Rating: 
Summary: Harry Potter and the Consumer's Snore
Review: I'm sorry, I know our nation is chock full of beloved Harry Potter fans, but this movie is definately not all it was cracked up to be. I haven't read the books, nor do I intend to after hearing from credible sources that the movies closely reflect them. I give two stars because the effects were cool. And I admit some of the ideas were very creative, such as the broomstick/soccer match and the concept of a university for witches. Besides that, though, the movie didn't catch my interest in the least bit. Nothing is built on what started out as a potential plot. The characters don't connect, nor is the audience lured to care for the fates of any of them. At the end, when Harry is fighting the bad guy, I realized that almost zero amount of rapport had been built up necessary for me to care enough to root for Harry. I ended up rooting for the bad guy, hoping he would win and give the film a much needed twist. Good editing and effects, but editing and effects doth not a movie make. George Lucas will tell you the same as he ponders his mistake of learning it the hard way. Check out Lord of the Rings for a much more superior alternative for the sci-fi, wizards and dragons type moviegoer.
Rating: 
Summary: LOVED IT!
Review: Kids, Adults, everyone everywhere! Harry Potter was an amazing movie! The Book was absolutely amazing, and the movie was a brilliant adaption!It is about an orphan named Harry Potter, who unknowingly ruined a horrible and powerful wizard named Voldemort as a baby. He was celebrated and known all over the wizarding world! Harry's only living relatives were his aunt and uncle who were muggles (non-wizrds) and Harry is forced to live with them, though they hate him for being a wizard. Harry knows nothing of being a wizard until a messanger from the wizarding world shows up at Harry's doorstep and tells him he was accpeted to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. He is faced with problems when he comes to Hogwarts. Harry and his two best friends, Ron Weasly and Hermione Granger find out that a teacher is trying to steal something that may bring Voldemort back to life! It is up to them to find out who, when no teacher or the head of The Gryffindors (a class)believes them, and the only person who would listen is the man who isn't there: the Headmaster Dumbledore. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) plays his part quite well, and has brang an image of Harry Potter to life. The roles of Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) were so fantastically played! I felt as if I personally knew them by the end of the movie! They were convincing and displayed their roles with enthusiasm. Maggie Smith played the head of the Gryffindor house, and Alan Rickman who played Head of the Slytherin house, were great! They are amazing actors in an amazing movie! The movie would not be the same without their performance! Richard Harris, played Dumbledore, the Headmaster of Hogwarts. He was perfectly suited for the role! After reading all the books, i had a clear image of what Dumbledore would look like, and Richard Harris could have convinced me he was the real Dumbledore! Unfortunately, he passed away during the summer and the third film forwards will be played by a different actor, but Richard Harris will live on in our hearts.
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining movie for adults, but not for really young kids
Review: This movie is for the fans of the Harry Potter books, and Columbus says he tried to make it as faithful to the book as possible. Well, they excluded a whole lotta stuff. Such as: Where did Peeves go? What about the Potion challenge to reach the Stone? What about meeting Malfoy in Diagon Alley? Seeing as this is a children's movie, which means that their attention spans can only hold so long, I agree with some of this, except for Peeves, who I think could have provided a lot of slapstick entertainment for the kiddies. I am the Harry Potter fan and anyone who says the yare is a pretender to the throne. Tell me how many staircases there are at Hogwarts. Huh? Can you? Well, it's 142. Anyway, back to the review. