View Full Version : Reviews: Harry Potter
11-15-2001, 11:47 PM
JoBlo's 5/10 review of HARRY POTTER can be found here: http://www.joblo.com/harrypotter.htm
And what did you think of the movie? Add your comments below.
GUIDELINES: CONSTRUCTIVE REVIEWS ONLY!
1) If you haven't seen the movie, don't post here, because it will be deleted.
2) If you add two-bit comments like "it rocked" or "it sucked the big one" or just a grade, it will be deleted.
3) If you insult anyone from the board in your post, it will be deleted and you will receive a warning from the board. A second warning and you will be banned altogether. You can disagree with others all you want but no putdowns are necessary to make your points.
In order for others to know whether or not you would recommend the movie, please click on the desired icon of your choice when posting:
Recommended = http://www.joblo.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif
Not recommended = http://www.joblo.com/ubb/icons/icon8.gif
In the middle = http://www.joblo.com/ubb/icons/icon9.gif
11-16-2001, 06:00 AM
I read the book and loved it.
I watched the movies - and hated it.
Nah, only kidding. I thought it was great. Bit long but that don't matter when u have such an entertaining film to watch in that time.
Bring on part 2
11-16-2001, 02:37 PM
Every so often a movie comes along that takes a hold of you and takes you beyond your imagination could ever imagine. Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone is to me, what Star Wars is to many others.
Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone is now in my opinion my favorite film ever made. Chris Columbus took J.K. Rowling's best selling novel and turned it into a masterpiece. This film is the most visually stunning film I have ever seen. The CGI is phenomenal, the sets are extraordinary and the direction was top notch. Chris Columbus has truly made his mark with Harry Potter.
The film is exactly what I envisioned when I read the novel, it was everything and more. Daniel Radcliffe was amazing as Harry, he could truly become a star (well he is one now). The supporting cast, Maggie Smith, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Richard Harris and Alan Rickman all gave brilliant performances.
Harry Potter and The Philosophers Stone is The BEST film of the year thus far and also my favorite film ever made. I saw the noon showing of it, and it was nearly packed however there was not a single person under the age of 18 in attendance. This truly shows that Harry Potter fans are not just children, but men and women of all ages. At the end of the film, nearly everybody gave it a round of applause. It truly deserved it. It's an extraordinary achievement that is this generation's Star Wars and Wizard Of Oz.
I didn't find a single thing wrong with this film, it's a perfect 10/10 or **** of ****.
It's truly a must-see!!!! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif
11-17-2001, 01:01 AM
This movie is definitely not the "classic" that many people were making it out to be. First of all, I have read all four books, and I absolutely love all of them. Second of all, I think all of the actors were great. Third, the special effects were very nice, and the visuals were exactly how I pictured them. What did I not like? The movie was definitely lacking the "magic" (pun intended) that the books have that make them so good. Despite the running time, the movie seemed rushed, and the plot was just unexciting on the screen. The characters were also extremely superficial. Dumbledore had something like 15 lines in the whole movie. And what was the point of even having Norbert? Oh well, the movie was entertaining, but I won't be seeing it in the theater again. It seems to me like the books just won't transfer well to the big screen. I'm actually dreading the adaptation of "The Goblet of Fire..." it will be either way too long or leave out way too much stuff.
I don't think that any of the Harry Potter movies will break the box office record set by Titanic.
Atleast I have the last three books to look forward to. Well, it looks to me like the future of fantasy movies rests on the shoulders of "The Lord of the Rings." Can't wait until December 19th!
Harry Potter 6/10
PS Hermione was absolutely adorable. Mark my words...she is going to be an EXTREMELY popular actress in 6 or so years.
11-17-2001, 04:22 PM
Sorry Mr. Blo but I think you are totally wrong on this one. This movie was awesome. I have read the first two books and I know that probably helped me appreciate the film even more, but there's little doubt in my mind that a person who hasn't read any of the books will enjoy the movie as well. The special effects were outstanding, John Williams' score was also great, and the film truly captures the tone, magic, and essence of the novel. I couldn't be more pleased with this film being a fan of the books. I also think it's one of the year's best films.
11-17-2001, 04:33 PM
This is the best movie I have ever seen it is great and even better then the books and people gave a clap at the end Ive never seen that happen before this is such a good movie go see it.10/10
P.S Hermione is the best
11-18-2001, 01:45 PM
The story and the acting drove it home to me for this 10/10 flick (and I'm not easy, I haven't given a 10/10 all year, other than for "A.I. Artificial Intelligence").
Yes, the visual effects were amazing, yes, the score was terrific, yes, the production design was incredible. But it's the story, the wonderfully mature and understandable story. It pulled me in from the get-go, just like the books did, it kept me going because I really cared for these people, especially Harry. It was funny, scary and dramatic, all in one! This film reminded me a lot of Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars, in that it's a red-blooded action/adventure/thriller that the whole family can watch together. It deserves a 10/10 simply because no matter how old you are, you CAN enjoy this film. There's something for everyone.
And the performances, what can I say? Daniel Radcliffe, while looking a bit nervous for the first 30 minutes or so, really pulled it off. Every actor was pitch-perfect in their own way.
"Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" is an experience, you lose yourself in it. And that's what the movies are all about.
[This message has been edited by Nate6 (edited 11-18-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Nate6 (edited 11-29-2001).]
11-18-2001, 02:00 PM
Well I have to disagree with you Joblo. I, like you, have never read any of the books. But I enjoyed this movie immensely. It gets a 9/10 from me.
Great acting from very talented child actors who look like they have a bright future in Hollywood. Great production designs, great story, great special effects, great action, well, there's just a lot of stuff about this movie that's great. My little 12 year-old sister who's read all four books loved it even more than I did.
