Rating: 
Summary: hella cool!
Review: LOVE THE MOVIE ..........LOVE THE DVD FEATURES
ps. buy the original and not the wide screen....
Rating: 
Summary: Hollywood At Its Most Fun
Review: I was pleasantly surprised by the movie version of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". The casting, especially Rupert Grint and Emma Watson as Ron and Hermione, was dead on; the characters were presented almost exactly as I'd imagined. The film stuck religiously to the book, which I appreciated, but it did seem to run a little long. Still, it was quite fun, especially the Quidditch match and the invisibility cloak. "Harry Potter" made me wish I was a little kid again, with an active imagination and a heart full of wonder.*Note - too scary for little kids
Rating: 
Summary: Movie GOOD! DVD ... BAAAD!
Review: First, the bad. Then the good. When the DVD was announced, much was made in the advertisements of the Extra Scenes Not Seen in the Theater. This is of course one of the Cool Things (TM) about DVDs, they often have neat additional material. So my son and I were eagerly looking forward to seeing this. I hoped at first that some extra would be added to the movie itself, but it appears not. No problem, says I, we'll just go to the extras menu and go to the deleted scenes. There is no such selection. In fact, there is no selection which would TAKE you to such a selection. The extra material is there, of course. But to get to it you need to play through what amounts to an incredibly lame short semi-RPG game of puzzles and so on. And since the DVD can't remember such things, you have to play through this stupid sequence of actions *EVERY* *SINGLE* *TIME* you want to view the footage, unless you tape them to a VHS -- which, of course, removes a lot of the utility of a DVD. Take those responsible for the marketing out in the back, and shoot them. This is quite probably the most boneheaded design decision I've ever seen in corporate America, and that's saying quite a bit. One whole star off the rating for this moronic design flaw. Now, as to the movie itself... Most adaptations of books to the movies or television depart from their source material; sometimes it's a matter of a few liberties, but in many cases it's more a matter of systematic abuse and torture, often leaving the viewer wondering what the heck the point was of using the title if you weren't intending on filming the story CONNECTED with that title. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, however, hews very close indeed to the book from which it's derived; not surprising, since J.K. Rowling was given an unprecedented amount of control over the entire project. The major changes are cuts and compressions, something which is inevitable; even a relatively short book contains more material than can be put onscreen even in a long movie. Unfortunately, this does slightly damage the story. The original novel is a rather interesting fusion of three subgenres: the English Boarding-School adventure, the "child with mysterious background/powers" story[related to the Cinderella trope], and a classic mystery novel. The movie severely damages the mystery-novel aspect of the story, eliminating or downplaying important clues and rushing us along in the final solution. Reading the book permitted a clever reader to figure out what was going on before it was all revealed at the end of the book -- it was a "fair" mystery, one that did give you the chance to solve the problem without hiding crucial information. The movie, unfortunately, does leave out or severely understate some important clues. It also severely compresses several sequences, most notably Harry's time with his "evil step-family" the Dursleys. However, the rest of the book is kept virtually intact, with much of the dialogue taken verbatim and the scenes precisely as described. The casting ranges from "good" to "inspired"; I can't think of a single bad casting choice, and all the acting (which in a production with this many child actors is a major concern) is at worst workmanlike and at best is excellent. Alan Rickman as Snape and Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid put in stellar performances, making the book characters spring to life perfectly. The edits -- especially the compression mentioned earlier and removal of the fiendish logic puzzle that protected the way to the Sorcerer's Stone -- do, in the end, rob this movie of its potential for perfection, but it remains an excellent, fun, and wonder-filled diversion, perfect for any age.
Rating:
Summary: 10 Times as good as LOTR!
