Rating: 
Summary: Full blown letdown
Review: I finally bought the movie. I can't believe what a shallow story line it had. This was a slow movie. I suggest that whatever few haven't seen it yet; to wait for it to play on TV, or just keep a close eye at garage sales, ..., for this.
I was really disappointed by the degree of hype associated to this movie. I wished I would have read 'my' review before buying it.... :(
Rating: 
Summary: Harry Potter...the Snow White for Boys!
Review: From the beginning Harry Potter takes you to a different world. The world of a great imagination where anything can happen and does. It takes you through a full range of emotions...happiness and sadness and everything else inbetween. What can I say! I loved it! I've watched it over 10 times and I still can't get over the greatest mystery at the end of the story. I am also a mystery fan and I was totally fooled to the very end of the movie. It's a treasure. If you haven't seen it you should.
Rating:
Summary: This movie suxored
Review: This movie was about as empty and plastic as a Harry Potter action figure from Burger King. The digital stunt doubles weren't convincing in the least, and the broomstick match looked like a scene from a PS2 game. Everything else looked nice, but the storyline was about as engaging as a stripped clutch. I think this movie would insult the intelligence of a fetus. They must have said the name "Harry Potter" with awe and reverence 6,000 times in this movie. I left the theater at about the time he was putting on the invisible cloak. It was too boring. If I have to saw something good, I'd say there were some pretty places and faces, and the invisible cloak effect was good. -- JJT
Rating:
Summary: H.P. IS REALLY NEAT!!
Review: The movie disc was awsome. Ilike the way the special effects occure. On the features disc I liked to tour Hogwarts,catch the snitch,and visit Diagon Alley. I loved the interviews and there is much more to discover.I won't tell you more in till you buy it.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad movie
Review: Fell asleep 15 minutes into it. Thankfully, I didn't waste my money in the theater and only had to turn off my DVD player to end the torment. Watch Lord of the Rings instead.
Rating:
Summary: Very poor adaptation
Review: When "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" hit the bookstores in 1997, it quickly established the kind of popularity which makes a film version all but inevitable. For four years straight, J.K. Rowling churned out books in what has become one of the most popular contemporary children's book series. Now, of course, attention has been turned to adapting them for film.
If they can't even get the title right, what hope does the rest of the movie have? The cast is a mixed bag. Harry himself is played very well by Daniel Radcliffe, best known (before this) for his portrayal of David Copperfield for the BBC. Alan Rickman is brilliant as Prof. Snape; Dame Maggie Smith would have been better as Prof. McGonagall if she dropped the "Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" accent. Richard Harris an Robbie Coltraine look their roles as Dumbledore and Hagrid respectively, but seem incapable of acting them. As for Harry's classmates, well, Rupert Grint, as Ron, gets little to do but react facially, Emma Watson is insufferable as Hermione, Tom Felton fails to exude any malice as Malfoy, and the rest are just there. The filmmakers went out of their way to make the film look as good as possible, which I can greatly appreciate. Unfortunately, that care didn't extend to anything else. Screenwriter Steven Kloves seems completely ignorant of the basic rules for adapting a book to screen; he retains extraneous bits while cutting vital plot progressions. Moreover, he gives thoroughly English characters thoroughly American turns of phrase. Director Chris Columbus does a very shoddy job of pacing; he could have kept in all seven of those deleted scenes and still come out with a shorter movie if he'd just kept things moving. The flavor and the magic of the book are just drained out of this movie. And now we have the DVD. There are one or two interesting bits to it, like the deleted scenes, the trivia, and a short amalgam of behind-the-scenes interviews, but the rest is convoluted nonsense that - rather like the movie, actually - takes much longer than it needs to and is wholly unsatisfying by the end. I say forget about this cinematic mediocrity and settle down for a good read.
Rating:
Summary: Not Worth your Time
Review: This movie is definitly not worth the time of teens and above. The computer graphics aren't very good and the movie doesn't stay to the five-star book's story line. I'm a HUGE Harry Potter fan and by watching the movie it completely ruined the book for me. The movie seemed to try to cram too many chapters into a too short movie (even though the movie was deathly long it seemed). The actor that plays Harry Potter [is bad] at acting while the makers of the movie didn't even bother to follow the features (Black hair, green eyes) that the Harry Potter in the book had. The movie is definitly not well made and if you haven't seen either yet you should definitly only read the book if you are 12 years old or older.