11-19-2001, 08:44 AM
Well, although I found the pacing to be off somewhat, I must admit I thuroughly enjoyed this film! It was simply fun to watch -- like watching some childhood dreamworld come to life. The actors were fantastic, and the visuals, although not perfect, were actually fairly well done. The only flaw in the film is the fact that it never really builds up much. The climax of the movie does not feel terribly climactic.
All-in-all though, it was a good movie and I'd have to give it an 8/10.
11-19-2001, 01:15 PM
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 9/10
I've never read the Harry Potter books and probably never will. But as for the movie, I found it surprisingly good. I certainly didn't expect much from Chris Columbus, the director of Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire, but his version of Harry Potter is quite a success. I must admit, however, that Columbus could hardly foul things up because the film contains about two-thirds of the book, much of Rowling's dialogue verbatim, and brilliant casting.
The over 153-minute running time of the film is a result of Chris Columbus' slavish faithfulness to book. But don't misunderstand me; I barely felt it. In the opening scenes with Harry's horrible stepfamily, the pacing is a little slow, and so I did start to worry. But that was for naught. The first third of the movie is actually a kind respite doled out to those, like me, who haven't read the book. Rather, this film later hustles and bustles along at an action film's pace. (One critic, referring to the action and look of the film, called it a kind of Indiana Jones for kids.)
That leads me to one of my few quibbles with Harry Potter. I urgently wish the film had slowed down a bit more. By the film's end, I doubt that much of the non-fan audience was aware that one year had passed on screen, had it not been announced by one of the characters. Yes, we receive important visual cues, such as the jack o' lanterns for October and the snow and Christmas trees for winter, but signaling the passage of time in a film is not merely limited to those sorts of things. It's a minor point nonetheless.
All the way through, I didn't feel like I was watching a painfully dreadful kid's film. Instead, I got something that was thoroughly entertaining for both adults and children. Mainly, what worked for me was the completeness of Rowling's world. It seemed as though every possible detail of her imaginary world was fully realized to point that I was convinced--within the confines of the movie theatre, of course--that Harry Potter's magical world was real--more than mere make believe. Frankly, I was enchanted.
This kind of film, of course, relies heavily on special effects. They, unfortunately, were only adequate at best. In these days of Jurassic Park realism, the bar of what's acceptable is now amazingly high. But no matter.
Besides a well thought out story, Harry Potter has a wonderful cast. Of course, the excellence of the Who's Who British cast of celebrities (the adults) is a given. Everyone deserves honors there. But the emphasis of the story is on a trio of unknowns who did a damn good job. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson are superb together. Their chemistry is just right. My only worry about these three, as they stand atop a billion dollar empire, is what torture they'll have to endure while make-up and costuming try their darnedest to keep these pubes looking like innocent--well, on second thought, not-so-innocent--young wizards for at least another couple films.
In all, I was surprised to no end. While shaky at first, the film showed itself to be a clear winner.
Worth seeing a second time.
[This message has been edited by hypotheses (edited 11-19-2001).]
Well, your criticisms are valid, but...
They are really criticisms of the book in the sense of length of the story. And can be applied to all four of the Harry Potters book too (especially Goblet of Fire which is an exercise in space filling).
This is the Harry Potter Formulae:
- Starts with the Bad muggles.
- Goes to School for year and establishes bad guys (again)
- Some messing around (space filling)
- Bad thing happens.
- Suspects are drawn up.
- Harry has lots of opportunities to tell his friends about lots of things which might help. He never does.
- Lots of messing around. A couple of key events here and there.
- Space filled until end of boarding school.
- They win the Quidditch cup.
- Twists happen in last 30 pages. Suspects are inevitable not the bad guys. Bad guys have never been hinted at really. Potter saves the day, but injures himself again.
- End of story.
Its pretty much an extremely overlong episode of Scooby Doo set in a fantasy world of magic.
Whats really scary is that The Philosophers Stone is the shortest book by far and probably suffers least from the fact that you don't really have enough information to guess these twists at the end. Goblet of fire is simply an exercise in getting children to regard longer books as interesting, and has possibly less real information that Philosophers stone...
So be afraid for the next couple of years of cinema...
11-21-2001, 04:11 PM
Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's (Philosopher's) Stone
Harry Potter, my favorite books of all time (I don't read much)...When I heard that they were milking the "phenomenon" and making movie I almost shit myself. I said "Why the hell would anyone ever want to ruin such a great book and make it into a god damn movie?!" Then after time progressed Steven Speilberg was attached to the project. My fears went away. Then I heard Chris Columbus was actually the director. My fears came back. But he fooled me and proved that he actually could make a good movie.
The plot of Harry Potter is exactly as is in the book. If you want me to summarize it too bad, go read a previous post. Director Chris Columbus made Harry Potter exactly what I (and everyong else) expected it to be.....long. This movies 2 1/2 hours long! I was happy when I heard that because I knew it would stay true to the book.
I guess I should get on to the actual movie. I must say "I loved it". Great acting, great sets, great direction, great story, great score, great almost everything! Except the special effects..(WHAT THE HELL HAPPNENED?) Roger Ebert call this "THE WIZARD OF OZ of our time!" I total agree with the guy for once. This movie is magical (no pun intended, or was it?) Everyone in the whole family will enjoy Harry Potter! (Except Uncle Joe the crackhead.)
Well, i thought it was disappointing. It just kept going on and on and on. I thought it would be fun and exciting but instead i found myself watching a screen for 2 and a half hours watching a story i allready knew. It wasnt awful, it just wasnt that great. I found it to long for me to consider it more than just okay. I really wanted it too end after a while, i mean WANTED it to end. I got sick of watching something i had allready experienced.