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe, doing a B performance in an A movie) is a lonely little boy who is one day given a letter that he is accepted at a school for magic kids. Harry learns from a big guy named Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane, better in Bond) that he is famous because a Dark wizard tried to kill him, but did not succeed, instead leaving a lightning shaped cut on his forehead. At school, Professor Dumbledore (Richard Harris, maybe they'll replace him with Ian McKellen) helps Harry to understand the magical world, and Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint, looking like Sam to Harry's Frodo), his friends, provide sympathetic support for Harry (as well as comic relief). They try to stop the robbery of a magical Stone that turns people immortal, through a long sequence of fighting realistic looking monsters, playing a game like rugby on broomsticks, and treating the whole deal like it's a mystery, researching in the library and so on. They do make enemies, such as Snape (Alan Rickman), a sinister, greasy-haired Potions professor, and Malfoy (Tom Felton) an equally sinister, greasy-haired little whelp who prides himself on almost everything and thinks Harry's a jerk to hang around with Mudbloods (magic people with Muggle [non-magic] parents) and the Weasleys, who are apparently so poor they are a disgrace to magic-blooded people. The CGI is absolutely excellent. The Quidditch is absolutely real and you are all tense about half the time, wincing with this fear that some kid is going to fall about two hundred feet and break his neck in a million places. In fact, two kids do fall from high heights during the match, but no blood is shown. In fact, they seem to be all right, but maybe that's why we don't see them for the rest of the film, heh heh heh... Anyway, the CGI. The three-headed dog is one scary pit bull terrier (I think that's what he is, he may be a black Lab mixed with a bulldog) andwhenver it starts growling, you'll say, "Nice doggies, or are you one doggy?" Well, maybe not. Hogwarts, in all its stair-revolving, portrait-chatting glory, is quite a sight, and when Voldemort comes out of the- no, I will not spoil it for you. The troll looks right, but he doesn't look like something that could exist. They should have made him a little more like the cave troll from Lord of the Rings. His clothes were a little odd, too. The goblins, although not any huge accomplishment, are great. But the real deal is the giant chess match. That is one mean ches match. If you have not read the books, picture a bunch of ten-foot tall chess pieces, looking like real medieval warriors, swinging swords and maces and shattering the opposing pieces into little stone fragments. It is SWEET! This movie sadly came out in a year where it had a lot of competition. Lord of the Rings will draw in more money (but not a whole lot more) and Shrek, Ice Age and Monster's Inc will appeal to the kids more once they're out on DVD. However, adults should go and see it (yes, there is some adult-level humor) and they will enjoy themselves. Once I got this on DVD, I saw it and the Lord of the Rings first movie back-to-back. I honestly liked Lord of the Rings more, but then I'm a twelve-year-old and I live for action. This movie is a good movie for the holidays. Lord of the Rings is not, due in part to the enormous amount of bloodshed. It does have touching moments, but Harry Potter is just more light-hearted. It's all up to you.
Rating:
Summary: Love the Book...Like the movie
Review: This was a good movie. I think Daniel Radcliff was perfect to be Harry Potter. All the the other actors fitted in good enough. But one thing that bothered me was the movie was nothing like the book. They left too many details and scenes out. I think that threw the movie off from being perfect as the book.
The acting was pretty good but not that perfect. The special effects impressed me alot especially with the three headed dog, the Qudditch match, the dragon, and the two headed man.
Overall I think this was a really good movie. I just bought the movie 2 months ago and every friday night my little sister is like "let's watch Harry Potter". I would recommend reading the book first before seeing the movie. The book was better.
Rating:
Summary: 3.6 stars from me.
Review: This is a pretty good adaptation of the first of the five Harry Potter books and for the most part it's pretty enjoyable. This movie is of a young boy named Harry Potter who lives with his mean-spirited relatives The Dursleys in Little Whinging after his parents were murdered and has live a hellish 11 years of his life under their mistreatment of him. Harry however, learns about his past and discovers the ability to create magic with the use of a wand and goes to a magic school called Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and a whole new world awaits him. Harry learns that his parents were killed by an evil wizard named Lord Voldemort and now that he's returning, Voldemort is after a legendary artifact called the Sorcerer's Stone to give him eternal life. Harry Potter now has to stop Voldemort from getting ahold of the stone. This movie for the most part is really good but while it's good, it's kind of drags on a bit in places and is boring in some areas too but is a lot of fun. The sequel "The Chamber of Secrets" though is a lot better but this first one is a decent start.
Rating: 
Summary: Are you all mad? It was horrible!
