Rating: 
Summary: LORD of the RINGS is far better
Review: Although there were moments in this film that I thought were inspired, I never really felt moved by it, whether it was sympathy for the characters, or suspense. Not a whole lot of emotion.
I just read a review of LOTR and the reviewer strongly stated that "Harry Potter" is a better film, so I came over to "Harry Potter" to say, "NO WAY! LOTR is a FAR better movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Magical entertaining and endearing , a film with heart.
Review: Okay fans the second film or the second year is in theatres tommorrow so I, decided to reveiw the first film.Some who have tried to compare this film to the Fellowship Of The Ring ah let's not go there people because there two diffrent films and
Lord Of The Rings is far more complex then Harry Potter while
Harry Potter is well done it's not going to have any huge battle
scenes or old fashiond fantasy,Harry Potter is what I, call new
fantasy much more magical and rich with the type of fantasy every
one would enjoy Lord Of The Rings is just not for everyone it is
for hard core fantasy lovers, beloved J.K. Rowlings books about
the young wizard who comes to Hogwart's to learn to be a great
wizard and his adventures are all lively told in the seven books
but what kind of director would take on the task of bringing this
beloved tale to life i would be none other then the director of
the Home Alone films Chris Columbus. The story goes as one day when Harry Potter was only a baby
his parent's were attacked by an evil wizard named Valdemort,he
was then taken in by his horrible foster parents that disliked
him a great deal because he was diffrent then most kids Harry
Potter(Brett Radclif),recieves mail from a Rupis Hagrid(Robie
Coltrain),who takes Potter to a place that's filled with magic
a place called Hogwart's on the way Potter meet's his two new companions Ron Weasly(Ruprent Grint) and Hermonie Granger(Emma
Watts). With Harry Potters poularity not many people at Hogwart's know what to make of there new edition neither does Prof. Dumbeldor(the late Richard Harris),when the three investigate
rumors of the Sorcerer's Stone there days at hogwart's get's a big more stranger and where there path will lead them will test
Potter and his friends jugement to find the stone in this endearing gem. With loads of special features included a guided tour of hogwarts , trailers , games and hunt's you'll be content when you buy this DVD not to mention you get a ticket for The Chamber
Of Secrets if you love fantasy of family film or just want a that feeling that you had when you saw The Wizard Of Oz then
add this film to your collection you won't have any second thoughts you did.
Rating: 
Summary: Wha...
Review: Don't waste your money on this, I saw the movie in the theater and it was terrible. They tried to introduce all the characters, or as many as possible, bad choice. There were scenes that appeared to have no relevance at all. (can anyone say Nobert?). Finally, for such a high budget movie, you'd think they would make some good special effects.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Adventure
Review: The best person to see this movie is someone who wants to read the book but hasn't yet. Obviously a movie that's not 8 hours long never lives up to its book, but the parts they did use were done quite well enough that I don't regret paying seven bucks to see it in the theater. One of the best integrations of CGI I've ever experienced; of course the fact that the movie is a coloring book of a kid's fantasy tale kinda makes that easier. Just the same... If you're 22 like me, give or take a few years, and you loved Legend and The Dark Crystal and The Labyrinth and The Princess Bride and The Neverending Story, pretend you're a kid with a new VCR and you're momma or daddy just rented this for you. It's sure to be a classic in the same vein as those mentioned to the kids who are seeing it now!!
Rating:
Summary: BEST MOVIE EVER (AND I MEAN EVER)
Review: I never was really that interested or obsessed with the Harry Potter books. But that all changed once I saw the movie. It has to be the best movie in the entire world. There are great special effects, casting, and just about everything. It's a little different from the book-- or parts are just sequenced differently. After I saw the movie, I started reading the second book, the third, and the fourth. Then, I decided to go back to the first book. I guess I should have read all the books before I saw the movie because, well, now I kind of followed and liked what the movie's version of the book was like. To me, it just seemed better than the actual book. It made sense once I started reading the other three books and it was all coming together (because of the movie). Now, when I read the books, I don't picture the characters as I would picture them, but as in the movie. The movie just sticks with you. Anyway, the casting for the three main characters were great. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is the exact match for Harry, Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) is exactly how I would have pictured, and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) is just perfect for the part! All in all, this is the best film ever. I can't put it any better than that.
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable, family-friendly fantasy...
Review: I have not read a single word in the Harry Potter series of books, nor do I necessarily intend to do so. As for the film based on part 1 in the series, I can say that it is a pretty good fantasy yarn that is just dark, brooding, and complex enough to interest (some) adults, but not so much so that the younger members of the family won't find something to enjoy, despite the film's length. I am an avid fan of fantasy, but am cautious of break-out franchises, and before plopping down in front of "The Sorcerer's Stone," I was fairly certain I would dislike the film (especially given that it has the misfortune of competing with "The Fellowhip of the Ring," which blows it out of the water). Much to my surprise, that was not the case. It's a good film with lots of atmosphere and capable direction. I'm eager for the next.