[This message has been edited by cow (edited 11-23-2001).]
11-22-2001, 04:05 PM
I should begin by saying that this is a view of a movie, i have never read a HP book or knew any characters etc.
Well overall i'd say it was a dissapointment the main factor being its running time and pacing.The whole first section right up to arriving at the school was slow and uninteresting.The middle section entertained me, it was humerous,magical and sharp but it went completely downhill as they all went into the forest,it just became dull.And how anyone can say that JP3 had a flat climax should see this.
On the plus side,the acting was great especially the 3 kids.The effects were great apart from a very CGI-HP on top of the troll.
Overall i wouldnt say it was a bad film, far from it but it just needed a big ooomph to push it along and keep you actualy interested.Its a shame really as i wanted to love it,unfortunately at this stage i have no desire to see it again.
11-23-2001, 10:45 PM
Its a little odd here that almost every post is the opposite of Joblo's. I have never read the book, but after sneaking in to see the movie, I was amazed. I actually want to read the books now. The movie was paced well and I thought the dialouge was a little slim, but its a kids movie. Yes, yes, the movie was long but I wish it was much longer so the film would have a much needed length to further develop the plot. The movie seem tightly packed; meaning the director and writer tried to get all the books substance into the movie. It worked well, but too briskly. The effect of this was that the kids seemed to smart. They quickly connected completely different mishaps. But anyways the movie was very good and I recommend it to all. "Let's play!"
11-24-2001, 01:55 PM
"Harry Potter and the Sorecer's Stone" is a awesome book and the movie is every good! I disagree with you on a 5/10. I think it's a 7.5/10. The acting by the whole cast was all good. The stroy line was just like the film and it was really good. I liked the way the way it was alot like the book and they took the right things out of the picture from the book. I thought the special effects were kewl. The stairs,final chess scene and the dinner all scens were the best. A must see.
11-26-2001, 02:31 PM
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 8/10...
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a wonderful and magical story full of eccentric characters and scary creatures. The art direction is second to none...with its amazing sets, costumes and desogn. Although most of the cgi effects were good: Fluffy, the school, the staircases, the chess board...I did have a few problems with certain things. I felt the broomstick flying looked a little too fake, especially in the Quidditch sequence. I felt the kids did an admirable job, since they basically are asked to carry the film. I did love the music, but It sounded like musi from another film I already saw. I had high hopes for this film especially after hearing Ebert call it a classic and compare it to real classics like Star Wars, Indiana Jones etc. So I was a little dissapointed
11-26-2001, 03:04 PM
I've read all the Harry Potter books, and for those of you who have as well, this movie will not disappoint. The acting is wonderful, the sets spectacular, and the book's themes are never trifled with. I was a LONG movie, but it had to be to establish the Harry's world(Hogswart, Privet Rd. etc). For those that haven't read the books, the story may seem a bit tedious, but I would remind everyone of the original Star Wars, and how much time it spent setting up Luke's character and his strange heritage. This movie does the same thing, and I can assure you that if the next movie stays true to the second book, you will not feel that it was done in vain. 9/10
11-26-2001, 06:17 PM
I must start out by saying that I am a huge fan of the books (read each one twice). I loved the film adaptation, but there were a few things I also had a beef with.
1. Most of the Computer Effects (with the exception of the Quidditch match) stunk. High-end video game at best, and don't even get me started on that centaur. Thank heavens they've given ILM the next movies.
2. No real sense of the relationship between Snape and Harry. They should have had at least one scene be an extended potions lesson, not just roll call.
3. Some characters pushed to the background (Crabbe, Goyle, Neville, George & Fred).
4. It did seem a bit long at times, but I also can't think of what they could have excised.
As fo JoBlo's review, I feel that it was a good review for someone who has not read the books and is just going on the movie alone. It is long and would seem merely expositional, but that is precisely what the first book does. And everything that was in the movie is important to the later stories, so nothing could have been shortened (if anything, some things should have been longer). Hang in there JoBlo. When you see the next films, you'll understand a bit better why it was all in there (I suggest reading the books, though).
And finally, a note for "cutman," who expressed worry at what they will do to trim down "Goblet of Fire" (the longest book, at over 700 pages). Warner Bros. is considering splitting the story into two films. They really would have to in order to cover everything.
12-01-2001, 09:44 AM
On Nov. 21st, five days after it came out, I became the last person on earth to see Harry Potter in the theaters. Well not really, but to my surprise, it was actually quite good! The directors/writers stayed true to the book and the all-star British cast was excellent. I especially enjoyed the actors who played Snape, McGonagall, Dumbeldore, Draco Malfoy, and of course Harry.
Everyone knows the story. It's about this reject kid named Harry Potter who has an awful life living with his aunt and uncle and annoying fat brother. But on his 11th birthday finds out he's a famous wizard and gets to go this awesome wizard school called Hogwarts, which is where his deceased parents also went. There he is world-famous, and he meets new friends and enemies, and mayhem prevails for most of his first year.
The transition from book to movie was very good but then again, the movie wasn't nearly as good as the book, which is always the case. Even though it was 2 1/2 hours long, a lot of scenes and characters from the book were missing. And it seemed like they skipped right from Christimas break to June and didn't include anything in between. And of course, this is a Chris Columbus movie, so of course he just had to squeeze out some sentimentality in the ending.
Still I found the movie to be quite fun and entertaining, just like the books (by the way I have all 4 books and can't wait for book 5!). And my favorite scene had to be the Quidditch match, which was realy fun to watch. If you are a fan of the books, then you will most definitely enjoy this movie. If you didn't like the books or haven't read them, you may not like it though. 7/10
12-06-2001, 06:00 PM
I didn't read it. My husband did. We both were blown away by the movie and can't wait to see it again.
