Rating: 
Summary: Could Be Better
Review: This movie was pretty good and the acting was great, but there were to many things missing. Here are some; they skip many parts from the begining, the sorting hat doesn't sing, they skip the chapter The Midnight Duel, there's no Peeves, Ms. Norris, and Hedwigs name are never mentioned. Harry, Ron and Hermione are in detention, it's only supposed to be Harry and Hermione, Ron is supposed to have been hurt by fluffy, nobody hates them after they each loose 150 points for gryffindor, they skip the potions when going through the trapdoor, they only play quiditch once, they're almost never in class and their never doing schoolwork. In alot of ways you can't really tell that theyre at school.However, I still give it 4 stars because everything else is great.
Rating:
Summary: Should be a 4 1/2
Review: It was good. The movie stayed mostly true to the book but some major scenes were left out. One scene I have to pick on is the chess scene, it was good but they could have cut it down and put in Hermione and the potions. I'd much rather have seen them walking through the fire than pieces of chess people flying off the screen. She gets awarded for logic by Dumbledore but I don't see logic from her in the film, just brains. Also, Neville's cowardness wasn't set up completely, all of the sudden we see him trying to keep his friends from going out and next thing we know he's getting points.
Overall it was a good movie
Rating: 
Summary: Go see this one!
Review: I know that many people are either satisfied and love this movie, or think it has too many gaps. I think that it left out some important parts, but you can't afford to miss it. It was still an amazing movie. I found myself a little bit scared towards a certain part. I would recommend that you be about six or seven (at least) to see this. The Quidditch game was my favorite part. The graphics were really great. I bet some people are thinking that if they go see it and the director's and author's interpretations of how it looks are different from their's, they'll be disapointed, but that's not the case at all. I found the whole picture to be different from how I immagined it , but it was still worth it. I think that people might like it more if they hadn't read the book before they saw it and didn't have a lot of expectations for it. Of course those are only my opinions. a lot of people would like it just the same. Regardless, I say you should go see it right away. A little advice: come early.
Rating: 
Summary: Lacking
Review: I realize that it would be very difficult to turn the best-loved book into a movie, yet thought it could have turned out so much better. I'm not going to focus on scenery or talent, but the worst aspect of the film: THE CHARACTERS WERE UNDEVELOPED. You saw Neville and the Weasley twins at the beginning, by the end you were asking 'who are these people?' They were left out for the whole thing. Unless you'd read the book, you wouldn't know who the black boy was (Lee Jordan) for he was never introduced. In the time Chris spent trying to cram all the characters from the book in, he could have showed the scene at the end where Hermione figures out Snape's rhyme and gives Harry the right potion so he could go on to fight Voldemort. THAT WAS HERMIONE'S BIGGEST SCENE, AND IT WAS LEFT OUT. Chris failed to have Malfoy come across as the most evil student (calling Hermione a mudblood who he wouldn't mind seeing dead) but instead made him seem little more than an annoyance. In trying to fit into the story, the characters lost all their charm and distinctiveness....I know that a movie which had the potential and talent (though maybe not in the case of Dan, but with Rupert) to be 'bloody brilliant' turned out to be only mediocre.
Rating:
Summary: Children Can Indeed Survive Without Playstation 2
Review: In our "real" world of video game mind burn, gratituitous sex and violence, and meaningless hyperbole, it is profoundly heartwarming to see bright and understated children dealing with "real" issues with their hearts, minds and souls. I hope children reading Harry Potter, or seeing this movie, adopt the Harry Potter heros as role models. Perhaps with these role models in mind, our children will be better able to distinguish between what is consequential from what is inconsequential. Ironically, this fantasy's "real" world seems much more true and palatable than the current world our children actually live in. My hat is off to J.K. Rowling, and all involved in this production. I hope this is just the beginning.