Review: I will try to keep this review rant-free, but it is going to be difficult. There are many causes behind my 1-star review of this abysmal movie, most of which follow:
To begin with, the acting. All the children (with a few exceptions) over-act their parts, especially one Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), who appears to think that opening her mouth very wide, bobbing her head, and exhaling on each line will improve her performance. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), however, does not seem to act at all, apparently under the assumption that having the title role means he can just stand and deliver his lines with either forced or no emotion, in a Pokemon-esque style. But, in the words of the Potions Master, "Fame clearly isn't everything." Alan Rickman and Dame Maggie Smith, as Professors Snape and McGonagall respectively, perform bravely in a sea of the mundane, and David Bradley gives his all to the character of Filch the Caretaker, but they are not enough to save this movie. Robbie Coltrane's giant Hagrid, though cute, is reduced to the one-liner ("I shouldn'ave said that!") comic relief, much like Gimli in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy (which at least had brilliant special effects and acting from the heart). Richard Harris (Dumbledore), though I do not wish to speak ill of the dead, lacks the twinkle and spirit his character has in the books.
Secondly, there is the little matter of the special effects. To cram it all into one sentence, they are over-done, much like everything else in this movie. Fluffy, the three headed dog, looks like a creation of Pixar, and Quidditch, though ment to be thrilling and awe-inspiring, is rather like watching someone else play a video game. And lose.
Not to be a purist, but one of the greatest issues that bugged me about this movie was its horrible, horrible mistreatment of the book (no offense Doug Thomas, author of the amazon.com review, but did you even read the book?!). Oh, sure, there are the small things one can be nit-picky about (the color change of Aunt Petunia's hair from blonde to brown, the students are not called in alphabetical order for the Sorting) but some of the blatant errors makes a Harry Potter fan's blood run cold. For exmple, Harry's eyes. In the book, Harry's eyes are the same color as his mother's (this is rumored to be very important in future books) and that color is green. Green, the color of grass and emeralds and Sprite bottles. Yet, Chris Columbus appears to be colorblind, for Harry's eyes in the film are blue! Blue! I apologize; I promised not to rant. Actually, the only things that do come from the book are presented in such a way that one thinks the writers used a checklist.
If you add all this to John Williams' hyper-emotional score and the film's choppy delivery, you have a definate must-not-see.
Rating:
Summary: The Moose Hole - Potter Weaves Magic Spell
Review: After much hype and anticipation, the whimsical world of Harry Potter is finally brought to life on the big screen in its first feature film. When Warner Brothers bought the rights to the famous children's book series, millions waited in utter anticipation for the adaptation of the first book and executives at the studio were just biting at the bit to accept the money of Mr. Potter's legion of loyal fans. But this was far from an easy task for the movie studio. Why? In order to produce a magnificent achievement for the paying customers, the movie must remain true (to an extent) to the books created by J.K. Rowling and the whimsy and fantasy of those tales must remain no matter the cost. For if this does not happen, Warner Brothers executives can kiss those potential profits on sequels good-bye. The story focuses on the adventures of a young boy in England who discovers he is actually a wizard in training and that he is to be taken to a school, far from the world of the muggles (or non-magical folk) that he has grown up with all his life. After losing his parents when he was a baby, Harry Potter now resides with his terrible adopted family that consists of his boorish uncle, his snippy aunt, and spoiled, brutish cousin. But one day, he learns that he has been accepted to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. When he arrives in the magic world of wizards and witches, he is overwhelmed to find out that he is one of the most famous sorcerers of all time m due to his confrontation, and evidential defeat of, the evil Lord Voldemort as a baby. But he no sooner puts he foot through the door then the trouble starts, whether it be the up-tight Professor Snape or the spoiled Draco Malfroy. After many strange events around the school, it is up to Harry and his new friends to stop an evil creature from stealing the Sorcerer's Stone which could bring about the re-generation of Lord Valdemort. The story for Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone is done marvelously well but not based on material from the book. When going to see this film, don't go into it basing it on the book. You'll only be left with disappointment. Though most of the performances were played out by young actors and actresses, those performances were done in such a way that they were sophisticated for the age of the performers and therefore surprising. Daniel Radcliffe fits perfectly into the lead role of Harry Potter but the real determining factor will be if Radcliffe can keep that outstanding persona in this role as he matures through the sequels. Overall the performers seem well suited to their roles but that is not fully realized in the beginning. Only over a period of time in the film do the actors feel fully comfortable in their roles. The only disappointment has to be with John Cleese's Sir Nicholas, which was shown as nearly as much as he probably should have been. Overall, the mystical and extraordinary world of Harry Potter is brought to life in a way that many wouldn't have thought possible years ago and, though the film may differ from the book from time to time, even the most hardcore of Potter followers will be happy with this first film adaptation. Not to say it is absolutely perfect, there are some minor things to complain about. The time length, which stood at two hours and thirty minutes, seemed way too long for a feature at younger children. Granted they probably won't care too much since their eyes will be glued to the screen but that can problem based on potty breaks or something to that effect. Another problem deals with the editing of the movie. As an example, the burnt roof of Hogwarts that was not present in one scene was shown in the next with no explanation to what happened. But outside of those small problems, Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone is a delightful treat during the holiday season but not near the same level as Disney/Pixar's Monsters Inc. but a great film none the less.
