Rating: 
Summary: what a bad movie
Review: Harry Potter was the absolute worst movie I've ever seen in my life. The story is changed in a lot of places and is very choppy. When I say choppy I mean that the stroy doesn't flow. First it's in the middle of one scene when it suddenly jumps to another. The more time that passes, the less I like the movie. The acting wasn't very good, the villians arne't very evil, and the movie was too long. It's not fun to sit through a 2 1/2 hour long boring movie. I saw the movie with some of my relatives and they all fell asleep. i had to try hard to stay awake. I definitely don't recommend this movie to anybody.
Rating: 
Summary: A discription.
Review: Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is an orphan living with his Aunt Petuna (Fiona Shaw) ans Uncle Vernon Dursley (Richard Griffiths). On his 11 birthday a big giant named Rubeus Hadgrid (Robbie Coltrane) tells him that he is a thumpin` good wizard and that he should go to a school called Hogwarts!! (...) Voldomort,the evil villian (Richard Bremmer)!!! At Hogwarts Harry makes friends with the funny Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and the genius Hermionie Granger (Emma Watson). He has all kinds of teachers like: Nearly Headless Nick (John Cleese),Madam Pooch (Zoë Wanamaker),Professor Severus Snape (Alan Rickman),Professor Qurrel (Ian Hart),Professor McGonagal (Maggie Smith),and Good Ol` Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris). (...)exciting... 5 stars from me. Go see it please.
Rating:
Summary: I am so grateful that the movie was faithful to the book!
Review: It wasn't until a couple months ago that I understood what the Harry Potter craze was about. I thought it was a "child thing" (despite my addictions to Sailor Moon, Pokemon, and DBZ) that was about witches and elves, like a lot of kid's books are. I've since learned otherwise. I got the book because I was tired of everyone else gushing about it, so I read the "sorcerer's stone" and then "Chamber of Secrets"...and on and on. I couldn't stop. So now I finally understood the deep attachment all people have to Harry Potter, and I've also since learned that it is enjoyed by adults as much as kids (at age 21 I'm riding the fine line). So when the movie came out, I could not get in Friday, thanks to a two-block line three hours before it started. But Saturday I showed up super early, got a decent seat, and watched the pure magic of the book unfold in all it's splendor before my eyes on the screen. The movie is, overall, extremely faithful. What you read in the book is pretty much what you will see in the movie. That's reason enough. Although the only part of the books that I had little interest in were the quiddich sections, the scenes in this movie are absolutely breathtaking! It was well-done enough in appearance that real-life action would not have been more, well, real. The children portraying Harry Potter, Hermione, and others were very talented. Oh, yeah, go out and get some of those Bertie Botts' Every Flavor Beans described in both the book in the movie. They are now commercially avalible, and I was lucky enough to obtain a couple of bags. It is really strange eating a jelly bean and your mouth registeres buttered toast or buttered popcorn, even chocolate pudding or root beer. Even the grass-flavored ones weren't bad. Just avoid the ones (if possible) that are flavors like horseradish, black pepper, or (ew!) boogers. I was unfortunate enough to eat one of those by accident and.....well, it wasn't plesant, by ANY means. There's just one lag. Since the book is long and the movie is faithful....the movie is long. Don't do what I did and succumb to buying a 64-ounce coke to sit through the movie with, or you will be making several trips to the bathroom. The movie's well over two hours long. One more thing. You HAVE to see the scenes with the baby dragon and the three-headed dog. What outstanding special FX!
Rating:
Summary: Best Movie I Ever Saw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: This is by far the best movie i ever saw!