This was the first movie in a long time that I really felt was magical. I had a smile on my face the whole time I was watching it.
I'll never forget the one almost silent moment where one child in the theater was so amazed by what she saw that she let out this adorable exclamation type sound. The whole theater chuckled. I realized then that I was just as giddy watching the film as she was.
Yes it's long but I loved every bit of it. The children were adorable and there were some great lines. I thought the effects were really well done. I didn't see them as "effects" but rather they seemed like real magic.
Haven't felt that good watching a movie in years.
12-07-2001, 03:04 PM
Mediocre acting (Hagrid, Harry at points, Ron at points) horrible pacing, bad CGI (whoever said that it raised the bar has obviously never seen anything that uses computer animation nowadays) and hacking out all of the little things that made the book so great. I agree with JoBlo (5/10).
12-13-2001, 02:06 PM
5/10 for Harry Potter, JoBlo? Naaah, it deserves 7/10 at least!
I thought the film was so good, the actors (especially the child leads) so perfect, that I saw this film three times already and STILL I'm not tired of it! I have also become a fan of HP now because of this film and so far read all the books - ironically, prior to seeing this film I dismissed the books as a child-only fantasy but despite what people say it's for adults too!
It wasn't perfect tho IMHO - some of the SFX really show, like the flawed (but otherwise better than TPM's Podrace) Quidditch sequence and the fact that some actors were replaced by obviously fake-looking CGI (Harry riding the troll, Neville on the broomstick, etc) - obviously kids won't mind, but for adults these flaws date this film really fast.
The musical score is so-so, I think the composer could've done better in places.
The climactic Wizard's Chess sequence is amazing to look at, and will IMHO become a classic fantasy image in years to come.
People also complain about the length of the film, but if you just sit down and watch it the time will fly by - never mind what is in the film that isn't in the book and vice-versa.
All in all, this is a very good introduction to Harry Potter for Muggles like me, and I look forward to Chamber of Secrets, which I hope will be better, assuming that Chris Columbus takes a look at the forthcoming LOTR - Fellowship of the Ring (a fellow fantasy film), which should be amazing, from what I've heard so far.
7/10 for HP!
I'm a 29-yo male btw...
12-14-2001, 03:00 AM
I first want to state that i have never read the Harry Potter Books. I became interested in this movie more or less becouse all the local chuches were raising hell about it. I wanted to see what the big deal was about with this "evil" film. After seeing it, my verdict is...this is one great movie. I really enjoyed the whole style and feeling of the piece. With the addition of Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane, how can you go wrong. I didnt see anything that would make this movie "evil" per say, but there are some parts that may scare young children. The effects are right on and cutting edge. You really need to see it to believe it.
12-15-2001, 10:35 AM
"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"- A
Confession: I'm one of the dozen people on the planet who's never read any of J.K. Rowling's hugely popular best-sellers about a young British wizard and his adventures at the Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft. That said, I went into the hotly-anticipated film adaptation of the first book- dealing with Harry's first year at the School- cold. As a non-initiated moviegoer, I was most impressed (and mostly impressed) with what I saw, and will definitely consider reading the books now. The film could use some pace-tightening overall (the 2 1/2 hour running time shows at places), but everything that was in there needed to be there; in other words, I wouldn't have left any of the scenes and sequences on the cutting-room floor- just done some minor trimming. After a career of cookie-cutter hits and misses ranging from "Adventures in Babysitting" (B), "Home Alone" (B+), and "Mrs. Doubtfire" (B) to "Nine Months" (F) and the wretchedly sentimental "Bicentennial Man" (D)- where the hits were films that while I enjoyed them when I was younger, they aren't exactly films I'd watch as an adult- this is director Chris Columbus' most mature film- a family picture that doesn't pander or talk down to the audience, and lacks much of the easy sentiment Columbus went for in earlier films (props to screenwriter Steve Kloves, who wrote last year's "Wonder Boys" adaptation). Pacing issues aside, "Harry Potter" draws the viewer into a rich visual environment (the FX are Oscar-worthy, ditto the production design) and interesting, moving coming-of-age tale that places it with this year's "Spy Kids" as the cream-of-the-crop in family filmmaking of late. No complaints about casting: Daniel Radcliffe makes a fine Harry (and should continue to do so in later films), Emma Watson and Rupert Grant make an impression as Potter friends Hermoine and Ron, while the "names" on the cast- from Alan Rickman to Richard Harris to Robbie Coletrane- all perform their characters nicely. The adventure scenes in this film worked for me, especially the game of Quidditch (reminiscent of the Pod Race in "Ep. I" in appeal- you know the outcome, but watching it is fun and exciting thanks to the appeal of the characters) and the one game of chess since Bergman's "The Seventh Seal" that is a literal life-or-death match (though personally, this could have been more fully realized onscreen than the flashes we get). Oh yeah, and nice work by John Williams; his theme is repeated so ad nauseum that it's likely to burrow its way into your memory and loop about 30,000 times, but it's fine work by the composer, and will likely get him an Oscar nomination over his more complex, challenging work in "A.I." earlier this year.
Still, with or without my endorsement, this film is going to make a fortune at the box-office. The built-in fan base- if it can stick through the film's long running-time- will make it the smash of the season, and wait eagerly for the next Potter adventure (both onscreen and off), and personally, there's nothing I saw that would force me to stop them. I think comparisons to family classics like "E.T." and "The Wizard of Oz" are a bit much (that running time, plus the potential for a franchise is more akin to "Star Wars"), but aside from being Chris Columbus' most mature film, it'll also be his most sustaining. This is a film I can see myself- and others- watching and enjoying just as much for years to come, without shame.
