Rating: 
Summary: The Wonders of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Review: This movie is one of the best movies I have seen in theatres that actually has awesome special effects and is almost identical to the book. chris Columbus did an excellent job directing this movie, as did Daniel Radcliffe and the other actors. I must say that this si the best movie that is going to hit the shelves in 2002.
Rating: 
Summary: faithful and/or competent
Review: I didn't really care for this movie, and I'm not the *BIGGEST* Harry Potter fan in the world. Nonetheless, I'm going to buy this DVD.For one thing, It's got an excellent array of special features. For another thing, it happens to be the most faithful translation from novel to movie in recent memory. Yes, even more faithful than Lord of the Rings, which, while not as faithful, was just as competent. What this 'faithfulness' does, for better or for worse, is make the movie a little bit too long. In the beginning, I found the whole prologue with the Dursleys and the delivery of the invitations to drag on a LITTLE too long. Maybe that's because the book, too, drags on? Sure, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the shortest of the novels; that doesn't mean it can't drag. Rowling was really just getting started with Harry Potter when she wrote the first book. All the first book is, to me, is an indtroduction to the world of Harry Potter with a tiny story thrown in to flesh things out. Book two -- and, better yet, book three and book four -- start to USE the details built up in book one. In book one, we learn all about Hogwart's: the train ride there, the classes, the look of the ceiling in the dining hall. There's a certain amount of wonder, in the book. In the movie, the wonder is removed -- we simply SEE everything. The book makes for a nice introduction to the Harry Potter series, and is light and quick reading. This movie, however, SHOWS us everything, all at once. Maybe that's why I started to get bored toward the middle. However, I'm just about 100% certain that 'The Chamber of Secrets' and 'The Prisoner of Azkaban,' if they are just as faithful to the books as 'The Philosopher's Stone,' will be infinitely better movies. This is to say nothing of 'The Goblet of Fire'; I mean, I wouldn't MIND sitting through a six-hour film . . . I know it'll be GOOD. It's just a little scary. What if I have to go to the bathroom? I shouldn't buy a drink. Hopefully, they'll have two intermissions. And yes, hopefully at least ONE of the kids will have developed a talent to act by then.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Review: I would say that this is one of the best DVDs I have ever seen and the special effects, added features, and deleted scenes are fantastic. If I had to rate it out of the apx. 2,000 movies I've seen, I would probably rate it tied for first(with lord of the rings)...
Rating: 
Summary: Oh come on
Review: This movie, while yes it had magnificent visual effects and stunning imagery, relied solely upon that. The acting was horrible, particularly by the boy playing Harry Potter himself. The entire time he didn't show any resemblance of emotion and entirely lacked dimension. Not to mention that with all the cuts and edits of the book there is next to no character development for anyone but Potter himself. Furthermore, in comparison to the book, they cut and rewrote sequences, vital to the story that ultimately resulted in the book and movie versions being to completely different stories. Instead of developing Dumbledore, Hagrid, or any number of the supporting characters, or ACCURATELY portraying their forray into the Forbidden Forest, or accurately portraying the ending itself, or the sequence with Fluffy, they made 15-20 minute sequences of lone visual effects for the quidditch match. Not even all of the quidditch matches, just one. Overall, this movie was just an asinine insult to any true Harry Potter fans. I would've gladly traded the entirety of the visual effects for an accurate storyline. They chopped, sliced, and diced the book to death, entirely rewriting sequences that leaves you wondering why something is happening, and why it's not even SIMILAR to the book. The only reason it got 2 stars from me is the visual effects. If you're looking for a true life version of the book, hope that the second movie is better.
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining but falls short of being a classic
Review: People will flock to stores on May 28 to grab the filmed version of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, as so will I. I saw Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, I thought the movie was entertaining but missing a lot and I mean A LOT. The environment: good. The mood: nice. The sound and effects: Ok. The Acting: *thumbs down* The acting wasn't bad, it was just that there was no emotion or character development in the movie. They gave the good actors (Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, Richard Harris) absolutely no screen time; they were all focused too much on the children. They definitely could not show emotion. Though they followed the book pretty closely, not like LOTR, of course. All in all, it was enjoyable and entertaining but the acting could've been better and the score too. It won't be a classic, ever.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Review: I was hooked on the books the first time I picked one up about 2 years ago. I think I looked foreward to the movie coming out at least as much, if not more, than my children. I was not disappointed. I have listened to "experts" talk about how disappointing it was to have the movie follow the book. I watched the movie hoping and expecting it to follow the book. The book was the reason I wanted to see the movie. The direction and the acting was wonderful. Everyone did what I went to see the move for--they brought the book to life. I am sorry that some people couldn't accept the movie for what it was - a vastly entertaining, exciting, and magical 2 1/2 hours. I can't wait for it to come out on video, and am certainly looking foreward to The Chamber of Secrets coming out.
