Rating: 
Summary: Great!!
Review: When I read the book, I didn't care for it that much. I recently saw the movie and loved it. Funny, Action-packed, and Mysterious. Brings the Hogwarts world top life.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Review: This was a very good movie. At first you thought it was something or someone else but it wasn't. If you like a movie with alot of good twist this is the one to see.
Rating:
Summary: You have to love a movie that makes you go read the book
Review: After going to the crowded movie theater and watching "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," I kept thinking I have not been as impressed by the book as I should be. Not that everybody rushing off to the theaters has read the book; there were a couple of adults sitting behind us and he kept asking her to explain everything throughout the entire movie and not only did they keep talking but she kept getting things WRONG. I did not know if I should tell them to keep quiet, correct her mistooks or just have Hermione zap them. Anyhow, watching "Harry Potter" was like watching "Dune" because the reader of the book gets to fill in all the details. Screenwriter Steven Kloves got a lot of praise because he was going to stick to J. K. Rowling's book, which was obviously a no-brainer. This is a "Gone With the Wind"/"Godfather" sort of book, not "Jaws." But at the end of the film it was rather clear a bit of the magic was missing.Specifically, Kloves fails to really set up the two key scenes in the film, by which I mean the two scenes where I was prepared to cry. In explaining to some friends why the first Harry Potter book was so special I was talking about the awarding of the final points for the House Cup and how Hermione and Ron get points, and Harry gets points, but the final points go to Neville. This was where Rowling goes off the beaten path and celebrates the least as well as the greatest. I decided that if they did not have that scene, I was going to be so mad. Well, the scene was there, but the whole idea that Harry and his friends had been losing points, i.e., what made Neville's attempt heroic, was just not there. I had to supply it all from reading the book. The other emotional moment is when Hagrid gives Harry the photo album. All I wanted here was one line, how Hagrid had sent owls to the friends of Harry's parents for photographs. I was looking forward to Harry flipping through dozens of wizard photographs, which is why you would have an album and not just a frame. Again, you understand it better having read the book but that does affect the enjoyment of the moment. They was so much concern that the script would make unnecessary changes or additions and what became important ended up being those deletions. However, I do get Kloves credit for his changing the end of the climatic battle. Even when you are dealing with millions of kids who have read the book and get taken out of school to go see an early morning showing, you still want to surprise them and give them an added thrill. Klove definitely gets all the credit on that one. The production design is absolutely perfect and for all the concern the wee folk have over the images created in their mind's eye about Hogwarts, I would find it hard to believe anyone would not be entranced by what is on the screen. I also appreciate the fact that at the end the credits the three kids came first. They ARE the movie, but we all remember how long it took Christopher Reeve to get top billing in a Superman film. The adults are equally marvelous, especially Robby Coltrane when he notes he should not have told the kids something and Alan Rickman every time he does anything with his face. So, in the final analysis, the movie glorifies the book both by what it includes and what it excludes from Rowling's writings. As my youngest daughter, Maggie, worried after the film: "They left so much out and the books just keep getting thicker." Fortunately this underscores why reading the Harry Potter books has become such a passion, and not just with kids. In a perfect world "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" would have been a great television mini-series, devoting enough time to getting all of the details letter perfect. Then again, what is wrong with a world where kids learn books are better than movies?
Rating:
Summary: I loved it!
Review: This movie is definatly the best movie of the year.Daniel Radcliffe did a spectacular job.I reccomend this movie to Harry Potter lovers and beyond!
Rating: 
Summary: Not as true to the book.
Review: I fell for all the hype that this movie would be true to the book. I was disappointed on that measure. I did find the movie enjoyable. I felt however it missed a lot of good plot sequences that made the book so good. For instance the animosity between Harry with Malfoy and Duddly was skimmed over and as a result their hated of each other was not well defined. One of the best parts of the book was when Harry told the professor it was do to Malfoy that he had his broom. The tension between Harry and his rivals was one of the most dramatic of the book and I was sorry to see it didn't make it to the large screen. Over all the special effects were great and the move very good. I would recommend it highly to people who have not read the books.
Rating: 
Summary: empty and disjointed
Review: Although I'm an adult, I love to go to kids' movies. I love the strong visuals and sense of fantasy that children's movies deliver. So I'm not complaining because I expected grownup sophistication. It's just that Harry Potter was way too long on "look at all the cool stuff they have at the wizard's academy" and short on plot and action. Not having read the book, I didn't know what to make of the story - the movie didn't go into enough detail, and the mystery could have been made much more intriguing and, well, mysterious. I also would have liked to see more of the dark underbelly of Hogwarts campus and the Dark Forest. I'd expected long scenes of Harry and friends negotiating a variety of obstacles along twisty, turny corridors and forest paths, shape-shifting creatures jumping out at them, etc. etc. Instead it was a shot of this and a shot of that - mostly stationary shots - choppily edited. The only really complex scene was the ball game, and I found that boring because I'm not into sports. If you're a kid I guess there's nothing anybody can say to make you not see Harry Potter, but if you're an adult looking for kid-style diversion I'd say go see Monsters Inc instead.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful family movie
Review: I have read all four books and listened to the cd's, my 8 yr. old daughter has only listened to the cd's and my husband has not done either. We all three went to see the movie. There are some minor changes from the book but not enough to keep it from being enjoyable. I loved the movie, my daughter said "I didn't like it, I LOVED it." My husband really enjoyed it because he went to a private school in Canada (1963-67) where they were divided into houses and had inter-house competitions. He said it brought back some memories. This movie gets a five-star rating from three our of four people in our family (we did not take the 2 yr. old).