Common Sense Man
12-15-2001, 01:03 PM
Okay Jo the calvary is on the way!
People this movie was by no means any better than a 4 or 5 out of 10.
I think you guys need to check out JoBlo's overall ratings http://www.joblo.com/joblo.htm to realize that not every movie is a 10 or a 1. Notice how the 1/10 and the 10/10 categories are very small compared to the others.
To be rated 10/10 this movie would have to be timeless and enjoyable 30 years from now and I do not see that happening.
Is this in the same Category as Lawrence of Arabia? Hell no!
I can understand if you liked the movie but in the overall scheme of things this movie was not that fantastic or memorable.
For those who think this is now the best movie of all time, whew you need to see more movies!
And everyone is touting the special effects as the best they have ever seen, no way.
The broomstick flying gumby people where terrible as well as when Harry was on the Troll. Yes the Troll was good but, the best ever, not a chance.
It was slow, no real action, and nothing to make me care what happened to the characters.
The plot of the entire movie (the stone) was put on hold for about an hour and 15 minutes, and when they did get to it they did the classic quicky ending.
It may be a great children's book and I am sure it will go down in history as one of the most successful children's movies or 2001.
But it lacked any substance, especially for a person like me who is used to good fantasy and situations that actually make you fear for the main characters.
It was well acted, if it had not been I do not think I could have sat thru it.
I hope they are able to hone their editing talents for the next films and make it more enjoyable and less verbatim from the book.
And it pissed me off that they dumbed down the title for us in the USA. The actual title H.P. and the Philosophers Stone makes much more sense, especially if you know what a Philosophers stone is! Making a movie for the lowest common denominator only makes it boring for the rest of us.
I know it will remain a popular series as the kids out there will flock to it, but I do not think it will convert anyone who is not already a Pot-Head.
12-16-2001, 05:09 AM
Unlike JoBlo, I read the four books and liked 'em. Unlike JoBlo, I liked the movie, too. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
Overall, the book and its plot are respected, some times maybe too much. I didn't really think the film lasted too long, because I wasn't bored a single second. The special effects are beautiful (except maybe one shot during the Quidditch game that's obvious CGI), the soundtrack is great (thanks Mr.Williams) and the acting is definitely top-notch. The kids do a great job (Daniel Radcliffe of course, but especially Rupert Grint and Emma Watson -- they're perfect), and most of the adult cast delivers too (Alan Rickman as usual, Robbie Coltrane seems born to play Hagrid, and Dame Maggie Smith and Richard Harris are excellent).
There's only one thing I'd criticize about this movie: it lost something from the books. Mainly, the suspense and noirceur from the novel isn't really here -- and I suppose that's because mister Chris Colombus (who does overall a good job) was afraid to screw it up and make it too much for the young public. But that's too bad, because the novel is very intense, almost like some kind of thriller for youngsters.
But all in all, HARRY POTTER is excellent entertainment that'll make you forget all your problems for 2h30, kids and grown-ups alike.
12-18-2001, 10:46 AM
Harry Potter was a really long and boring movie. I heard they wasted so much money on this movie. On what? The Special Effects were beyond horrible. I honestly don't know how then can expect a child to sit through this film. I couldn't take it. Way too boring! By the end of the first hour all I did was talk through the rest of the film. A waste of money and time. 2/10
12-22-2001, 01:09 PM
It was ok, nothing too special. The movie was a bit too long, i actually dozed off for a few seconds during. I recommend you watch it on video, not worth 10 bucks.
12-24-2001, 11:50 AM
First, let me say that I've read all 4 books and even the 2 "supplemental" textbooks that Rowling wrote for charity, and I am a big fan of the series. Sure they're a little shallow, but they're entertaining and that's all I really look for in an entertainment source.
That having been said, I didn't think the book translated particularly well onto the big screen. I enjoyed the film because I'd read the book, but I remember thinking that a person who hasn't read the book probably wouldn't think all that much of the movie.
Although the movie tried desperately to stick to the book, no movie, even a 150 minute one, can relate EVERY part of a book. (Just wait until they make "Goblet of Fire" into a movie...) Therefore, some of the character development was necessarily absent from the book and this made some of the ending seem more contrived and patched together. 2 examples come to mind:
- JoeBlo rightfully criticizes the change in winners of the House Cup as being childish and mean. But, in the book, Slytherin is set out to be much more evil and adversarial than in the movie. Also, it's a fair reading from the book that Gryffindor should have won anyway but for some bad luck and some bias from a certain potions professor. So, in the book, that part of the ending does seem just and satisfying.
- Most of the first chapter is absent from the movie. This means that the viewer of the movie doesn't have a full appreciation for the tremendous evil force that Voldemort represents. The pale of Voldemort pervades the pages of the book like a foreboding shadow that makes the final confrontation that much more dramatic. In the movie, Voldemort comes off as almost a mythic figure from the past that doesn't seem like all that big a deal. This makes the final confrontation somewhat anti-climactic.
I really think the only book that is tailor made for a film in this series is the third one, "the Prisoner of Azkaban." Aside from it being, IMO, the best of the four, it's more action packed. Also, it's the only one in which Voldemort plays no direct role. Face it, Voldemort is an extremely difficult character to capture adequately on the big screen. He's a character that's better left to the imagination.
[This message has been edited by Steve76 (edited 12-24-2001).]
12-24-2001, 02:26 PM
It was a great book where it let your imagination run wild. There was no limit at all in the book and just putting it in a movie form wasn't the best thing to do in my opinion. The only thing I really enjoyed in the movie was the quidditch game but other than that I really think to highly of it.
