Rating: 
Summary: Standard book to movie conversion
Review: For those that have read the book, most likely you will find that in the effort to include so much from the book the movie lacks a lot character development. There's just is not enough time for it. Read and love the books, watch and enjoy a fun but standard book to movie conversion.
Rating: 
Summary: The movie that makes you feel like a kid again
Review: I totally and completely loved this movie. The special effects and acting were phenomenal. I really liked the fact that it stuck so close to the book. The only part that I was even remotely dissappointed in was the fact that the movie didn't show that the stone was being protected by a spell from each teacher (including Snape). Since I saw the movie before I read the book, imagine my suprise to find that there were one or two more obstacles for Harry, Hermione and Ron to get through. All in all though it was a tremendous movie and I would (and have) recommend it anyone and everyone to see at least once.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter excellent reproduction of print
Review: I had not read Harry Potter until my husband and I took our 8 year old daugther to see the movie. Seeing the movie made me want to read the book. I can't wait for the release of the next Harry Potter movies!
Rating:
Summary: One of the best movies of all-time!
Review: I saw this movie in theatres, I have not bought the DVD yet. I've got to say, for a kid movie...it was really good! Even most of my friends say this movie and they say it was good! For the actors and actresses of this movie, they did a very good job for their first time. Most of them were new-comers into the acting world and they did a great job in their acting. I give this movie a 5 stars because it was just like the book, except they added one extra scene in which you have to buy this DVD. I can not wait until part two comes out.
Rating:
Summary: As Always The Book Is Better ...
Review: This is a wonderful movie for many reasons, the magic of the book becomes a visual masterpiece with elaborate special effects, detailed sets and hundreds of extras. However the movie has multiple short comings. First the acting is just plain bad, especially Harry, Hermoine and Ron. Second, this movie tries to do to much. While I appaud the effort to keep the plot the same the book, too much is crammed into this movie. The plot jumps from important scene to important scene without transition. In the end this style gets annoying, and much of the really important scenes do not get the time or attention they deserve. While the the end of the book is pretty brilliant the end of the movie doesn't really make any sense. However I gave this movie three stars because its a movie for little kids, and i think little kids would like it.
Rating: 
Summary: My one question- why did Jo let something like this happen?
Review: As much as I appreciate the *hard work* of the three stars (Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint)their first time on a movie screen is not their most brilliant. Add that to a director who probably should've been someone else, and the poor author who was too busy having a life to completely take over the project, and this movie falls short. The one redeming quality is Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) who is excellent in every way shape and form! Then subtract two for the two worst things: Richard Harris, who looked like he was going to die on the set; and Warner Borthers, who should die a fiery death for killing everything sacred. With a lame Quidditch scene (there ARE fouls in Quidditch) and tons of plot holes (how did Draco get detention too? Wait, where were they...? Oh never mind!) This might be something you'd rather rent, or not see at all.
Rating:
Summary: Far out!
Review: This movie is great. I've seen it three times. ... This movie is fantastic! It was hilarious! I liked the part when Ron says, "She needs to sort out her priorities." Filch, Snape, and Malfoy were all ugly, creepy, and sinister enough. It's a three-way tie when it comes to who was creepier. If I had to pick one, I would say Snape gets first, with Malfoy running a close second. If that creepy little kid was Malfoy, I shudder to think what Mr. Malfoy is going to look like in the next movie. Two words, MUST SEE! Harry and Ron were both good actors, not to mention CUTE! The part with the sweets on the train was hilarious, I just love the look on Ron's face when Harry says, "We'll take the lot." The real tear-jerker scene for me was when Harry was sitting on the window petting Hedwig.
Rating:
Summary: Eh...
Review: I went into "Harry Potter" in a bit of a predjudicial funk due to being treated like a leper when I told anyone that I had NOT read the book. The frenzy surrounding the release of the movie was reminiscent of the battle for Pokemon plush toys at a Burger King promotional and I could not for the life of me understand it. But of course I had to see for myself. From frame one I could tell it was going to be a marathon. The first quarter of the film was the retelling of the Cinderella story from a mypoic boys point of view. Our young hero, forced to live in a closet beneath the stairs, was raised by a cartoonishly fat and ugly uncle and his evil brood. Then one day a flock of owls -- hundreds of them -- begin dropping off invitations for young Potter to attend a Sorcerers school. I kept looking around to see if there were others who shared my sense of "What the?" but saw only dazed smiling faced staring blankly at the screen. There is not a transitional catalyst between Harry being the ugly duckling to becoming big man on the magical campus. Everything that is fantastical is taken for granted and soon the audience is forced to abandon the real world for the fantasy of Hogwarts. The acting limitations of Daniel Radcliffe who plays Harry din't help matters much. I felt that the producers fell prey to the "Jennifer Lopez" school of thought for casting -- forget talent, does the actor LOOK the part. The supporting adult cast is stellar to say the least and do much for making the film cohesive. The effects are grand and "effective" and attention grabbing. Over all, I would recommend the film only because of it's wide appeal and "shiny things" approach to audience appeasement. Having studied acting and produciton in college, I am well aware of the need to "suspend one's belief" in order to see the merits of the work. I just wish I hadn't suspended nearly 3 hours to do it.
Rating:
Summary: my review on harry potter and the philosopher's stone
Review: the film was billiant and went to see it three times because i loved it so much. i don't think there is any bad points at all. my best bit is when harry and ron go a tell hermione that there is a toll in the castle and when harry puts his wond up the tolls nosie it is hobbile when you see his snote. i like it when there is lots of letters coming down the chimney, and when harry makes the glass of the snke in desappear.is that at london zoo? if it is i have been there.i really like every single pit of it. han=ve read all the books ther are billiant . please make the nexts billiant to...
Rating:
Summary: "Harry Potter" Entertaining If Nothing Else
Review: Believe me, as an anti-Potter fan I went into "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" completely ready to hate it (in fact, I was even looking foward to leaving the theater and bashing it as much as possible). But I cannot do it. While it is certainly, certainly, CERTAINLY no masterpiece of cinema by any means, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" does manage to be entertaining and fun, holding a viewer's attention for its complete two-and-a-half hour run. I credit the entertaining success of "Harry Potter..." to the fact that its script is very detailed, engrossing, and polished; not to mention that it gives all the fans of the books what they want by being as loyal as possible to the original text. The film's entertainment also stems from the fact that the cast is a cavalcade of British actors ranging from newcomers (Daniel Radcliffe manages to give a strong performance as the title role) to seasoned actors (such as Richard Harris, Alan Rickman, and Maggie Smith, who are always joys to watch and are certainly no exception here). The ensemble cast all gives performances that are very well thought out and, more importantly, it looks like everyone in the cast is having spectacular fun bringing the story and characters to life. Yet "Harry Potter..." does have its weaknesses, and all these weaknesses are mainly the result of what is obviously a rushed product. It is very apparant in the special effects and some of the blocking and editing, that the film was rushed and not made to the best quality it could have been, in order to get it released during the holiday season. Because of all this, some of the scenery, costumes, and even characters look, sound, and feel phony and unbelievable: And in a movie where the enviroment and the characters that inhabit that enviroment are such an integral part of its charm, that can be a BIG problem. Nevertheless, "Harry Potter" does entertain, and I cannot give it the bashing I would have hoped. If you're looking for something to fill a couple hours time or to perhaps show at a party or something of the sort, you might as well give "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" a try.
|
