Rating: 
Summary: Simply Spellbinding!
Review: I'm 17 years old.I have never read any of the Harry Potter books.
I went to see the movie on saturday, November 17, and just loved it! I was truly amazed. I'd have to say it's one of the best movies of the year. It has it all, action, adventure, drama, mystery... I was entertained, which proves that this film is not only for children. Teens and adults will enjoy it as well. On top of that, I liked the story so much, I went out and bought the book. If you love the movie, you should definitely read the book.
Rating: 
Summary: *Gulp*
Review: We're not really told what a wizard's mission is in life. There's brief talk about the dark side, but the depiction of Slither house is hardly comforting about the school's altruism (if any). Also the school game is pretty brutal and the occult atmosphere unsettling. The more I think about this film, the more of a sick puppy it becomes. The headmaster being all avuncular with Harry in the hospital after setting him up to fight a demon in a pretty violent way is frankly revolting. He's just a minor, for God's sake. Why would wizards celebrate Christmas? As they're into witchcraft they should be worshipping the one that comes mid-year, whatever it is. This is a satanic film. They'll never make their money back. Rowling, I says to her, They'll never make their money back, y'know.
Rating: 
Summary: Really neat film! The kids will love it (you will too)!
Review: Yes, Harry Potter is just like the book. Yes, there are certain bits that could have been omitted for the sake of flow and time - but who cares? This film is made for kids and big (read: adult) kids alike (I also suspect that Chris Columbus, the director, is a big kid at heart).The acting is superb. (I can't wait to see the little actress who portrayed Hermoine appear in future films outside of Harry Potter. What a gem of a find she is!). I've always been a huge Maggie Smith fan - and I wasn't disappointed here! She is wonderful. Robbie Coltrane and Alan Rickman are just perfectly cast. This is a film about beauty (the sets are phenomenal!) and love. It's also a film about mystery - at least the mystery at a child's level. Grandiose doesn't even begin to describe it. I loved this film. I can see children wanting to see this thing over and over again....I just hope parents don't go to the poorhouse as a result. The kids in the theatre were very well behaved and quiet. They clapped at the right places and even applauded a couple of the trailers (Scooby Do - done up like a Batman promo and a couple others). I can now imagine what it must have been like when my dad was a boy and went to the movies on a Saturday afternoon to see a highly anticipated film.
Rating: 
Summary: Just how magical is this movie?
Review: I must admit to being a huge fan of the wonderful Harry Potter series. I was , and still am, in total awe at Joanne Rowling's ability to permiate the lives of a diverse range of cultures with her simplistic use of narrative. Her ability to tell a fanastic story, and tell it was the factor which I hoped would emerge in the film adaptation. And I'm sorry to say that my hopes were mostly dashed. I say mostly, because it cannot be denied that this film does hold some terrific charm, which has made the series of books so successful. The realisation of scenery and central settings from the book is spectacular. Although this is all too often let down by some suspect visual effects. (The train scene being a case in point.) The most irritating aspect to this film is, I'm sorry to say, the miscasting of Daniel Radcliff in the leading role. To be fair it was an immense task to place on such inexperienced shoulders. However to be brutally honest, his performance is mediocre to say the least. He is often seen to be the emotive, brooding young hero, which begins to grate on the nerves as Radcliff fails to bring a sense of reality to it all. In other words he is very one-dimensional, which was not the case in the novel. The main two adolescent supporting roles played by Rupert Grint and Emma Watson and done so with much more flair and feeling. While at times Watson has a tendency to be slightly over dramatic, you still get that warm feeling of innocense from her performance. Grint too is spectacular as Harry's best friend Ron Weasley. His insightful wit and boyish cajoling on-screen are a joy to behold. Also lending terrific weight to the films appeal is that of the adult performances. Alan Rickman is superbly sleak as the sly Professor Snape. So too is Maggie Smith as the strict but fair Professor McGonagall. However the shooting star is, without question, Robbie Coltrane as the gentle giant Hagrid, who lights up the screen in each of his scenes. Again there is negatives to be taken from the underuse of the roles played by John Cleese (Nearly Headless Nick) and Julie Walters (playing a marvellous Mrs. Weasley). Let's hope if the sequel stays as true to the book that they will have a more prominent role. All in all this movies' is a good attempt to translate a modern classic to the big screen. It's just unfortunate it didn't hold as much magic as did the walls of Hogwart Castle.
Rating:
Summary: Magical
Review: I admit it, I was a tad disappointed with the movie 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone', but who wouldn't be if they read and abosolutely adored the books? I had an amazing and perfect image of the Harry Potter world in my head which of course, the movie didn't fulfill. Nothing, *nothing* can replace my imagination of the Harry Potter world. The movie was very good for an adaptation, though some key points were changed or moved around, different from the movie. Some things were a bit different than the book and many things were left out. The characters were a bit thin and weren't explored. The effects were usualyl awesome, but at some times they weren't very good. The story left many holes in it that were covered in the book and some things weren't explained as well as they should of been. If you hadn't read the book, you might of been confused by the movie and its lack of explaination. I really hate to critique this wonderful movie, but you've probably already heard all the good points of the movie (and believe me, the good points far outweigh the bad points) I just felt an obligation to share with you some of my not so positive views on the film. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Alan Rickman, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, and Rupert were *superb*. Excellent casting choices. I was especially impressed by Daniel Radcliffe, I sincerely hope that he stars in the 3rd book adaptations and on, as his contract only goes to the second book. The sets, cinematography, costumes, music, effects, acting, humor, plot, and story were all magical. I abosoultely adored this movie! Chris Columbus has done a superb job! ...Numerous records were broken by 'Harry Potter'. Just amazing! A must-see.
