Harry Potter opened today! What did you think?

[The Other]

Yea, I know this is probably post number 147 on Harry Potter, but none of them asked this question. They all talk about other points about the film, like what it's gonna gross and all. So I hope people will post what they think about the film here.

I haven't seen it yet, I will sometime during the week next week, like Wednesday (Nov. 21).

Yea, I know there is a whole forum for it, but at least here you can write one word remarks like it sucked or kicked ass or just grade it. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

PLEASE, Post What You Think Of The Film Here!! Let us know what you think!!

[This message has been edited by The Other (edited 11-16-2001).]

[idealdiscountdude]

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

[sleekproductions]

Incredible Movie
10/10
Best Movie So Far This Year
Go See This Movie

[The Other]

That is so cool, that it's so great to you idealdiscountdude and sleekproductions... Can't wait until I see it on like Wednesday http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif though that is pretty far away. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

[idealdiscountdude]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by The Other:
That is so cool, that it's so great to you idealdiscountdude and sleekproductions... Can't wait until I see it on like Wednesday http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif though that is pretty far away. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif</font>

If you read the book you'll love it!!! If you haven't, you will still love it......it's a phenomenal film!!!

[The Other]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by idealdiscountdude:
If you read the book you'll love it!!! If you haven't, you will still love it......it's a phenomenal film!!!</font>

Yea, I've read the books, so I'm expecting one of my favorite movies of all time. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

[LordKaruku]

I went opening night with a mixed group of those who had and hadn't read the book, and everyone liked it except one person, although no one thought it was particularly amazing. Columbus did a fine job at getting a good performance out of the three lead kids, and the adults are all great in their respective roles. While there was some impressive CG, there was also a lot of fakey CG. (Is is just me, or has ILM not been not quite so impressive lately?)

Overall, as one who's read and liked the book, I'd give it a 8/10.

[Scorchlord]

ILM didn't do the special effects.

[someguy]

Wow. Me and my friend were wanting to see this for a while and when we saw it,we thought it was quite...bland. Some of the special effects were good(Hogwarts,the moving stairs,the pictures-and when they go to their house and look up at all the stairs...my God!),some bad(Fluffy,Voldemort,Quidditch(!)) Anyway,I thought that thing they added to Harry's past with his father and Hogwarts wasn't great. And they should've added some things from the book which they left out(little things at first,but near the end,huge things). There was really no plot,but still,I don't blame the writers,this is an introduction to the books,and as they go on,they get better and better(4 being most mature,but 3 is what I love,but still,the plot twists might not bring people to like it). Overall,I give it a 6/10,since 5 is a bit harsh,and the sets and some of the effects blew me away.

[The Other]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Scorchlord:
ILM didn't do the special effects.</font>

Not all, but they did some. ILM (who did A.I.) did Lord Voldemort, who is completely CGI. Rhythm & Hues (who did Cats & Dogs) did Hagrid's red Dragon. Sony Picture Images (who did Stuart Little) did the Quidditch scenes. This all came from Entertainment Weekly's Sept. 14 issue with Harry Potter on the cover.

[max]

Overlong and quite boring. Haven't read the books. After seeing the movie, I probably never will.

[totemrepublic]

I was so disappointed by this film and surprised by its poor quality... I somewhat agree with Joblo's review, i'll post most thoughts later...

But it's funny that HARRY POTTER goes through puberty near the end of the film http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[idealdiscountdude]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by totemrepublic:
I was so disappointed by this film and surprised by its poor quality... I somewhat agree with Joblo's review, i'll post most thoughts later...

But it's funny that HARRY POTTER goes through puberty near the end of the film http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif</font>

What "poor quality"???????

[Trada]

I so the film yesterday And must say it was a big let down and people on the way out of the cinema seems to be saying the same thing.
I can see it having a big opening week but I dont think it will have legs to stay there long I cant see it getting many repeat views which it need to get.

You can read what over people think about the film here it may take a while to load in there is quitw a few messages.

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/tb_display.cgi?id=10792#365171

[LordKaruku]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by The Other:
Not all, but they did some. ILM (who did A.I.) did Lord Voldemort, who is completely CGI. Rhythm & Hues (who did Cats & Dogs) did Hagrid's red Dragon. Sony Picture Images (who did Stuart Little) did the Quidditch scenes.</font>

Maybe the multiple effects houses explains the unevenness. I actually did think Voldemort was a pretty neat effect, so apologies to ILM. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[bskutle]

Here- word for word- is my opinion I just sent to a few friends whom I review movies for.

"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.

