it, but I think having read the book I caught a few more nuances than he did. The movie is as faithful as possible to the book. The few things that were added were great, what was left out was to get the movie to a manageable length. I'm somewhat disapointed that Peeves didn't make the cut, but I don't know what I would have left out to put him in. See the movie, read the book, adult or child you'll enjoy both.
Rating: 
Summary: They Played It Too Safe
Review: Our six year old, who has not read the book, loved it. Two "forty something adults", a boy 14 and a girl 13 were left disappointed to their several degrees. The family's hope is that as Harry grows older, the film adaptations will develop characters who are rounded and capture the heart of the novels' attraction. We thought the choices of actors to play the lead characters were good. Hermione was our favorite. The teachers were all well cast; however, the challenges that each teacher's character presented to Harry was lost. The depiction of the centaur offended our expectations of wisdom, courage and nobility. The sets were too predictable. Harry's room in the cupboard, London Zoo, Hagrid's hut, the bank, and the forest were the best. The shifting stairs, the refectory, and the Quidditch arena did not capture the magic. The advantage of a film and special effects is that it can produce an image in an innovative, undiscovered way.
The chess game and the zoo being premier examples of bringing the reading experience alive. The Harry Potter stories are tales of good defeating evil. In order for this to translate to film, the evil must also be defined. The movies simply labels this and that as evil and implies you better watch out. Still, if you adore the books as we do, you need to see the movie.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone
Review: A must book and movie for all parents who want to be involved in
their childrens life. It took me from the realities of life and
sent me back into a time when I thought that magic was for real.
But best of all it put me on the same time span as my nine year
old daughter, even if it was for only 2-1/2 wonderful hours. We
absolutely need more of this kind of entertainment.
Rating:
Summary: The best movie I have seen all year.
Review: Out of all the movies I have seen this year this has to be the best. I had been waiting like many other Harry Potter fans to see this movie and my hopes were met. This movie follows the book very carefully leaving out some stuff, but nothing to important. I have read the book twice now and if I could I would go see the movie again, but I am going to give it some time and go see in a month. The acting in the movie was wonderful and all the charactor lived up to what I expected them to look like. I was very surprise to see that so much that I in mind was portrayed in the movie. I even got my non-reading boyfriend to start the books. And so far he is into them. He wasn't to sure about the movie, but in the middle he told me it was the best movie he had seen in a long while. I can't wait to see this movie again and again.
Rating:
Summary: Just like the book, but on the screen
Review: Overall, it was a good movie. At no point did I find myself thinking, "That looks wrong." That seems to be to be an important criteria on which an adaptation should be judged. Sometimes scenes or characters didn't look exactly the way I remembered picturing them when I read the book, but that's to be expected. The best I could hope for is that nothing was too jarring, and that turned out to be the case. With a cast including folks like Alan Rickman, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Zoe Wannamaker, Richard Griffiths, and, of course, Robbie Coltrane, it seems pretty pointless to praise the acting. I did feel that Rickman, as Professor Snape, seemed to be played a little too obviously sinister, but then, that's how he's written in the books as well. Truly impressive, however, were the three lead kids. Daniel Radcliffe is Harry Potter, no question, just as Rupert Grint makes a fantastic Ron Weasley. Here's hoping that the movies are successful enough that all seven books are adapted (which seems a foregone conclusion, but who knows?) and that it happens quickly enough that they can use the same actors throughout the whole series. The real surprise for me was Emma Watson as Hermione Granger. When I saw photos of her, she absolutely did not match the Hermione in my head. Seeing her move, hearing her speak the lines, I take back everything I said about her. Now I don't mind at all that I'll be picturing her every time I read future Harry Potter stories. And then there's Chris Columbus, the director. I had initially been disappointed to hear he was directing this film. (I had been rooting for Brad Silberling, husband to the lovely Amy Brenneman of Judging Amy fame, director of City of Angels and Casper.) I was afraid Columbus would be too light and superficial. Of course, what I was forgetting was that Chris Columbus didn't just make Nine Months and the weaker bits of Bicentennial Man. After seeing Harry Potter, I didn't feel like I needed to watch Young Sherlock Holmes, Only the Lonely, or Heartbreak Hotel to remind myself why I used to be a Chris Columbus fan. (Okay, he only wrote Young Sherlock Holmes, but if anything proves that he can handle an adventure movie set in a British school about much-beloved characters...) Yeah, okay, there were a couple of times when things seemed a bit too concrete, not quite magical enough. But more often than not, there were bits like the Quiddich match: breathtaking, exhilarating, and, well, magical. Hopefully, things will only get better with the second film. Is it a flawless masterpiece? Not at all. Perhaps the biggest problem is the film's struggle to get everyone's favorite bits in, sometimes at the expense of good storytelling. There are some awkward transitions where the filmmakers seem to be relying on the audience's knowledge of the book to explain how characters got from point A to point B. Even more frustrating is that some scenes were rearranged to help with the compression/adaptation from the page to the screen. So if that could be done in some cases, why not make other changes when necessary to make things flow more smoothly? On the other hand, maybe we'll see a director's cut on DVD with all the missing information. After all, the movie is 2 1/2 hours long as it is, so maybe some of that stuff was cut for time after being shot. But it was a fine adaptation, and a good movie in its own right. I'd pay to see it again in the theater, and that's about the highest praise I can give it.
| 
