Rating: 
Summary: What a great movie!!
Review: I loved watching this movie! They left out a lot but it was still really good. The only thing that disappointed me was that they left out all but one of the Quidditch games. That in the Sorting Hat song were greatly missed by my party at the movie theatres. But I still loved this movie! And Oliver Wood (Sean Biggerstaff) is hott!!:):):):)
Rating: 
Summary: Hardly Worth It
Review: Only because I felt like the only person in the world who hadn't read any of the books, I finally broke down to at least see the movie. Was it worth seven bucks? Not to me...
I needn't go over the plot--even I knew what the film was about after having so many strangers gush to me about the book like it gifted readers with magical abilities itself. The story was okay--a bit predictable, but it is a kid's book after all. The special effects were sometimes almost cool, often somewhat primitive compared with other fx-filled forms (for example, any scene where a kid gets shaken by broom or beast makes the kid look as loose as wet laundry and not very life-like at all...not to mention the rather poorly animated snake at the beginning, etc...) I was able to see where some religious groups could take offense to a few of the references, and though I found the picture quaint at best, I'll admit I probably would have loved this film if I'd seen it at age seven. This generation's Wizard Of Oz? Hardly. A bit scary for younger viewers, a bit boring for older, the only thing I really took a liking to was the real-live Wizard's Chess scene. Buy this movie if you're a true fan, otherwise you may soon get sick of your youngster quoting from it. If a thirty-something who still watches cartoons in his pajamas and hunts for quarters to put in the ... toy dispensers by the supermarket exit wasn't impressed, would you be?
Rating:
Summary: entertainment
Review: u rated this movie a 5 because i think that it is a thilling movie its all about a boy that is a wizard but he dont know it. U see his parents died when he was a little boy because a evil wizard lord voldimort hated them so he killed them. then he whent to go and kill the baby harry but he was so strong that when when he used his spell it back fired and it hit him.Harry didnt know all this stuff because hei aunt and uncle never wanted him to find out plus they keot hom in a little coubard under there stairs. But know at the age of 12 he finds out by a older and wiser wizard hagrid. He then runs off with hagrid and goes to a wizarding school and there he makes friends but somthing bad happens there so u have to find out what happens. THE
END
Rating:
Summary: The Reader's Digest Version
Review: I love Harry Potter. Like everyone who does, I've read the books many times. I saw the movie the day it opened. And I have pre-ordered the DVD. It is a fantastic movie, but only if you are as familiar with the books as I, and my fellow fans are. It is the Reader's Digest version. I realize that it is extremely difficult to put a long book onto the screen sucessfully. They did a decent job, and it was fun and interesting to watch. However, the part that makes the books so absolutely enjoyable was missing -- the character development. The movie is devoid of character development all together, and in fact some characters never get a name. Take for instance the character of Neville. While he is in the movie, most first timers to Harry Potter were highly confused when he stood up to his friends and later received points to win the house cup. Meanwhile, if you read the book, you not only worry about Neville after he is frozen, but cry when he wins the cup. It is a good movie, but pales in comparison to the book.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter is a superb movie from a fantastic book!
Review: READ all of the books. You must! They are terrific! These religious fundamentalists criticizing the movie are complete lunatics. It is complete (and wonderful) fantasy. It is appropriate for children who are old enough to not be scared by evil villains (I'd estimate age 7 and older). Please see this movie - buy it!
Rating:
Summary: Good but not Great
Review: This movie was great! The only problem was it wasn't as good as the books. I think the books are better than the movie. I think the books were fantastic, marvelous, ect... One thing I noticed was they didn't include snapes task in the movie. I thought that was wierd. I loved this movie! Pre-order it today!
Rating:
Summary: Very Well Done Film
Review: I did like it. "A viewer", I know you are entitled to your opinion. But so is everyone else. While you thought it was "horrendus", other people thought it was "marvelous". I personally hated The Lord of the Rings. I just didn't like it. Too violent and the acting wasn't very good. But that's just my opinion. But Harry Potter DOES have the essence of Harry Potter, you are wrong. And I AM NOT SAYING THIS BECAUSE I LIKED THE BOOKS. As a matter of fact, I didn't like the books all that much. But I personally thought the movies' special effects and acting were incredible. So, everyone, don't judge it completely on one person's review: everyone's opinion is different. You might love this film. Who knows until you see it?