Rating: 
Summary: Why add all these double discs?
Review: I want to register a general complaint about the blatent profiteering that the studios are attempting on these "special edition" DVDs. I have no desire to watch hours and hours of special footage or behind-the-scenes or DVD-based games. I want to watch the movie. Period. Maybe I'll go thru deleted scenes. But the rest is just fluff so the studio can charge more for the product. In light of this, the Harry Potter DVD is so-so. The movie itself is fine and my kids enjoy it but I don't recall enough of the theatre version to be able to tell what new scenes were added and neither do they. It would have been nice to either put those as seperate clips or have some way to jump directly to them, especially if the marketing campaign makes such a big deal out of it.
Rating: 
Summary: Loved the movie -- DVD defective?
Review: I'm an adult fan of the books. Saw the movie in the theatre and loved it there. Of course, I did go away with that "oh I wish they showed more detail about..." feeling. Also, we didn't bring our 3 1/2 old when the movie came out because we were concerned for the scare factor. Since we've bought it, he (4 yrs now) has watched it 5 times and loves it. He was a little edgy at first with some of the scary scenes, but with the second viewing he got over it. Now as far as the DVD... First let me say, I didn't realize you had to play games to find the extra footage. I assumed that they were now included in the film (even though I couldn't find them there either). I'm going to go investigate that some more. The problem I am having with my DVD is the audio. During the part on Hogwart's Express, Hermione's voice is very much off with the movement of her mouth. As the cd progresses, the audio seems to match itself up a bit better, but still appears "off". I haven't seen any other complaints about this, so I'm thinking maybe I just have a defective copy??? I guess I'll go exchange it tomorrow. Once last note about the DVD... I would have liked to atleast see the DVDs packaged in a clamshell case. The cardboard case and plastic cd tray are not at all up to the standard that you would expect them to be.
Rating:
Summary: Better on a small screen
Review: Okay, I admit it, I got the Harry Potter film. No kids in the family except me, my husband and a Great Dane, but that's kids enough. Although I was rather disappointed with the film when I saw it in the theater, I decided to purchase it anyway. For some reason, it's a better TV sized product than it was a large screen film. Chris Columbus has directed a number of kid type movies, including Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, and Stepmom, but I think his concept of kids and family, although wacky enough, is not quite sinister enough to put the bite into the Harry Potter stories that exists in the books. Harry deals with some pretty heavy duty facts of life, including the death--which he later discovers was murder--of his parents, the active dislike and abuse of his caretakers, the dislocation of going away to a school where he knows no one and must discover for himself whom to trust, and so on. Although arrayed in the majesty and mystery of an ancient and occult world, Hogwarts becomes home and family to Harry. It is, however, not a home and family free of conflict and danger, as Harry soon discovers. Columbus follows the book closely, almost slavishly, but little of that sense of suspense and threat seems to exist despite a lavish set and wonderful performances by all of the cast. One almost has a feel of "holding back" on the part of the director, as though children can't handle the grit of a truly "scary" movie. I mean, get real. Like who went/goes to all those monster movies that have been shown at Saturday matinees for generations! I know a six year old whose favorite film is Jurassic Park. There were several episodes that could have scared the socks off of us, but although they were wonderful visually, they were a great disappointment as a scary experience. Maybe it's just that ones imagination can create scarier monsters than the screen can, but I doubt it. There's always Alien to disprove that theory! I had heard that Steven Spielberg had requested to make the film. I can't help but think that someone who gave us both Jaws and ET could have given us a better, more intense and more meaningful film. The movie as it is does better on a smaller screen, however. Maybe it's just that we've come to expect less from a made for TV movie. As it goes, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone has such a magnificent set, costuming and special effects, that it shines on the small screen which seems to be its natural home. Perhaps that's what was planned all along. Marketing is a powerful force.
| 
