Average Rating: 
Rating: - Just like the book, but on the screen
Overall, it was a good movie. At no point did I find myself thinking, "That looks wrong." That seems to be to be an important criteria on which an adaptation should be judged. Sometimes scenes or characters didn't look exactly the way I remembered picturing them when I read the book, but that's to be expected. The best I could hope for is that nothing was too jarring, and that turned out to be the case.With a cast including folks like Alan Rickman, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Zoe Wannamaker, Richard Griffiths, and, of course, Robbie Coltrane, it seems pretty pointless to praise the acting. I did feel that Rickman, as Professor Snape, seemed to be played a little too obviously sinister, but then, that's how he's written in the books as well. Truly impressive, however, were the three lead kids. Daniel Radcliffe is Harry Potter, no question, just as Rupert Grint makes a fantastic Ron Weasley. Here's hoping that the movies are successful enough that all seven books are adapted (which seems a foregone conclusion, but who knows?) and that it happens quickly enough that they can use the same actors throughout the whole series. The real surprise for me was Emma Watson as Hermione Granger. When I saw photos of her, she absolutely did not match the Hermione in my head. Seeing her move, hearing her speak the lines, I take back everything I said about her. Now I don't mind at all that I'll be picturing her every time I read future Harry Potter stories. And then there's Chris Columbus, the director. I had initially been disappointed to hear he was directing this film. (I had been rooting for Brad Silberling, husband to the lovely Amy Brenneman of Judging Amy fame, director of City of Angels and Casper.) I was afraid Columbus would be too light and superficial. Of course, what I was forgetting was that Chris Columbus didn't just make Nine Months and the weaker bits of Bicentennial Man. After seeing Harry Potter, I didn't feel like I needed to watch Young Sherlock Holmes, Only the Lonely, or Heartbreak Hotel to remind myself why I used to be a Chris Columbus fan. (Okay, he only wrote Young Sherlock Holmes, but if anything proves that he can handle an adventure movie set in a British school about much-beloved characters...) Yeah, okay, there were a couple of times when things seemed a bit too concrete, not quite magical enough. But more often than not, there were bits like the Quiddich match: breathtaking, exhilarating, and, well, magical. Hopefully, things will only get better with the second film. Is it a flawless masterpiece? Not at all. Perhaps the biggest problem is the film's struggle to get everyone's favorite bits in, sometimes at the expense of good storytelling. There are some awkward transitions where the filmmakers seem to be relying on the audience's knowledge of the book to explain how characters got from point A to point B. Even more frustrating is that some scenes were rearranged to help with the compression/adaptation from the page to the screen. So if that could be done in some cases, why not make other changes when necessary to make things flow more smoothly? On the other hand, maybe we'll see a director's cut on DVD with all the missing information. After all, the movie is 2 1/2 hours long as it is, so maybe some of that stuff was cut for time after being shot. But it was a fine adaptation, and a good movie in its own right. I'd pay to see it again in the theater, and that's about the highest praise I can give it.
Rating:  - Harry Potter - The greatest movie of all time?
Well, not really. Possibly the biggest movie event of the millenium, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone lives up to the expectations of MOST of the readers, with a few exceptions. If anybody doesn't know, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is about a boy who finds out on his eleventh birthday that he is the descendant of two powerful wizards and that he possesses unique powers of his own, and to fulfill his destiny at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. It seems a bit Star Wars-ish, right? However, the story goes beyond that. Chris Colombus definitely did find the best British actors. Harry is played by the extremely well look-alike, Daniel Radcliffe, the hilarious freckled Ron Weasley by Rupert Grint and cute Emma Watson to play the smart and clever Hermione Granger. The kids surprisingly hold up a good performance, being with little acting experience. The adults do an excellent performance also. From the strict and clever Minerva McGonagall by Maggie Smith to Richard Harris' kind and gently Albus Dumbledore. By far, the best performance was Snape, played by the dark and moody Alan Rickman. An excellent performance he had. The most important part of this movie is the way it captures the heart and soul of the book. Surprisingly, it succeeds very well. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is definitely not supposed to be a dark, moody flick but it has just enough the remain faithful. It might be a little scary for kids under 7 but a lot of people above that age won't be frightened. And most of the events of the book are in there. One major plot scene was left out for time but the movie would've been better with it in there. From the troll to the Forbidden Forest, the movie exceeds with almost everything in the book. The CGI effects were great but some of them were a bit...cheesy. You could defenitely see CGI effects in The Quidditch Match. Fluffy and Firenze the Centuar were the ones that needed some work as with Voldemort. Overall, they're decent. Lastly, John William's score. This is a nice refresh of John's basic work, with great use of bells and chimes. Though, Harry's Theme could've been toned out of it a bit. It gets a bit tiring to hear it repeated occasionally. The score wasn't original but it did set the mood. Overall, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a definite must see. It might not be the greatest, but its a refreshing film from everyday life. There could be some improvements, but the whole thing really blew me away.
Rating: - Harry Potter
I have 'Harry Potter and the Philopher's' Stone which is exactly the same as 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'.Before I saw the movie I had read the books. The Movie lived up to the book well, just with a few changes because of time. The Story is about a boy who goes to Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry. The movie stars Daniel Radcliffe ( "David Copperfeild" ) as Harry Potter and he plays the part very well. Emma Watson and Rupert Grint play harry's freinds Hermione and Ron, they acted very well considering it is the first time working on a movie. The movie also stars famous actor's such as Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Julie Walters and Zoe Wannamaker.
Directed by Chris Columbus who directed movies such as 'Home Alone 1 & 2', 'Mrs Doutfire' and 'Bicentenial Man'. The DVD is great letting you tavel Hogwarts and Hagrids Hut. Facing chalenges, catching the snicth, finding the Philosopher's Stone ( Sorcerer's Stone ), Deleted Scences, Interviews with the film makers and more... The disapointing thing is that it didn't have a comentary or interviews with the cast and they really SHOULD of had the trailer for 'Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets'. Over all this is a GREAT!!! DVD to buy.
|