Rating:
Summary: Magic, from the first to the last
Review: Even though there were many parts condensed into smaller scenes, the movie was wonderful (although I did miss the "sock" conversation). I was able to see it in the first showing in my town on the 16th and when it started I thought the guy in front of me was going to pee his pants or keel over from excitement (I wasn't that bad, ;) but it was close). You have to watch the movie as a movie and try not to bring in the knowledge you have of the books--it makes it easier to just sit back and absorb all of the really cool special effects, great actors, and beautiful soundtrack (which is really good too, btw!). The movie is exactly like the books though, in the respect that it makes you really want to see the second one "Now!" especially if you've read the other three books! This is a great movie--now what are you doing here reading? Go see it!
Rating:
Summary: A paragon of all film adaptations!
Review: First off, 99.5 of this entire film is faithful to the novel of the same name - You can't really say it's too faithful (like some cycnical critics have) because you can only put so much detail from a novel into a film. Director Chris Colombus and Writer Steven Kloves (Wonder Boys) have created a wonderful adaption for all hardcore Potter fans and even those Muggles who refuse to read the books in the series. The actors in this film really suit their characters quite well. Daniel Radcliffe - who once played Dr. Copperfield on BBC - plays Harry like a charming hero; laid-back at times, and then interested, dumb-founded, and amazed at everything going on around him. And Radcliffe LOOKS very much like the great Harry Potter that J.K. Rowling created and imagined. Emma Watson as Hermione & Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley play their characters to the core. Hermione could show a little more of her sweeter side (which she does in the book...well toward the end of the book). Rupert plays Ron like the character we all know - a clutz, with a big, ambitious heart. The rest of the "English" cast is outstanding: The great Richard Harris as the long-bearded, proud Albus Dumbledore, Dame Maggie Smith as Minerva McGonagall (with a mixture of her stoic Miss Jean Brodie from "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie," and her Mother Superior from "Sister Act"), Alan Rickman as an almost perfect, but not scary enough Professor Snape, Robbie Coltraine as Hagrid (a loveable gigantic man who isn't as scary as he looks), Ian Hart as the stuttering, nervous Professor Quirrell AND not-scary enough Lord Voldermort, Julie Walters (who I almost didn't recognize) as Ron Weasley's mother, Fiona Shaw and Richard Griffiths as the two-Pleasantvillish normal "Muggles" that raise Harry from infancy, and many other talented actors. The film is visually dazzling - from the opening scene on Privet Drive to Hogwarts Express at Platform 9 and 3/4 - to Hogwarts School and its grounds, including the great dining hall, the dormitories, staircases, hidden passageways, Quidditch field, and the Dark Forest and so on. The Quidditch match (sequence) is especially exciting. I have to say it must have been enormously difficult to create this sequence (which was done on computers). How did Rowling really picture her Quidditch field? All I have to say is, that it was very close to what I had imagined it to be. It's hard to make any fantasy sport look real AND magical simultaneously. :-) As for the length (at just over 2 hrs. 30 mins) it's unfortunate that every detail from the book couldn't be fit into this film (which of course is not the fault of the filmmakers). Granted, if you read the book, there were a few spots in the film where I noticed some plot points missing. That's perfectly fine though. My only "issue" (and I don't mean to sound critical in any way) with this film is that I thought there could have been a little more of a contrast/reflection between good and evil (Harry vs. Lord Voldermort). Then again, I have a slight inclination that the third and fourth films in what many hope to be a seven-film series, will be much darker, like the books. The film pretty much flew by and kept my attention throughout. The school year went by way too fast; I only wish the film could've been five hours long. That's what you get from reading the book first, you don't want it to end. That's how I felt at the end of this film. Again, the acting was very good - I think everyone in this film had a blast being a part of it. In the future films, we only hope to see more of the Weasleys, Filch and his cat, Nick, and many others. Was it me, or did Fluffy look like he could've belonged as one of those giant computer generated monsters in "The Mummy Returns" or "Tomb Raider"? John Willams' score plays well in this film - it's not one of his ultimate, grandioso scores - but I loved the simplistic Hedwig's Theme that could be heard throughout. I really loved this delightful film for all it's worth. You will laugh at the exchanges between Harry, Ron, and Hermione. You will be awed by the Quidditch match. You will smile and maybe get a little teary-eyed during the scenes with Harry and Albus Dumbledore. If you've read the book, it will only make the experience more enchanting. I think J.K. Rowling is smiling somewhere right now and is extraordinarily proud of how this film turned out. For kids and adults of all ages! Go see it! :-) And if you haven't read the books, go READ them! They're simply amazing and magically imaginative! Overall Grade: A- (One of the year's best films!)
Rating: 
Summary: Faithful to the book, yet works on film.
Review: The following behind J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter is tremendous. However, just because a popular and world-famous book is turned into a movie, doesn't mean that the movie will be a success. Nor does it mean the movie will be any good. Often, movies based upon novels are terrible (look at the many bad movies based upon Stephen King stories, for instance). Sometimes, a movie based upon a novel ends up better than the original work (FIELD OF DREAMS or JURASSIC PARK for instance). However, it is a very rare case when a movie based upon a novel succeeds as a piece of cinema and stays true to the original work. HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE is such a film.The film stays true to the novel on which is based and leaves very few details out. It also works quite well as a movie. Even more surprising is that the film successfully introduces the world of Harry Potter to the uninitiated, without becoming bogged down in details. The actors do a brilliant job, the special effects are fairly believable, and the cinematography is picturesque. The only major drawback to the film is that the characters aren't completely fleshed out. Of course, complexity of character perhaps is best left out of the first of what will be many films in a series.A delightful film that most are sure to at least half-way enjoy.
|