Rating:
Summary: IT came, IT saw, ............it sucked
Review: Harry Potter, hmmmm, where to begin. If you read my review for the book you already know What I think. Here we have a fine example of a promising cast that fails to deliver what the book did, except one thing, THE BOOK DIDN'T DELIEVER ANYTHING!!! Lets start off with Leading Man Daniel Radcliffe. He seems to be a nice kid but I am not going to lie, he is not a good actor. He merely says things and looks around, and then moves his body parts. It's not acting, it's just insulting the art of theater. I, in all my honesty, don't really think you care what so ever about the other actors, but in case you are wondering about Draco, who is played by Tom Felton, he does nothing but remind you of Karl Lagerfeld, and oh yeah, he acts like a total douche to everyone in the film, just like Karl Lagerfeld would do in real life. Which, I guess if you like Draco, or merely dorks with greasey long blond hair, at least that's promising. Hermione, ( FINALLY! we learn how to pronounce her damn name, I have been calling her hormonies for the longest time now) is played by the adorable Emma Watson. For Some reason, when you see Harry and Hermoine ( what is it with J.K. Rowling and the names that begin with the letter H, anyway? Does it have some thing to do with hell, maybe? Like it holds a secret message?)you are strongly reminded of Corey and Topanga from Boy Meets World. Let me just say that who ever got Rupert Grint only got him because for some reason, red hair is cool when you are intoxicated or high. That kid doesn't scare me becuase he is a red head, he just scares me. There is something about him that reminds you of leprechans or Garden Gnomes, like he is about to burst out of a box of Lucky Charms. Normally I would call him Shawn from Boy Meets World to complete the boy meets world joke but that would be an insult to Ryder Strong and his good looks and acting so, I must refrain. And of course, there is Professor Snape, played by one of the ever talented actors in the film Alan Rickman. In this role, Alan Rickman resembles the Nine Inch Nails one and only one band member Trent. The only good actors are the adult actors in the film, but don't be suprised, most of the kids here are in their first role, or for those that aren't, it gives you a better excuse to avoid the film, and hope that they drop the whole series.
Rating:
Summary: Good film
Review: This first film of the popular book series has its occasional flaws, (notably through the Norbert story) but it is a fair adaption of a wonderful tale.
Rating: 
Summary: From Brunette to Blonde - Why?!
Review: The Harry Potter series of books has been one of the most enjoyable pieces of communication tools between my son and I since, my son was 11 years old. My son is now 14 years old. We have read the books, frequently listen to the audio versions read by Jim Dale, and own each of the movies (DVD) released to date. Quite frankly, in my opinion, neither of the movies can compare, or exceed the magical rendition of Jim Dale's reading of the adventures. We agree with a previous reviewer, that the Sorcerer's Stone movie loses the true feeling of her book, its pace, and its charm. We too really didn't understand the sensless changes made for the movie, like changing the color of the Dursley's hair, from Light to Dark. And just why did the "bearly acceptable" Hagrid have to blurt out, "your a wizard Harry" in such a deflating fashion. In my opinion any director of any of the Potter movies will be hard pressed to capture the true feeling of the book on film. I challenge any to compare with Jim Dales' audio reading.(PLEASE!!) In all fairness without a doubt, the movie in a way the books could not, brought to life the Quidditch game. Overall, We think this movie would make a good addition to one's Potter library, but it is totally unnecessary for one to see it to capture the true Potter magic.
|