(As well as the 5th book!)
Rating:
Summary: Absolutly wonderful
Review: For all of the reviewers out there who have given this movie poor reviews, let me tell you they have no imagination. I have read all four released books and plan to read the rest. As a mother of three I say this story has a fantastic storyline. children both young and old will love this movie. It is the first time a movie has stayed so close to the books storyline. I highly recommend getting this movie if you have children or even if you are a kid at heart.
Rating:
Summary: Literal adaptation left little to the imagination
Review: I realize I could be tarred and feathered and run out of town for giving Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone only three stars, but please let me explain before you take up the brush and choke a few chickens. I'm a huge Harry Potter fan. I was into Harry from the first book. In other words, the hype didn't compel me to read Harry. It was actually my mother. She read the first book and told me to go find it. I did. And it wasn't easy, let me tell you. Book stores at the time weren't stocked to overflowing with Harry Potter merchandise. It took me a little while to get into the first book (for some reason, I had to keep reading and re-reading the first chapter before I "got" it), but I soon developed Pottermania. I bought every book as it was published (I even waited in line at a local bookstore when the fourth book was released at midnight), plus all the books on CD read by Jim Dale and I even purchased the British versions of the books via Amazon.com UK. The CDs are amazing. Jim Dale is a master storyteller who performs all the voices flawlessly. (See my reviews of the CDs for more information.) I couldn't bear to get out of my car a time or two as Dale read the books. I was totally and completely engrossed. So when I first heard that they were making a movie of the first book (with a movie per book planned), I was both excited and quite skeptical. I didn't think any Hollywood version could match the Harry Potter I created in my mind, fueled by Jim Dale's skillful readings and characterizations. Well, I was right. But not because Hollywood took liberties with Harry Potter (the way they did with, say, the first Lord of the Rings movie); rather, because the movie was such a literal adaptation that I felt myself growing ever more bored, waiting for what I knew to be the next scene. Admittedly, Daniel Radcliffe is a perfect Harry Potter. But other characters didn't fare so well in my opinion. Malfoy, for example, wasn't leering and sneering enough. (And he didn't sound like Jim Dale's portrayal of him in the CD versions.) Snape wasn't sinister enough. And I wasn't bowled over by the movie version of Ron Weasley, either. And -- horror of horrors! -- I thought the Quidditch match as filmed by director Chris Columbus was a snooze-fest. Worse yet, it wasn't how I pictured it to be. Or, maybe it was EXACTLY how I pictured it to be. I don't know. All I can tell you is that I wasn't amazed or thrilled with the Quidditch playing in the movie. I know most Harry Potter fans thought the literal adaptation was being faithful to J.K. Rowling's books. But I thought the adaptation was so literal that I knew what was around every corner. It was as if I was watching a Harry Potter documentary, rather than a feature film. As I watched the movie, I kept thinking two things: (1) This is a movie, and (2) My imagination is so much greater than this movie. By the first point, I mean that I couldn't suspend disbelief long enough to get into the movie. I was always keenly aware it was a movie, a movie made from my favorite books. Again, it felt like I was watching a documentary of the Hogwarts school student. By the second point, I mean that the sights, sounds, smells and experiences of the Harry Potter books already HAD a place in my mind. This movie didn't add to them; in fact, the movie detracted from them. It simply couldn't compete with the Harry Potter I safeguarded in my head. So where does that leave me regarding the DVD release of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and -- more importantly -- the rest of the movies planned for each book? Sadly, I don't think I'll be buying the DVD. It just doesn't stand up to repeated viewings. Plus -- and this is the truly sad part -- I don't think I'll be watching any more of the movies as they're released. There's simply no point in doing so. The Harry Potter I know and love already lives -- in my head. And that's where I'd like him to remain.
Rating:
Summary: Pretty Good but Could've been better
Review: I enjoyed sitting through this whole movie. Only thing is, they missed some key points in the movie from the book. Still it is a very good movie and a must-see!
Rating:
Summary: HARRY POTTER
Review: Harry Potter is the best series of books I've ever read, and the movie is just as good! The acting is phenomenal, and anyone who watches it is in for a treat. THIS IS DEFINATELY WORTH BUYING!!
| 