12-24-2001, 03:40 PM
The person who said a movie MUST be timeless and enjoyable 30 years from now, well I think Harry Potter has the intelligence, the magic and the intrigue to become a destined classic. And it also has the fabulous books on its side, too.
Here's my review:
Harry Potter is one of the most hyped movies of the year and I am happy to inform all viewers that this is one heck of a movie and certainly lives up to expectations. The movie literally took my breath away with its brilliant design and set decoration, and I had to remind my heart to keep beating during the Quidditch match. Harry Potter is a movie so vibrant and brilliant to look at, that when you leave the cinema, you still have a dark, candle-lit Hogwarts flashing in front of you. This movie has heaps of heart and is a joy to watch. When the credits flashed I was pleading with the silver screen for the film to continue going! The acting in the movie is highly satisfactory. Daniel Radcliffe is a very believable and perfectly cast Harry Potter, while Emma Watson has some brilliant lines in a character so intelligent and intriguing she steals some of the scenes. More of those scenes are stolen by a gobsmacking Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley, who is a great entertainer and a brilliant and un-shy performer in front of the screen. Adult actors Robbie Coltrane, Richard Harris, Ian Hart, Maggie Smith and especially Alan Rickman are all excellent and are setting themselves up for career-best moves with the Harry Potter saga. Chris Columbus have never directed better. With moving pictures, staircases, 3-headed dogs, and a brilliant and breathtaking castle, he has put it all together and has shined out the movie more than anybody else in the crew. But the person you have to give credit to is J.K. Rowling. This woman, once a poor and struggling woman writing Harry Potter books in a café, is now a billionaire and has some written some damn good material and deserves a big round of applause. She truly brings out the magic in the movie, and it is because of her ideas and sheer brilliance that we get the masterpiece of a result that Harry Potter is. Overall, this is a destined classic, and one of the few movies that had me in a toothy grin throughout.
12-26-2001, 09:49 PM
Harry Potter was quite enjoyable...more so than I originally thought it would be. The thespians in this did excellent jobs, especially the person playing Hagrid.
I have read all four books, and I must say however that I am sure the next couple will be better. (in my opinion, each one is better than the last, with the fourth-Goblet of fire being the best)
The score was very good, (as any John Williams score is) but reminiscent (did i spell that right?) of some of his earlier themes.
01-03-2002, 11:03 AM
I thought this movie was good but it wasn't great, the ending kinda ruined it.
But the Quiditch cup scene was excellent.
The actors did a really good job.
My overall mark for Harry potter would be 6/10
02-06-2002, 05:14 AM
Re the movie Harry Potter. I am an avid movie buff and found that Harry Potter was an excellent all round good feeling movie. There was just the right amount of action, scary bits, humour, good guys-bad guys and best of all a good ending. You did not have to engage your brain to enjoy the movie which, after a hard week at work is good relaxation therapy. It had the right mix of adult and children content, so all round a great movie for families and most important of all - no swearing. Must see movie in my view.
02-27-2002, 09:26 AM
I'm going to have to go along with most adults' opinions on this movie and say was TOO LONG. I liked the idea that the movie was going to go somewhere, It did have a strong start, but fizzled out. I think the plot (what there was of one) would have been easier to follow if their weren't so many things going on in the background, i.e. paintings moving, candles floating. I took my neices to see this film, aged 4, 5, 10, and 13. Not one of them could get into it either, and I thought it was just me. It really is just another movie made from a book that should not have been. I think it ruined the experience for me. I haven't yet read the books, but if they are as involved as the movie, I would probably enjoy them.
03-09-2002, 11:27 AM
HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE (2001) Rating: 9/10
HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE is a dazzling ride full of fun magic and spellbinding wizardry. It captures the very essence of the book and never sells out.
I read the book and thought it was great. I then saw the movie and thought it was great. I'm not going to sit here and give it any more hype, God knows it has enough of that.
The casting is one of the major stong points in the movie. If it didn't have the right cast, everything could have gone to hell. Daniel Radcliffe fits Harry for about the first two thirds of the movie, then his voice changes and everything is ruined. But he does just fine and has a good career ahead of him. I especially liked Ron. Rupert Grint was perfect for the role because he had the personality of Ron. Hermione is played perfectly by Emma Watson. The best casting choice, though is Alan Rickman as Snape. He plays him just on the borderline of snapping. He is creepy and intriguing, mystifying and scary.
The plot is an original one and I'm happy that the writers stuck to the book. They kept what needed to be kept and discarded what was good material in the book, but what wouldn't work in the movie. The special effects are fun and dreamlike which adds to the movie because that's what the movie really is, a dream, a fantasy.
HARRY POTTER AND SORCERER'S STONE is loyal to the book, won't disappoint fans, will create new fans, is entertaining, has charm, wit, and excitement. Nothing more needs to be said.
04-01-2002, 01:56 PM
I finally saw the film and I must say that I have pretty ho-hum feelings about it. It was visually nice and atmospheric. There were original and clever ideas in some scenes and I liked the magical world of the film. Acting was mostly good, even if a bit wooden or overblown occasionally. Special effects were mostly convincing and the score was good, even if very cliched and forgettable. Columbus is a bit too generic director for a film like this, which requires more visionary skills than he has. But there were some occasional spirited moments, of which I'm grateful for. Easily the best directorial work of Columbus.
The real problem of the film is the script. It starts off well, but even after two hours there is no real story going on. It's just a collection of different scenes without any main storyline. After the two hours mark the actual story finally emerges and ends almost as soon as it begun. Clearly the film needed a lot of cutting to work better, it's obvious that the filmmakers were trying to stay too close to the book (which I have never read). The revelation in the end was pretty tacked-on and climax felt anti-climatic.