Rating:
Summary: Almost got it
Review: This film is almost there. It looks fantastic. The scenes of the great hall and the quidditch match are superb. It does stay fairly faithful to the book. The cast is wonderful. The children cast in the movie are absolutly spot on. I fell in love with Daniel Radcliff as Harry in the first 5 minutes of the film. My only real complaint about the movie is they had to cut too much of the book out of the film. In some cases the film loses some of the humor and depth of character that the book has. I would have liked to have seen more of the other Weasleys and more of Dumbledore's sense of humor. In fairness to the makers of the movie, to include all of book would have required the movie to be four hours long. Just to see some of the things in the book brought to life is worth the price of the ticket though. I would recomend it for all Harry Potter fans. My only warning to parents would be that if your child is not old enough to read the book then he or she is probably not old enough to see the movie. There were some rather scary parts that might be too much for very young children.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, even for the uninitiated
Review: I had the good fortune to acquire tickets to a Harry Potter showing in the Sacramento area on Nov. 18. Having never read the Harry Potter books, I was met with strange stares when I asked "Who or what is a Dumbledore?" while waiting in line. However, upon entering the theater, even to someone such as me who is completely un-Potterfied, the movie is incredibly well done. My moviegoing companions remarked again and again that the movie stayed very true to the book. I was very impressed by the special effects concerning ghosts and otherworldly creatures, and especially enjoyed the on-screen chemistry between Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Although none of the "vocabulary" was exactly spelled out in the movie, the viewer gained an appreciation of the intricacies of Hogwarts. For example, differences between the fraternal societies of Gryffindor and Slytherin were very well alluded to and the ending even held a surprise twist and the climax packed quite a punch. The ending left me hankering for some more Harry Potter! A superb effort.
Rating:
Summary: No reason to watch
Review: As much as I've enjoyed the books, I was really dissappointed by this movie. This movie was an scene-by-scene transfer of Sorcerer's Stone - and like a lot of other books made into movies, it felt like too many events were compressed into the movie's length. The characters in this movie were far too generic - Dumbledore, for instance, is turned from an eccentric into a grand old man, and Harry is turned from an extremely sympathetic, passionate, rascal kid, into some boring kid who smiles at the camera every 15 seconds. The one area where the movie does scrimp, unfortunately, is the plot. Harry doesn't seem to fear suspension. The teachers are given so little screen time that when the villian is exposed, it has all the randomness of a Scooby Doo ending. The opening scenes showing Harry's life with his auntie and uncle are inneffective. So with no problems - there really isn't any drama, and the movie becomes a book report. This movie gets me angry. J.K. Rowling is already rich. Why exploit the books, to make a characterless movie that isn't trying anything new? I'm giving this movie 2 stars because it looks pleasant enough and that's really the point of the movie - let's face it, the books were fun but certainly weren't up to Shakespeare or even Narnia. But I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone.
Rating:
Summary: Immense fun for someone who has not read the books
Review: Today I saw a special screening of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone with my 8 year old daughter. I loved it and she struggled through it. She was fascinated and terrified all at the same time. Even so we went to the library afterwards and checked out the 2nd Harry Potter book and I started reading it to her tonight. She and I are hooked. As we had not read the book previously we were not thrilled by the faithful adaption to the original story but we noticed quite soon that many of the characters were not at all as they seemed and this made for surprises throughout the movie. I certainly enjoyed the sorcery and enchanting special effects, but it was the characters and their endearing qualities that made this moveie special: Doing the right thing even when it is against the rules, courage to save your friends even when you are terrified.
Rating:
Summary: Now I'm A Believer!
Review: Before I saw this film, I was not a Harry Potter fan AT ALL. I didn't understand how or why some fictional, be-spectacled "whiz-kid" wizard could generate so much fuss. The fact that everyone and their mothers seemed to be caught up in Harry Pottermania didn't help matters either. To be honest, I was simply sick and tired of hearing about this "Harry Potter". Then I saw the movie... Perhaps I'm exaggerating (I don't think so), but in my humble opinion, I feel this film was extremely well done in terms of a) casting; b) set and costume design; c) special effects, and most importantly; d) plot/storyline. The theatre I watched the film in (myself included) clapped thunderously as the closing credits began. I will be seeing "Harry Potter" again. Alan "Hans-Gruber-from-Die-Hard" Rickman was excellent. Monty Python alum John Cleese makes a hilarious cameo (look for him) and genius composer John Williams (Superman, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, etc.) scores this film in that special way only he can. The Quidditch (Hogwart sport) scene is breathtaking...an adrenaline rush all the way (this is what it must have been like in 1977 after seeing Star Wars for the first time!) I've now learned more about the author of "Harry Potter", J.K. Rowling. While she may have completed the first "Harry Potter" manuscript during a period of personal adversity, she comes from a pretty decent background (college educated, father worked at Rolls Royce). It's not like her ambition, creativity, and intelligence simply sprouted out from anywhere; she may have had it all along, thanks to her upbringing. Ms. Rowling just decided to "go for it" when the chips were down, and now both "Harry Potter" readers and movie-goers alike can enjoy her work -- and what wonderful work it is. Thanks for reading! C.H.R.
| 