Review: When I first picked up the book "Harry Potter and the Socerer's Stone" in 8th grade, I wanted to see what all the hub-bub was about. I had heard that it was "great" and "excellent," and I wasn't dissapointed. Then, when I heard that a movie was being made out of the bestseller, I hopped right on the fan train and waited anxiously. When I finally saw the movie for the first time, I was blown away by how good it was. Daniel Raddcliffe plays the young wizard Harry Potter, who, due to the death of his parents, has to stay to live with his unbarable aunt Petunia and uncle Vernon and not to mention their freakishly overwieght son Dudley. While on a trip to the zoo on Dudley's birthday, Harry makes a pane of glass dissapear and subsuqently Dudley falls right in. Later on that week, mail starts coming; not just any mail though, the owl post. Letters adressed to "Mr. H Potter Cupboard Under The Stairs" start arriving on a frequent basis, until Vernon gets so uspet that he takes the family onto an island shack. While there, at the strok of midnight on Harry's birthday, a great large bangs rash the door of the shack until it falls down and in comes Reubeus Hagrid, keeper of keys and games at Hogwarts. Hogwarts, to those who haven't read any of the books or been under a rock for the last 5 years is "the greatest school of wizardry and witchcraft and is headed by the finest headmaster...Albus Dumbledore." So, "reluctantly" Vernon lets Harry go to Hogwarts. Harry doesn't know, though, that he has to get rather odd supplies for school, like a cauldron and a wand. Hadgrid brings him to a bar called the Leaky Cauldron, where everybody inside knows who mister Potter is, which makes him very uncomfortable. Outside though, Harry gets his first glimpse at the wizard shopping mall persay, Diagon Alley. While there, he gets all of his supplies for his first year. Even though he has a time trying to get on to Platfrom 9 3/4 (yes 9 3/4) at Kings Cross Station, he meets who will soon become his best friends: Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasly (Rupert Grint). He also meets his arch-ememy Draco Malfoy. The staff of Hogwarts reads like a whos who of English actors: Richard Harris (Unforgiven) as the wise old Albus Dumbledore, Alan Rickman (Die Hard) plays vindictive Professer Snape, Maggie Smith (Gosford Park) plays the by the book Professer McGonnegal and Robbie Coltrane plays the forementioned Reubeus Hagrid. The highlight of the movie is the Qudditch game. Qudditch is like the wizard hybrid of basketball and soccer, only it has three types of balls and is played on broomsticks. All and all this movie is great fun to watch, and the special features are excellent, expecially the deleated sense. One of them has the funny voiced Seamus Finnigan talking, which gave me quit the chuckle.
Rating: 
Summary: Rate G-1 for one year old
Review: This movie is for one year KIDS.
It is really that stupid.
If you are an adult, you will not believe that you actually wathced this movie.
I think "Shrek" is 100 times more mature than this piece of [junk].
Rating: 
Summary: I wish it had been better
Review: I'm a fan of the Harry Potter series. I've read all the books, looking forward to #5. I was hoping the movie of Sorceror's Stone would be good, but sadly, it wasn't. It had its good points, but overall it was disappointing. I don't say that just because it wasn't as good as the book, or because it came out at the same time as a truly great movie adaptation of a similar book (The Fellowship of the Ring), but because it had serious flaws. First, the good stuff: This movie looked great. Nice cinematography and art direction. Hogwarts and Diagon Alley were perfect. A few of the special effects were good - Fluffy the dog, the chess board, the flying in Quiditich. There were a few - too few - quiet moments that really resonated: Harry sitting and staring at the Mirror of Erised, the huge flock of owls outside the Dursley house. Daniel Radcliffe got the right mix of heroism and ordinariness for Harry, the actors playing Snape, Hagrid + McGonnagall were spot on. A few actors with minor roles (Malfoy, Filch, Wood, Olivander) hammed it up admirably. That being said, there were big things wrong. The kid who played Ron had one befuddled expression that he flashed in every scene. Richard Harris was as wooden as a broomstick as Dumbledore. A few effects, like the invisibility cloak, were clumsy. But that's minor stuff. The biggest problem is that the movie was poorly plotted and poorly adapted from the book. It feels like they selected random scenes and dialogue and filmed them, not like they were trying to tell an actual story. Examples: Haul out your copy of Book 1 and reread the chapter on the train. In one chapter, Rowling firmly establishes that Harry and Ron have gone from strangers to best buddies, Hermione's irksome bossiness, and Neville's patheticness. Nothing even remotely like that happens in the movie. For all the times they mention Bernie Bott's Every Flavor Beans, you'd think it was a real product that was paying for onscreen product placement. I could have done with less about the beans, more about character development. When Quirrell takes off the turban, that should be the big climax, but the movie has done next to nothing to demonstrate that Voldemort is the big bad guy, everyone fears him etc. No one trembles when Harry speaks the name aloud. No mention of why Snape hates Harry, making him seem like a clumsy red herring in the movie (instead of, arguably, the most complex character in the books). Neville coming through at the end has no impact, because the movie hasn't established what a hard-luck case he is. I could go on, but basically, all too much about the movie would make no sense and have no impact if you hadn't read the book. It also doesn't help that the navigation of many features on the DVD is set up like a clumsy video game. Here's hoping the more plot-driven Chamber of Secrets makes for a better film #2.
Rating:
Summary: Great Movie,great books,and evryone in the movie-great job!