Before the final 30 minutes, only 1/3 or 1/4 of the film has something to do with the actual storyline. This film is clearly just an introduction to the world of HP. I liked the world of it enough to be entertained, but the film never captured me to the adventure. If you have read the book, You might feel differently.
04-02-2002, 09:53 PM
I have to say that I actually enjoyed this film. I went into the theater thinking that it would be a stupid, boring, piece of crap for kids, but it was actually enjoyable. I was thoroughly entertained. Speaking as someone who has never read a single one of the books, I thought that it they did a good job of condensing the book. I haven't read the book, but I do know how long it is. I was surprised by the acting talent of the movie too. The kids are actaully really good actors. One problem is that it was a bit slow and was a bit long. A lot of people way it went by really fast, but I guess if you haven't read the book, you don't know how long it should be. Overall, a thoroughly enjoyable film that can be appreciated by kids and adults. 7/10.
04-03-2002, 12:51 PM
LOVED the book...15/10
i HATE the movie. Their is absolutley 0% of the magic the book had. 0% of the wonder. It follows the book closely, but something is missing.
Being a HUGE fan of the books, I at first would not say I disliked the movie. It took a 2nd vieweing to confirm it.
Their is NO EVIL at all, no enemy. No sense of foreboding w/ Lord Voldemort like in the books.
-Not enough Professor Snape (Rickman=great actor)
-Daniel Radcliff's Acting (Just average, but he's playing fucking HARRY POTTER. Not to mention his voice cracking...LOL)
-Malfoy. Malfoy. Malfoy. God, he seems like some snub rich kid here. Not the dark, diabolic sociopath in the books. Seing him w/ the fake smile trying to make fun of harry made me sick.
Stop making the movies.
Save the book's magic
3/10 for the special effects and for imagining Hogwarts.
[This message has been edited by 64565465676 (edited 04-03-2002).]
04-05-2002, 12:03 PM
This film wasn't all that good, i didn't like the ending and you saw Harry use his wand at the begginning but then through the film you hardly see him use it again.
The acting was done great, but the storyline wasn't all that good.
04-11-2002, 12:19 PM
I think this movie suffered greatly because of the release of LOTR a month after it was released. When the movie first came out, the reviews were generally positive, and everything was abuzz with its B.O. hit status. For the "negative" parts of the movie, many people said "Well, it's just a book adaptation... what can you do?"
Well, I think the movie was hit hard by comparison to LOTR. Both movies are adaptation of very popular books in the same genre with an amazing amount of paralels (Harry=Frodo; Sam=Hermione/Ron; Dumbledore=Gandalf; Sauron=Voldemort etc. etc.) But LOTR was the far superior film. It's soundtrack was much better. The action was better, the drama was player up better; the scenery was better. I took my fiance to see both (she's never read either book). Less than halfway through LOTR, she commented that it was much better than HP.
Think about it. Isn;t it amazing that LOTR buzz is still in the air (or was until very recently), while HP has seemed to fall off the face of the planet.. How much Harry Potter II movie clamoring have you heard lately?
Maybe Rowling's insistence on keeping the American film industry out of her movie as much as possible wasn't the best decision after all...
04-16-2002, 06:53 PM
I don't want to spend much time on this review...
Book...horrible, acting...horrible, pacing...horrible, story...horrible, CGI...horrible, movie...horrible. One of the worst films of the year. WAY overhyped, and WAY pointless. J.K. Rowling's (or however you spell that no-talent's surname) "masterpeice" did not diserve a movie. Enough said. AVOID AT ALL COSTS.
P.S. - If you want to see a GREAT movie based on a GREAT book, see LOTR: FOTR. This "movie" totaly lacks.
06-12-2002, 03:43 PM
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 9/10
I have read every Harry Potter novel. They are all fantastic. If you read the novels you'd see how J.K. Rowling pulls you into the story. Harry Potter has finally made its presence to the big screen and boy does it sure make a bug impression
Premise: Harry lives with his aunt and uncle who treat him bad. His fat cousin is a pain in the ass. One day Hagrid gives Harry a letter that tells him he's been invited to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. There Harry makes friend with Ron and Hermoine. He makes enemies with Malfoy. Harry and his friends discover a case that could lead to something big.
I loved this movie. It was a perfect adaption of the novel. The Quidditch scenes were perfect eye candy. Daniel Radcliffe really does look like and act like Harry. I liked Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid. Most of the funny scenes come from him. The rest of the cast is great. The Special Effects were sharp and crisp. The sites are amazing to behold. I reccomend this film. Harry Potter is a great film for the family.