[bob]

I have read all the books, so I really looked forward to the movie. I wasn't disappointed. Hogwarts is just what i imagined, and all the character's were right on-especially Alan Rickman as Snape. My grade is only a B+ for a few reasons, mainly because of how the movie skips ahead almost ridiculously(it's the beginning of the term, then halloween, then christmas, then the end of the term?) and because they took out Ron's hilarious line when Hermione tries to start a fire with wood to get rid of the devil's snare(while on the subject, what happened to the potions riddle?). Overall, I'm a few notches below idealiscountdude, and quite a few above max.

[jingo]

bob, if you don't mind, would you remind me what the line about the fire was? thanks

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Well, as I just saw Harry Potter a few hours ago, and the movie is still in my mind, I will try and give my view on things. First off I have to say that I have read all 4 books, and liked (liked, not loved,.....well loved #3) all 4 books. Secondly I have to say that in no way was this film bad; (excpet some of the visual effects) in fact, overall it was gquite good, but something about the film bothers me. The film is rather hollow, and this is due mostly to the exclusion of several small things that made the book what it is. I didnt get involved in the movie at all, well maybe I shouldnt say "not at all" but I didnt become too involved in the movie. Other than that, few things bothered me. The special effects, and Hogwarts (which was great, except for the fact that it looked a little too "rustic" I kind-of pictured Hogwarts as a castle that has not yet got that rustic feel). ......ok, I dont feel like typing anymore, so Ill just finish with; I liked the film, youll probably like the film, go see it.

[inglourious basterd]

I havent seen this movie, and I dont really intend to. But other than it making 90 million in a weekend, I noticed that 79% of critics gave it the "thumbs up," including Ebert, who gave it four stars. That sort of got me curious about it. WHat do you guys think about that? Deserving or not?

[bob]

Well, Hermione figures out that Devil's Snare likes moisture, so she says "I'll start a fire! Oh... but there's no wood."

And the Ron screams" HAVE YOU GONE MAD? ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?"

It may not seem that funny now, but when I read it cracked me up, and i was looking forward to seeing Rupert Grint say it.

[Cyclonus]

Roger Ebert's four-star review of the film is making me consider seeing it.

[Hughesandivy020250]

I didn't see why everyone liked it so much. Oh well.

[fuzzy]

Perfect for fans but i thought give or take a few scenes it was very slow and dull.It was far too long, movies like this should be no more than 2 hours

[Cosper]

I think it's not such a good movie. To sweet! Lord of the Rings is much, much beter i guess.

[Darth Vader]

3/10
A terrible movie, with no overall plot, a fake troll, and boring things thrown in to make a person think he is playing a bad dungeons and dragons quest (what is up with that game they were playing on brooms?). The only good points of this movie are: the music (go John Williams!), John Cleese (although he has like four lines), and Alan Rickman (one of the funniest people).

[idealdiscountdude]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Darth Vader:
3/10
A terrible movie, with no overall plot, a fake troll, and boring things thrown in to make a person think he is playing a bad dungeons and dragons quest (what is up with that game they were playing on brooms?). The only good points of this movie are: the music (go John Williams!), John Cleese (although he has like four lines), and Alan Rickman (one of the funniest people).</font>

And from your review that you haven't read the books or know that Harry Potter and The Philosophers Stone is an INTRODUCTION to the characters and is the stepping stone for the next books.

And the game on brooms is Quidditch, any Harry Potter fan knows that!

[ColinM]

I loved this movie. I read the book but, although I think it improved the overall experience, I think I still would have enjoyed the movie. It's the third best of the year, just behing Memento (9/10) and Shrek (9/10).

9/10

[FlickJunkie]

Today, Sat. Nov. 24, I saw Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone finally. And it was great. It's everything I had imagined from reading the book. I didn't think it was too long either. The visual effects were not bad, they were really good. The best was, by far, the Quidditch scene. I loved it. I rate it a 10/10.

[Irene Manor]

I just didn't find the story believable.
4/10
Nah. For real - I understand that this was an introduction to the character, but come on - An hour and a half before we even get to the stone! To be honest, by the time they brought up the stone, I was like, "Oh right - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Great! I forgot about the stone!"
The fist 30 minutes of the movie had me sucked in and almost blown away. I thought there was another WILLY WONKA brewing.Imagine Willy Wonka dependent on the help of the Oompa Loompas, his story twice as long, and mostly about why he got into the chocolate business. Yeah - Imagine it.
That was HARRY POTTER. Too much character development, and not enough of something interesting to put the character through. *We are not talking about JFK, TJ Mackey, Malcom X, Jim Morrison, Vito Corleone Citizen Kane, Scarlett O Hara, or even Ford Prefect there to hold your attention through the duration of this exhibition of effects, some great some laughable. No, this is Harry Potter, andorphan who has gone off to witch school. Excuse me, I mean warlock school.
Chris Columbus had a vehicle to do anything he wanted to do here, but aimed high in the wrong areas, and missed out where it counts. If I am not mistaken, this is the start of a series. I think that is too bad for this film, because they really could have spared some of the information they offered here, to add to future installments For example, we don't everything about Indiana Jones until The Last Crusade.
Visually, this movie was great. The actors, make-up, and sets were very original and did present new ideas. Some of the effects were really well done (I liked the three-headed guard dog) and others were unnecessary. (Hey - Let's finally all agree that giving animals human facial expressions never looks good!) John Willams did the music. No one seems to think that you can go wrong with Ole JW, and I'm pretty much in Greene there. Oh yeah - And there is a pod race scene with brooms instead of pods and a game instead of a race. If you've seen it, and have seen The Phantom Menace, you know what I mean.

