Rating: 
Summary: Can writing and acting save a mediocre director?
Review: Steve Kloves ought to be commended for his adaption of Rowling's novel. The writing is really excellent, as is several other attributes of this movie. Daniel Radcliffe (voice cracking and all) was convincing in the title role. What I found to be missing was some sense of risk on the part of director Chris Columbus. Granted that taking too many liberties with the story would have incited riots from the legion of kids who worship these stories, I felt Columbus did a very mediocre job injecting this film with any sort of personal style. As with his other films, both the hilarious Mrs. Doubtfire, and the horrible Bicentenial Man, Chris Columbus has displayed his penchant for very conservative, "by the numbers" direction. Where directors like David Fincher and Terry Gilliam are such that one could view one of their movies, without knowing it was theirs, and instantly recognize the style, I don't think Columbus has ever made a movie I could watch and think "yup, that's Chris Colubus film." It's sad that the producers of this film felt the need to go the sure route and come up with a pretty good film, instead of a riskier path and maybe come up with something truly magic.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Movie, but don't deny yourself the book!
Review: The movie of the first Harry Potter book is worthy of the time and money to watch it, but it lacks in one essential element; the characters don't seem to believe in the reality of their world as much as I. Hermione never looks around the Great Hall when she first walks in; when he comes to pick him up from the island, Haggrid acts like it has been a few days since he last saw Harry, not many years. There are many such examples.
I am glad for any and all attention the movies generates for the books, however. Ms. Rowling works deserve all the attention they get. Seek them. THERE lies a real adventure in reading.
Rating:
Summary: Magic school without the magic
Review: The time has finally come for the most hyped film of 2001 to grace or curse your home viewing. This film is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, the filmed adaptation of J.K Rowling's wildly popular fantasy novels. As a reader of Rowlings works, I walked into the theater expecting a blowout time and enchanting film and adaptation....and I left the theater disappointed. Young Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) learns on his eleventh birthday that he is the descendant of two powerful wizards and possesses magical powers of his own. He is shunned from the life as an unwanted child to become a student at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, the Oxford for magicians. There Harry meets life-long friends and unknown dangers as he survives his first year. It's not that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a BAD movie, it's just not a particularly good movie. Director Chris Columbus had a lot to handle, and he worked with it, and took the safe way out. As a director of mild family comedies like Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire, Columbus was sure that he was dealing with something that surpasses anything he's ever done before. He was making a kids movie, a film that would touch the hearts of the children only, apparantly. So he took it and made it into a children's movie...too bad. Children's films are made for, of course, children but it can touch into adults and (in this case) non-readers with a sense of evil and dread. Harry Potter does not do that. J.K Rowling's novel does come from a more gentler tone of evil, but sheesh, Columbus, don't make the villain colorful. In Harry Potter, the evil is never exactly explained. Why should we care about this oh-so evil dark wizard, when we don't know much about him, except that he can kill people? Certainly Columbus did not want to make the film too scary since the target age was ages 13 and lower. But a sense of evil would attract more viewers, director! You just can't compare the wizard Voldemort to classic villains like Darth Vader of Star Wars, Sauron of Lord of the Rings and the White Witch from the Narnia novels. Screenwriter Steve Kloves has given us a fairly tedious adaptation of the beloved story of the boy wizard. Of course, how better to tell the story through dialogue? That's just the way to do it. As an adaptation, it's fine, containing most of the book's events with a few minor changes to make the story flow. On the other hand, this is the film's deadliest flaw...it's non-existent ability to stand on it's own. If the Harry Potter novels were never created, and this film was made maybe just by a thought of someone's head, chances are it would not be a box office hit or cherished by critics as it is now. The film just cannot stand on it's own. The film is rushed and does not exactly establish the whole setting or all of the characters. However, the art direction is absolutely stunning. And so are the visual effects. If Chris Columbus did one thing right, it was blending in the CGI, scenery and costumes together into a dazzling and jaw-dropping visual epic. Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is as stunning as sets seen in Star Wars and Indiana Jones, thanks to some CGI trickery. From the narrow and crowded street of Diagon Alley, the Great Hall dining area and to Hogwart's secret passageways, dungeons and cellars, Production Designer Stuart Craig might well have an Oscar in his hand. What I did like was the actors. Daniel Radcliffe is convincing as the young hero and Rupert Grint and Emma Watson provide high-spirits. The adults are an all-star cast of British actors: Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, Robbie Coltrane as the gentle giant Hagrid, Richard Harris as headmaster Dumbledore and Professor Snape played by Alan Rickman, who can generate a laugh by giving you a dead-pan look and moving his face just a tiny bit. They know just how to portray their characters, though they do not get the screentime they deserve. In the end, there's something deeply wanting about Chris Columbus visually-stunning but empty adaptation. It's a film for fans and/or kids mostly, as it is a supposedly family movie, but most non-readers and adults with just scoff at a kids film that runs ... minutes. Adults will probably see just because their children want to. It's one of those rare films that many people will like, but if you can help it, wait until a true fantasy movie like The Lord of the Rings coming out this December.