Rating:
Summary: Like Extracting Venom- Laborious and Painful Harry Potter
Review: There is nothing quite like a dissappointing film. Because cinema itself involves you entirely, because your senses are assaulted with titillation from the moment the lights go down to the time you enter the brightness the lobby, once you sense a movie is going to be awful it's akin to sitting in the interrogation chair. You squirm, you groan- but the show goes on. This film was a poor rendition of the book. Don't get me wrong- the facts are mostly consistent with JK's story, but that shouldn't deceive you into thinking they got the feel of it. Columbus stressed his use of an all British cast, just to make it as authentic as possible, but my question is this: why hire British actors to play British stereotypes when you can hire American actors to do the same and bring their star power along fo the ride? Because frankly, Hagrid, Dumbledore, McG... and co. were right out of the guide to playing stereotypes, lacking all semblance of humanity. IT IS a joke to expect that much from a fantasy- but isn't that what made the book so good? The fact that as you got to know more about each character, they in fact are HUMAN, although wizards to boot. In this film however, this vital, endearing element is glossed over along with the makeup and hairstyles of the cast. Now the kids- they seemed right out of a department store's Christmas catalogue. They were smart looking, handsome, and well done up; too bad this isn't what makes a good actor. I'm not going to ream them out excessively (they're what? ten?) but I just hope they learn how to NOT regurgitate the script in the tone specified by their acting aids as the next films appear in the Hollywood firmament. Overall, it is the classic Californian treatment of any good book- give it make-up, handsome actors, some 'dazzling' effects and the audience won't even notice how poor a product it ACTUALLY is. It is aimed at the gullible parents who've spawned JK's fanbase, the same ones who will get the lunch boxes, action figure, toasters ect. that will ineviatably be vomited up by the merchandising wing of the franchise. It is aimed at their pocketbook, and their children's ability to get into it to experience the full Harry Potter effect. My advice is this: let them stick to the books, as their imagination will well sustain the magic after the film's wand has been vaporised in a mist of mediocrity.
Rating:
Summary: Wicked
Review: I loved the movie and have seen it twice.The thing I liked about
Daniel Radcliff and the other children was how they actually acted
like children not like actors.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter - The Wizard of Oz of our time!
Review: Harry Potter was simply wonderful. You know what it's about; a wizard name Harry and his adventures at Hogwarts. This movie is just so fun and so creative; after people I know saw it, they were like ," (...), the Quidditch scene ( the witch and wizard sport ) was the best!" After it's over, you will want to be in the Harry Potter world. It's simply the best concept ... it's bloody brilliant, as Harry and Ron would say! Running Time: ~ 2:35
Rating: PG
Ages Appropriate: Probably around 6 or 7 and up ( I'm a teenager and it's my #1 movie, right before American Beauty, so THAT'S weird.)
Featuring: Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson Thank you, please give me a positive review!
Rating:
Summary: Almost Magical
Review: I started reading the Harry Potter books after being pestered by my sister for several months -- I had dismissed them as children's fare before that. Needless to say, I've now read all 4. Indeed, the worst thing that can be said about this film is that it delayed the next novel, blast it! Was it as good as the book? Of course not! That's not possible. You simply cannot compress a novel of 8 - 12 hours length into a 3 hour movie without cutting out huge sections of dialogue and many facets of character development. That said, though, this movie may do a better job than any other film made from a fantasy novel that I've ever seen . . . and I've seen 'em all. The length of the movie is entirely justified. They managed to compress the essential action of the book by a factor of 4 without severely damaging anything. That's quite an acomplishment! On the other hand, the director sets a fine pace at the beginning of the film an manages to maintain it throughout with nary a stumble. I can honestly say that I was never bored, nevber glanced at my watch and never once uttered "Wait a minute! Harry would never do THAT!" or any variation thereof. Bravo! A fantastic performance, in every sense of the word. If you see only one film with your kids this season, make it this one.
Rating:
Summary: the best movie i have ever seen!!!!!
Review: i thought it was the best movie on the planet. my favorite part was when Harry got his nimbus 2000 and his face lit up like a Cristmas tree.
Rating:
Summary: The Harry Potter films will become instant classics!!!
Review: 'Harry Potter & The Socerer's(or Philosopher's)Stone' shows us the child in all of us.Harry Potter(Daniel Radcliffe plays extraordinarily), an 11 year old who is forced to live with his horrid relatives, discover's his parents were killed by an evil-wizard and he is to become a wizard-in-training at Hogwart's School of Witchcraft & Wizardry. (...) The school and world of wizards and witches is amazing eye-candy that amazes you in every seen.The acting is great and very well done, along with the action sequences and dialogues.J.K. Rowling should definately be grateful that her book didn't turn out to be a bad book-turned-movie.Amazing, spectacular, stunning, witty, charming, and spell-binding are only SOME of the words describing this movie, the book's are also great too(this coming from a guy that didn't expect the fascinating fantasy world of Harry Potter to be this GREAT!)I give the movie 5 stars-hope all the movies turn out this good, as the other books were just as great as the first.
| 