06-17-2002, 12:15 AM
Well, Mr. JoBlo, I rarely disagree with you, but this is the best movie of all time!!! Then again, I've read every single Harry Potter book twice and I'm a religious rumor reader for the next books and movies that the world has yet to produce. This review that I'm writing is very important to me, because this is my favorite movie. So I'm choosing my words carefully. THIS MOVIE IS THE BEST EVER!!!! I was so excited to see it. Daniel Radcliffe is adorable (and pretty cute). They could NOT have chosen a better Harry Potter and I think it's so sweet that he's not used to the such fame. Rupert Grint was also a wonderful sidekick for Harry. He got most of the laughs because he's not the brightest crayon in the box. Emma Watson was adorable. She was perfect as the rude, brainy, know-it-all Hermione. She will be a huge star. She pronounced each word with such precision that it almost felt like I was being lectured. Tom Fulton as Malfoy was genuinely evil. He does get worse, if you can believe it. The guy who played Oliver Wood was pretty hot, there, too! Hagrid--one word--pefect! Robbie Coltrane was excellent. Dumbledore was EXACTLY as I had pictured it. I was so thrilled that they had decided to stay very true to the book. If they had done any less, I would have been extremely angry! Every scene, down to the moving portraits and moving staircases, was exactly how I had pictured it. Quidditch was a blast to watch! I still can't get over what a perfect job they did with everything. They took it right out of my brain and onto the silver screen and it was perfect. The Mirror of Erised was awesome and Fang made me giggle to death. The scene in the forbidden forest creeped me out thoroughly, especially because I knew what lay out in the darkness, under that cloak. Brrrrrr...scary! His aunt, uncle and cousin were totally detestable and, as I've said, exactly what I pictured. They did a wonderful job with the end excursion and the true villain was a surprise--at least when I read the book it was! They did a good job with the unveiling of Voldemort. I was scared that they'd mess it up and make him stupid, but he was just as I'd pictured. He was, by far, their biggest challenge, because so many readers had preconceived notions of what he looked like in their heads. I loved every second, minute and hour of this movie and can't get over how perfect it is. There's nothing at ALL that was bad about it. I bought the DVD the day it came out. I saw the movie countless times in the theather, but that first time I saw it brought to life on screen was the most unforgettable time. I can't wait for the 5th, 6th and 7th book as well as the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th movies that will be so amazing to see brought to life. (I'm pretty sure the MPAA ratings will get higher as he deals with more violent things) The 4th book, especially, is the best one with the most twists, turns and surprises. That will be a blast! (I've read book 4 three times!) This movie will be a classic--much like The Wizard of Oz and The Sound of Music. Children and adults alike will enjoy it for centuries to come. What an amazing experience! Good acting--perfect scenery! PERFECT! I love you Daniel Radcliffe! A definite 10+/10 If I could, I'd give it 2000/10! A+!!!
06-28-2002, 06:54 AM
I viewed this on a very lazy Sunday afternoon and I must say it was perfect viewing for that time slot.
As a film it's quite a classy production and very harmless, and at the same time toothless.
The book didn't have me up in excitement and so this to is nothing to get excited over.
Sunday fluff at it's best.
08-24-2002, 03:43 PM
I really liked Harry Potter. It is amusing and very entertaining. The acting was excellent and the film is well put together. I recommend this film to everyone who like Fantasy`s. 8/10
[This message has been edited by rockerbaby604 (edited 08-24-2002).]
08-24-2002, 03:56 PM
I saw this movie in theatres and enjoyed it... a lot.
Then I rented it... and hated it.... a lot. Hell, I didn't even finish it. Just to fucking boring.
First viewing: 8/10
Second and beyond: 4/10
08-25-2002, 02:57 PM
I am not a big fan of this film. Mainly because everyone except emma watson got on my nerves. Especially the ghosts at the dinner and the talking hat. The sets were pretty nice and the driecting was good, but they can't save this movie. MAybe I'm being biased because it is a family flick, but I still don't like it.
10-11-2002, 11:52 PM
I know this review is very late, but I really wanted to write on for this film to pound out my thoughts....
Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
This is my favorite movie of all time. That is the simplest way for me to describe it. This film is already a classic. It will be a classic 30 years from now. 40 years. 50.....60...70 years. It will have a legacy like Miracle on 34th Street or The Wizard Of Oz. This movie is magical. It is a wonderful premise. A boy escaping from abusive relatives to go to Hogwarts, a boarding school for aspiring witches and wizards. This boy gains two best friends, meets a friendly giant, a wisened old headmaster, and delves deep into a magical world. Diagon Alley......Hedwig.........Owl Post......Potions....Broomsticks. A boy who has known nothing but starvation and a dusty cupboard is becoming a wizard. And he is famous. A nobody in the human world learns he is a celebrity in the wizarding world. And it is not all happy. His parents were killed by an evil wizard who most people are afraid to name. Harry Potter must deal with all this and goes to his first year at Hogwarts. Daniel Radcliffe is great. This young actor had to play a huge role and comes off wonderfully. He is an underplayer and it works. He is Harry. Rupert Grint is hilarious. He loves to steal scenes and he works wonderfully. Ron will have you in stitches. I also thought Scabbers was great. Emma Watson steals the show. She is so cute. Her acting is right on. I loved her in the Charms lesson. Richard Harris is very good. He is wise and a bit quirky. He captures Dumbledore. Alan Rickman is cool. His Snape is so evil, it is fun. Our new celebrity. The Dursleys are evil enough. They are good and make us want Harry to escape. Robbie Coltrane is lovable, 'nuff said. There is also a wonderful sub-cast of cool characters(Hooch, Malfoy, Flitwick, Quirrel, Neville, etc.) The effects in this film are great. Everything works. I loved Quidditch and the troll. Pure thrills. I also found the Chess Match to be tense as hell. The owls are so wonderful. I love 'em. The whole film is an A+++++++++++++ and that is all you can say. It is awesome. I love it and I watch it everyday. I cannot wait for CoS. Harry Potter soars. 10/10
10-27-2002, 06:11 AM
The only major problem I had is with the guy who plays Proffesor Snape. In the book, I see him as having a short temper, yelling a lot. In the movie, he is kinda scary but not what I expected.
The best parts are when the are sailing towards Hogwarts and when Harry enters Diagon Alley (man, that place looks like a Alice in Wonderland town). The music is great and what I expected, the casting needs work, the atmoshere is kiddy but still great, the replay value is high because it's very light, the faithfulness to the book is good they obviously left a few parts from the book out but they did the same thing deleting the Tom Bombadil chapters in Fellowship and it's still my favorate movie.
where on top 177: 80's (currently)
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.