Review: I thought the movie was great,I really loved it.I thought the movie would be boring before I saw it,I wasn't exactly a fan of Harry Potter then.But I loved the movie,from beginning to end,it rocked.One of my favorite characters are Ron,he's cute,funny,and great at wizards chess.Another one of my favorite characters are Harry Potter,he's brave,curious,has a good heart,and can take chances.I love all the books,especially the fourth where Harry goes back to Hogwarts,and to find out that a Triwizard tournament is being held at his school where three wizarding schools compete for the Triwizard cup.One person from each school is chosen to compete.How do they get entered with the Goblet of fire of course,students seventeen years old are allowed to put your name in,if your under 17 don't even try to put it in.On the day when Dumbledore pulls names out of the Goblet an unexpected student from Hogwarts,who is also to young to be in it gets entered in,Harry potter.There are 3 tasks Harry must compete in to try and win the Triwizard cup.Will Harry win victory for his school,will he survive all three tasks?You'll see,anyway it's my favorite book because it has excitement in it.
The movie rocked,and I hope they make a movie for all the books oof Harry potter.The actors/actresses did a great job in the movie,and Thanks to Jk Rowlig for bringong Harry potter to life.
Rating:
Summary: Warner Bros You Dropped the Snitch
Review: Harry Potter was one of the big event movies of 2001, and its massive box office and popularity showed the world that kids do still read books "on occasion". For the uninitiated, Harry Potter is the story of a boy who discovers he is the heir to a proud tradition of magic, and travels to Hogwarts, the school for witchcraft and wizardry. The movie is a very faithful adaptation of the novel, and also showed the world that directors can successfully adapt novels and remain faithful to the source. Perhaps though, Harry Potter is a little too faithful. The movie tells the story competently, but does not add anything new or insightful. Basically, what you see is what you get, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Either way, however, I feel the movie did not justify it's long running time. While I'll admit I can't offer any suggestions offhand of where the movie might be trimmed, I do believe that a slimmer, more compact screenplay could've been written. Perhaps if the film had an exciting climax I might have forgiven this, but it doesn't. I can only imagine how annoyed those who didn't read the novels felt after two and a half hours when the movie ended rather anti-climatically. All in all, Harry Potter is still a very good movie. I wouldn't call it the next "Wizard of Oz" (like the DVD's packaging does), but it definitely has potential to make a very good franchise. Speaking of the packaging, this is where Warner Bros. really dropped the snitch. For those not in the know, Warner Bros. is one of the most reviled DVD producers of the major film companies. For awhile, many feared that Warner Bros. would package Harry Potter in one of its cheap, cardboard snapper cases, using a double-sided disc. While this was thankfully not the case, the results are definitely a disappointment. The packaging is still made of cardboard, with the discs being held in those awkward plastic boards ala Simpsons or Moulin Rouge. Considering that the movie is aimed at children, WB could've made sure the package was a little more child-friendly. But more importantly, especially for a two-disc set, the extras are sorely lacking. The majority of disc two is taken up by point and click "interactive" games that unlock the deleted scenes. I don't know who at Warner Bros thought the "target audience" would appreciate this, but my brother and sister are part of that audience, and they were left severly frustrated trying to access the deleted scenes. Besides those scenes, there is a mini featurette and a trailer or two, but almost nothing else. No commentaries, no special effects documentaries, interviews with J.K. Rowling, NOTHING. Harry Potter may use two discs, but only one was really needed. Warner needs to learn how to produce a proper two-disc special edition. As a movie, Harry Potter is worth the purchase. It's overly long, but still enjoyable. Just understand that you're basically paying for the movie, and very little else.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful adaptation
Review: This is a fun light hearted movie that shows kids being kids and yet aspiring to great achievments. It follows the book quite accurately. The actors who were choosen for the parts were sublime in their protrails of pre-existings characters, especialy Hermoine, and the sets were divine. it is moving and paced and for all ages. Have fun
Rating:
Summary: The Trouble with "Harry."
Review: No movie in 2001 was marketed so aggressively as "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's (or 'Philosopher's' if you live in the UK) Stone." The hype machine at Warners worked overtime to ensure that this film would be a box office hit, and their efforts worked. I just happen to be one of the twelve people in the USA who hasn't seen this fable, and I finally decided to give it a try. The premise and story are both interesting: Daniel Radcliffe is impressive as Harry Potter, a 11-year-old kid who is raised by his cruel relatives before he is shipped to school to become a wizard and befriends a couple of classmates who help him during a series of adventures. At 2.5 hours, the movie passed along nicely, but ultimately suffered from an overall blandness that sank the movie. I fault director Chris Columbus and screenwriter Steve Kloves, who apparently followed the book so closely so as not to include any surprises or any degree of spontaneity. On a technical level, I wasn't all that blown away. The scenes where the kids fly on the broomsticks were kind of blah, although the scenes with that three headed dog were impressive, if slightly reminiscent of "Jurassic Park." All in all, I was slightly entertained but also disappointed. A film of this magnitude is supposed to give the casual viewer a reason why the Harry Potter novels are such a staple in pop culture. As it is, this film is a serviceable kiddie flick that may please its built-in audience but will be hard-pressed to entice those who aren't all familiar with the novels.
| 