Rating:
Summary: Magical acting and effects
Review: While many people complain that the movie version of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" followed the book too closely, I think that its faithfulness to the text gives credit to Rowling's genius. I read the book, so while the plot didn't surprise me the special effects and superb acting did. The book came to life. The casting was excellent - the chemistry between Hermione, Harry, and Ron was magical, and every character was believable. The actor who plays Harry Potter was both a child and an "old soul," which brings depth to his character. I was impressed with many of scenes, such as those with the Sorting Hat, the quidditch game, and the big chess game. A delight to watch!
Rating:
Summary: Misses some magic, but still a lot of fun
Review: I've never read any of the books, co I'm not going to quibble about how well it holds up to any of them. Harry Potter is the son of two married witches killed by the evil witch, Voldemort. Somehow surviving the assault as a baby, marked by a jagged scar, Harry is raised by his hateful cousins (they keep him in a special room under the steps; Harry's portly cousin Dudley makes sure to come down the steps like an elephant) until that day when his parents' alma mater, Hogwarts Academy of Witchcraft, decides to accept him into their freshman class. Knowing nothing of his parents or witchcraft, or of the way that preturnaturally magical people live alongside the rest of us non-magical types (or "muggles"), Harry is happily surprised to learn the truth. Though set in modern-day UK, Hogwarts and the Witches Quarter resemble a cross between England in its Dickensian and Edwardian eras, complete with a winding street that looks like the one used in the "Muppets Christmas Carol" (Hogwarts itself seems like a send-up of the old English schools like those made famous in "Tom Brown's School Days"). Introduced to this new world by a gentle if dim Giant named Hagrid (Robby Coltrane, made to resemble a friendly grizzly in size and texture), Harry takes to his new existence and quickly maps out his challenges both mundane and epic - making friends with other student wizards, amassing points for his "house" (Hogwarts students are divided into dorms), contending with a snotty, bullying student named Draco (another nod to Tom Brown), and looking into the suspicious workings of the academy's potions professor (Alan Rickman) who appears undoubtedly in league with Voldemort. This was a fun film, but somewhat long and loose - too content to be an event movie than a closely plotted one. It was fun watching all of those kid actors navigate a world full of more recognizable adult stars (Maggie Smith resurrecting the heavy Scottish accent she used in "Jean Brodie"; Richard Harris as the school's dean; Alan Rickman who probably doesn't appear enough for plotting reasons; and Michael Caine as...wait, Michael Caine wasn't in this movie! What happened to Michael Caine?) While the special effects are great and all the players do a great job, the movie on the whole holds very few surprises. The moral of the story is that love and friendship are the strongest forms of magic (there's hope for us muggles yet!), but the relationships are undertreated in the script (climaxed in a sort of deadly game of wizrard's chess played by Harry and his friends; in another instance, Ronald makes fun of fellow Griffendor-Wicth Hermione. Though she's hurt, she spends much of the time being about the most frigid 12 year older you can imagine, never explaining how Ron's comment caused so much damage, or why she's so cold). Still, despite its foibles, a fun movie and an event movie that outdoes the latest Star Wars flicks. My 5 year older watched this and had a ball.
Rating:
Summary: Magically Amazing
Review: Ahhh...Harry Potter. This film successfully manages to bring the magic of J.K. Rowling's characters to life. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is the first installment of Rowling's planned seven-book series about a young orphan, Harry Potter, who wakes up on his eleventh birthday only to be told that he is a wizard and has the chance to leave his muggle (non-magic) aunt and uncle to attend the greatest school of all time: Hogwarts. While at school, Harry meets many unforgettable characters who are beautifully portrayed in this film. There is Harry's best friend, red-head Ron Weasley, the fifth child of a poor family who loves, among other things, wizard chess. There is the over-confident Hermoine Granger, who enjoys reading, studying, and being right. There is Harry's nemesis, the evil (and brilliatly casted) Draco Malfoy, starved for power and from a family that is, well, loaded with money. There is the gentle Rufus Hagrid, the gamekeeper at Hogwarts, who wants nothing more than a pet dragon. And there is the beloved headmaster, Prof. Albus Dumbledore (played by the late Richard Harris), a man who is both wise and gentle. Both the books and the movie have come under heavy scrutiny for being about witchcraft. They are. They are also about the struggles of good battling evil and Harry's triumphs and let-downs as he struggles to discover himself and his expectations as a young boy thrown into a world he completely doesn't understand. This isn't evil, it's a magical adventure, much like Peter Pan. Another comment from many fans of the Potter series is that they don't want to see the movies for fear of destroying their views as to what the books are 'really like'. The first time I saw this film, my good friend, who absolutely loves Harry, kept exclaiming, 'This is just how I pictured it!' Many fans have walked away with similar responses, and I have yet to find another movie that follows the book so closely.
The adventures of young Harry at Hogwarts (and even getting there) are magical masterpieces. From his first chance standing on the platform 9 3/4 to his first views of the enchanted ceiling, you will feel Harry's wonder at his predicament -- and, like him, feel the magic behind it all.
Rating:
Summary: Too Long!
Review: I really did not like the book. I did, however, enjoy the film. There is something to be said for a film that stays true to the material on which it is based, and this film is very faithful to the book. There is also something to be said for a film that manages to be as good or better than the material on which it is based. So why only 4 stars out of 5? The film is simply too long ... it could have been cut by 15-30min. Other than that, no complaints whatsoever, and that is coming from someone who did not like the book.
|