Rating:
Summary: The best movie I've ever seen!
Review: I've never seen any other movie like it. I especially like the part where Ron says, "Well, good thing we didn't panic." I have been reading Harry Potter books ever since fourth grade, and I've always wondered what the characters would look like in reality. Well, now I know; I got to see the movie on my birthday, which was three days after the movie came out. My best friend Michelle and I even started a club at our elementary school. We've both read the books countless times, and were absolutely ecstatic when we heard the movie was coming out so soon. I'm in seventh grade now, but I still love listening to the tape versions of the books. As a matter of fact, as I write this, I'm listening to the third Harry Potter book. The only fault I could find was that Peeves wasn't in the movie at all. I just hope they don't forget him in future movies. Otherwise, the movie was great.
Rating:
Summary: It lacks...something
Review: I'm a Harry Potter fan and I really, really, really tried to like this movie, but I couldn't. Perhaps I would have liked it more if I hadn't read the books beforehand. For those who don't know the story, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is about an 11 year old orphan boy named Harry Potter whose parents die in a car crash (or so he's led to believe) and goes to live with his aunt, uncle and cousin when he's only a year old. Of course Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon treats Harry horribly in favor of their own spoiled and greedy child, Dudley. Harry seems resigned to live this terrible life until one day on his 11th birthday a mysterious letter from the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft andWizardry appears. Soon after Harry learns the truth about his past, that his parents were wizards and that they really died at the hands of the evil wizard Voldemort (mostly known among the wizard world as You-Know-Who). That he is famous in the wizarding world because he is the only one known to survive an attack from the evil Voldemort with only a lighting shaped scar on his forehead to show for it. Soon Harry is off to the magical world of witches and wizards, destined to learn to be a wizard at the famous Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The movie actually followed the book pretty closely, which may or may not have been part of the problem. However, there were some parts that were cut that should have been left in mainly because it aided in the development of some of the characters. For the most part, the actors where cast well, Daniel Radcliffe did well as young Harry Potter, Rupert Grint was hilarious as Harry's best friend Ron Weasley, Emma Watson was excellent as bossy Hermione Granger, and Robbie Coltrane was every bit the Hagrid of the Harry Potter books. Other supporting actors were also excellently cast with Alan Rickman as the imposing Potions master Snape, Maggie Smith as the strict and stern Professor McGonagall, and Richard Harris as the wise school headmaster Professor Dumbledore. Strangely enough, the trio portraying the Dursleys, Harry's mean relatives, seemed oddly miscast. For example, in the book, Aunt Petunia was a blond and in the movie she was a brunette, which would be a minor point if the other characters weren't cast as well as they were. The most exciting and visually stunning part of the movie was during the fast paced Quidditch match, a wizarding game played on broomsticks. But all in all, the movie appeared be to rather slow, especially for children who haven't read the book or for those with fairly short attention spans. It also seemed to be missing...something...the something that makes reading the books so magical. It could be because the plot lines and character development in the Harry Potter books are too rich and well written to make an effective translation to the screen. The scenes that read as witty, quick paced and funny in the book appeared to fall flat and drag on the screen. I'm hard pressed to decide whether I'll buy the movie or just stick to the books.
Rating:
Summary: The Boy Who Lived
Review: "Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone" Was a great book but it leaves you with the thought of how these characters would look like in real-life. The movie takes you to that imagination! Looking at Quidditch as a true sport, seeing a three-headed dog growling, and seeing the face of evil! The movie made a great hit as the books. At first I thought that the movie wasn't going to survive but was I wrong! I loved that movie! That is why I gave the movie 5 stars!! A show of how much I love the boy who lived...lived in the imaginary(magical) world and in the real-world(muggle)!
| 