Rating:
Summary: A Remarkable Achievement in Filmmaking
Review: Once upon a time (and not that long ago), in the vivid, fertile imagination of author J.K. Rowling, a character was born: A boy. A young boy named Harry, who was destined to become one of the most beloved characters to emerge from a work of fiction in a long, long time, and was quickly embraced by young and old alike in all corners of the world. And now, thanks to the magic of the cinema, Harry and his companions fairly leap from the pages of the novel to the silver screen in the phenomenal motion picture, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," directed by Chris Columbus and written for the screen by Steve Kloves. Indeed, Harry Potter is a boy, but not just any boy; because Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) just happens to be a wizard. But, orphaned as a baby, Harry has been raised by his Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw) and Uncle Vernon Dursley (Richard Griffiths), who never let him in on the fact that he was, well-- what he was. It seems that Petunia didn't approve of her own sister-- Harry's mother-- because she was a witch; nor of Harry's father because he, too, was a wizard. When Harry turns eleven, however, the secret is out of the bag when-- after some strange goings-on-- a giant of a man named Rubeus Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) shows up at the Dursley's door to collect Harry and take him off to "Hogwarts," a school for wizards and witches and all who would perfect the gift with which they were born: The gift of magic! And from the moment Harry boards the train (from station platform nine-and-three-quarters) that will take him to his destiny, the magic is alive-- for Harry, and for the audience, as well; and it's a journey you will never forget. What a monumental undertaking to even think of attempting-- translating and transferring this passionately beloved work from novel to the screen. Because to millions of people, Harry and his companions are so much more than merely characters in a book; these are characters for whom people have made a special place in their hearts, which puts a great burden of trust upon the man who would attempt to bring them to life. And Chris Columbus, it turns out, was the right man for the job. More than rising to the occasion and with some magic of his own-- and a lot of help from an extraordinarily talented cast and crew-- Columbus has delivered a film that is not only true to the story, but true to the very spirit that makes Harry Potter so special. The special effects are absolutely beyond astounding, and Columbus, with a keen eye for detail and without missing a beat, keeps it all on track and moving right along at a pace and with a sense of timing that makes this an absorbing, thoroughly entertaining and enjoyable experience from beginning to end. From the opening frame you get the feeling that you're about to have a singular experience; and you're right. Because you've just entered the world of Harry Potter. And it's magic. Even having the best special effects do not a great movie make, however, and this film is no exception; what catapults this one to the top are the performances, beginning with Radcliffe, whom you quickly forget is an actor playing a part. And that about sums up what kind of a job this young man does here. Without question, he IS Harry Potter, physically and emotionally, and when he waves his wand and does what he does, you believe it. A wonderful performance by a gifted actor who has a great career ahead of him; without question the perfect choice for the role of Harry. Also turning in excellent performances are Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley, and Emma Watson as Hermione. As with Radcliffe, the casting here could not have been more perfect. Grint is "Everyboy," with that special glint in his eye and a manner that makes him especially endearing. And the spunky Watson adds some real sparkle to the film as Hermione, the one with the sense of urgency and the wherewithal to get things done; a real role model for young girls everywhere. It's obvious that a lot of care went into the casting of this film, and it's a big part of why it is so successful. Richard Harris, as Headmaster Albus Dumbledore; Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall; John Hurt as Mr. Ollivander; Ian Hart as Professor Quirrell. Exceptional performances from one and all, with two that stand out as especially memorable: Robbie Coltrane, who readily conveys the fact that Hagrid's heart is of a size that matches that of the man; and Alan Rickman, as Professor Severus Snape, deliciously droll while demonstrating menace through the fine art of articulation. The additional supporting cast includes John Cleese (Nearly Headless Nick), Warwick Davis (Professor Flitwick), Julie Walters (Mrs. Weasley), Zoe Wanamaker (Madame Hooch), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Harry Melling (Dudley) and David Bradley (Filch). From Rowling's imagination to the written page to real life (albeit via the movie screen), "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is a triumph many times over; a unique film of truly universal appeal, the likes of which is as rare as, well-- a sorcerer's stone. A film in which adults and children alike will rejoice, because it speaks to the heart in a universal language of life, love, experience and imagination; a film that states unequivocally that magic exists-- as long as there's a single child with a single dream somewhere in the world, and real wizards like J.K. Rowling, Chris Columbus, Steve Kloves and every member of this wonderful cast and crew around to bring it to life as they have here. An instant classic in every sense of the word, this is truly a film for the ages. A remarkable achievement, this IS the magic of the movies.
Rating:
Summary: WOW...the best book to movie adaptation I've seen....
Review: I must admit, I was skeptical when I heard they would be making a Harry Potter movie. I've always been disappointed in past attempts to convert GREAT books into good movies. But I must say the Harry Potter movie was WONDERFUL. They managed to maintain the integrity of the story while producing a reasonable length film. They left out almost all of the sub-plots and extras (some characters from the book are MISSING) and only changed ONE thing that I could find...(Everyone remember all the trouble with Norbert???? Dumbledor was NOT in on that one!!!) I HIGHLY recommend this movie to EVERYONE, book fans or not. It is worth the trip!
Rating:
Summary: Great for book readers, but the rest?
Review: I loved this film! Of course I have read all four novels so seeing it come to life was a thrill. The movie is true to the book which is a pleasant surprise. But, as many book to movie films, did it have enough detail to bring in the non-book readers? I'm not sure that if you haven't read the book that you'd truly appreciate all the intricacies of the film. I'm not sure there is enough build up. It is a wonderful fantasy nontheless and all parents should take their kids. Try to read the book first! It's worth it!
Rating:
Summary: So real, I cried!
Review: What an amazing visual representation of the story we all adore! To have a movie come so close to what you picuture in your mind was truly an emotional experience. To see the look on Harry's face when he entered the stadium for his first match brought tears to my eyes. The casting was incredible, the effects were amazing. Yes, they sped through the story a bit but you have to expect that when they have to keep it within a time limit. You must see this movie!!
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful to watch, needed more emotion
Review: First, see it! It's a great movie and a wonderful experience. I had a couple reservations when it was over. The faithfulness to the book meant that the movie makers didn't have the option to emphasize those parts that were better movie material. Instead of picking and choosing the parts of the book that would make the best movie, they seemed to feel they had to include almost everything from the book, giving it a slightly rushed, road mapped, "if this is Tuesday it must be Fluffy" feel. That led, I think, to my second reservation, in that you're not as emotionally attached to the characters or the story as you might have been otherwise. It's not a movie to cry over (like ET), or a movie where the entire audience yells in delight at the end (as in Star Wars). Instead, its a wonderful movie that garnered some general applause, but not tears or shouts of joy. You'll love it. Go see it several times, but to me, it's an example of how, when making a movie from a book, film values should take precedence over faithfulness to the book.
|