Rating:
Summary: okay
Review: it was okay, some of the acting was questionable, special effects were okay, pistured voldemort a little different, all in all it was worth seeing. Sean Biggarstaff was so adorable as Oliver.
Rating: 
Summary: A Perfect Movie
Review: It is very seldom that an adaptation of a book as good as Harry Potter turns out to be such an excellent movie. Thanks to exceptional writing and directing movie is very close to the book. Even though I am a strong believer in reading a book before watching a movie, I must admit that this movie can be an exception. The story is untouched, casting is brilliant, visual effects are amazing. Real characters and scenery are perfectly blended with computer-generated graphics. I watched the movie twice in the theater and could not wait to get the DVD. You can watch it over and over again and never get tired of it. Definitely worth buying.
Rating:
Summary: Fun even for old fogies like me.
Review: Being a bachelor with no children to speak of, I was only peripherally aware of Potter and his exploits. I've never read the book, and must admit that, yes, I am a complete and utter muggle. I watched this movie for the first time last night, and was delighted, enthralled, and totally taken in by the ending. The kids act better than your average kid actor, (Draco Malfoy gave me chills) and the adult actors fit their roles perfectly. Robbie Coltrane is priceless as the gentle giant, Hagrid. Wonderful fantcy for the young-at heart.
Rating:
Summary: Kids love it
Review: You know, they say you can't wear out a CD, but my kids are trying to wear it out anyways. They know the scenes and lines by heart, I can't count the number of times they've watched this movie. The trick getting to the deleted scenes, while it took a while the first time, the kids can get to the deleted scenes now in less than a minute. Some game you have to play, collecting stuff before you can see the deleted scenes. Very good movie, I can still count the number of times I've viewed it on one hand, but I have watched it more than once (the kids must like it better than me).
Rating:
Summary: Calling Quidditch fans
Review: J.K. Rowling knows how to spin a scene from the pages of a book right into your imagination, without you lifting a finger. In the same way, the movie takes you into a rather uninspired, but faithful and fun version of Harry's world. The adult actors are quite good - all known to be solid performers. Alan Rickman as Snape is perfect, as is Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid. The kids are noticeably new to this, but fortunately, the roles aren't all that demanding. The kids play kids. The three leads playing Harry, Hermione, and Ron are warm and appealing. What limits the movie isn't the bringing to life of a fantasy world, but adhering so closely to a rather bland, obvious vision - it doesn't leave much room for interpretation or subtle hints of things to come, as Rowling planned. So Malfoy is *only* a bully and Hermione is *only* a brain - there is little to no texture to their characters. You get the feeling the kids say the lines instead of acting them. Harry, especially, doesn't seem quite as complex as he should be given his experiences before coming to Hogwarts - he's acts like he knows he's something special from the start. I like the fact that the actors are mostly/all British. It makes it feel more authentic and less forced. That being said, it's another thing to look at the scenery. Diagon Alley and Gringotts were cool. Interiors of Hogwarts looked wonderful without being awe-inspiring. The Quidditch scenes themselves were fine, but the backdrop - ugh! It's too bold and not alive enough. Instead of creating it all, as it appears, they should have just shot a real location and put it into the scene. So, all in all, it's a good movie simply because the plot is entertaining. If you retain a vision of what you think Harry et al. are like, then you will be a bit disappointed. Hopefully, the kids will be better actors in the next. Watch it, but not too often, because it will lose some of its charm.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but not ¿Stunning¿
Review: .
Summary: It was interesting, but not "stunning", "incredible" or "fantastic" like I expected. Review: A very good movie. Kids enjoy this movie quite a bit. I enjoyed the movie, but was not enamored with it. I almost feel as if I am missing something because the J.K. Rowling books are unbridled smash hits by any measure. The movie is well done, acting is good (for child actors), the script is well written and maintains good cohesion, and the story line is solid with a lot of good imagination, the music is interesting, etc., etc. But, it isn't the incredible movie I expected. DVD Value: The DVD was ok. It has an interesting self guided tour of Hogwarts Castle, but it sorely lacks the Director's Commentary and didn't really have much in the way of games and other extras for the kids. (which I believe is essential for a DVD). Scare Factor: It isn't scary, except for two scenes towards the end. These two scenes warrant concern for the young viewers (under 7 or 8); Also, the beginning of the movie shows Harry Potter being abused by his "adopted parents" (his aunt and uncle who force him to sleep locked in a closet under their stairs) and I really didn't like my young kids seeing that. This should not be shown to very young or very sensitive viewers.
Rating:
Summary: It's Harry Potter
Review: It is Harry Potter no doubt. The production is fine and the caracters, one of the book's good points, are well represented. My kids loved it and I did to, so it is a familly happening. A nice way to spend a rainy evening.
| 