[This message has been edited by Irene Manor (edited 11-25-2001).]

[wilo]

Didn't like the movie at all!! I just think there was something missing in the mivie!! Is a fun movie but not a great movie!!

[flatliner]

Every one of you who enjoyed this movie will BURN IN HELL. This movie is an abomination and serves only to turn kids away from the one true Christian God. J.K. Rowlings is the devil's whore. BURN SINNERS, BUUURRRNNN.

Fuck that, I'm just kidding but I just saw a christian website and I had to post this shit. Some people are just too fucking weird.

[Common Sense Man]

http://www.joblo.com/ubb/mad.gif

I kept reading all the reviews about this Harry Potter thing and in my heart I knew it was crap. But I felt bad about saying it was crap when I had not seen it.

Well... as I knew would happen my wife dragged me to it today, luckily it was a matinee and I did not have to pay full price although I still got screwed for the popcorn!

My wife had read part of the first book and could not finish it, too juvenile and boring. She is an avid ready of fantasy and said it just couldn't stand up to the other novels she had read.

Anyway she wanted to see it so we went.

I made a prediction before we even entered the theater. It was an early morning showing and I told her the people we will see inside will be mostly older women who live in a fantasy world of escapism and think Harry Potter is the best thing under the sun.

And sure enough I was right, out of the 20 or so people in the theatre over half where over 50 females dressed in flowing skirts with long stringy hair. Hey I am not making this up and I am not stereotyping the viewers of this flick it was fact!

My wife almost started laughing out loud.

But I digress.

I expected to see some decent special effects but have to sit thru a boring movie, I was partly right, partly wrong.

I must admit I have a anti-Harry bias but I actually enjoyed the first part of the film, and the actor who played the large lovable professor stole the movie in my opinion.

But I quickly became bored as the movie began to drag and drag slower and slower. It was like they took the plot points and deliberately lengthened them.

And several times when moments could have been climactic they fell flat.

Two examples stick out in my mind.

I will not even bother with a SPOILER WARNING as you most likely have seen it by now.


The first one was the whole picking of the houses with the hat scene. We already know Harry is going to go to the elite dorm but why do his friends all have to be in the same house.

And why not break up the sequence by putting some other characters in between the trio, but having them all go up back to back and get the same results was boring.

And the other was at the end when the headmaster decides to give Griphendorf extra points for doing what was right but breaking the rules.

It would have been more realistic and believable if Slytherin won the cup but everyone knew that the heroes where Harry and his friends.

It would have illustrated that reward is not the only reason to do the right thing.

The effects where okay but I really found it distracting when they switched from the live action character on the broom to the CGI gumby like characters.

And I know the Game Quidatch or whatever it is called, is supposed to be fast but it was too fast. Any effects house can make blurry images fly around the screen. It would have been nice to actually see them a bit clearer, but I guess the gumby cgi Harry did not look that good at slower speeds.

Oh and I guess the Seekers job is to sit on his ass for the first 3/4 of the match until he decides that enough of his team has been beaten to a pulp before he gets into the game. Just an observation.

I know this movie was skewed to teens but I really felt no suspense or fear at all for the characters and I thought Ron was an idiot for not jumping of the Horse before the chess piece skewered it.

It should be cut by about 30 minutes to speed up the action, extend some of the drama scenes like the forest and make the characters face real danger once and a while.

I know people say it was Harry's intro but hey I did not learn much about him except he was a wizard and an orphan and that was all in the first 5 minutes, MOVE ON!!

I would give this move a 3/10.

It was way overhyped and I cannot belive people are saying it is the best movie of all time.

If you go and I know you will make sure to empty your bladder before you sit thru this lengthy dud, because there isn't enough action on the screen to make you forget you have to pee like a race horse.

And for a school on Wizardry and Witchcraft their teaching methods are very strange. Give the uneperienced kid a spell and let him go, or put him on a broom for the first time and simply tell him fly, thanks teach for the great instruction, are you sure the profs aren't from our school disricts?

Out....