|
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
|
| Starring:
Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, John Cleese, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Richard Griffiths, Richard Harris, Ian Hart, John Hurt, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Julie Walters, Zoë Wanamaker |
| Directed
by: Chris Columbus |
| Screenplay
by: Steven Kloves |
| Based
on the Novel by: J.K. Rowling |
| Music:
John Williams |
| Movie
Co.: Warner
Bros. |
|
|
Critique
Section
|
|
HugeReviews.com's
Official Rating System:
Pathetic
Wimpy
Solid Super
HUGE
|
| HugeReviews.com's
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
| Movie
Stills: Photos |
Links |
Awards |
|
|
|
|
-
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Shopping) Contributing
Critic
Elizabeth
Gray
-
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
(Shopping)
-
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
(Shopping)
|
|
|
| HugeReviews.com
Reviews:
Harry Potter
Hi Christian and Micheal!
I saw Harry Potter a few weeks ago. I am a big
fan of the books, and I loved seeing the story,
scenery, and characters come to life on the
screen. A few times I had chills, which I only get
when something really impresses me. I loved the
school, the train station, Diagon Alley. I loved
the casting, especially the teachers - perfect
casting! All of them! Hagrid was wonderful!
As far as the children, Hermione was wonderful.
But there was one thing missing for me. Well, a
few things. First, in the book, Rowling goes into
quite a bit of detail about Harry's life with the
Dursleys. You feel his pain. You understand how
they have mistreated him all of his growing up
years, and how much he misses and wants his real
parents. He has a great longing to be loved. He
has lived with a family who has doted on their own
son, giving him everything, too much, in fact, and
treated Harry like he didn't exist, never even
acknowledging his birthday, and blaming him for
things beyond his control - his magic powers. He
has had to live in a cupboard below the stairs. In
the book, when Hagrid finally comes to get him,
you can hardly wait for him to get out of that
situation.
Now, to me, in the movie, they totally glossed
over that whole part of the book. The audience
does not get the sense of his home life with the
Dursleys - and why I think that is so important is
that it sets the stage for Harry's future
character development. Living with the Dursleys,
he learns compassion and caring for others,
because that is what he longs for himself. He
learns to treat others the way he wanted to be
treated by them. And I am sure, although I don't
know what is coming in future books, he will end
up showing compassion to the Dursleys, being the
benevolent "hero" character he will turn
out to be.
Another reason this is important is that Harry
represents a strong "role-model" for
children who are in difficult situations to show
them that they can prevail - that they can conquer
their problems and grow into strong adults. To me,
that is the main message of the books and story.
To not illustrate that on the screen, and to
concentrate more on the computer imagery, and the
theatrics, misses the point. The audience,
including the children, are more in awe of the
special effects, than the message behind the
story, as is the case in many children's movies
today.
I am also a little disappointed in the casting
of Harry. Although he looks the part (I am
embarrassed that I can't remember his name), he
doesn't have the fragile quality that I would
expect Harry to have after living in a cupboard
most of his life, and being mistreated the way he
was. I would have liked to see someone more like
Mark Lester, who played Oliver in the Academy
Award winning movie musical. Someone who looked
like they had suffered. And had longing in their
eyes. When Harry looks in the mirror and sees his
parents, the audience should feel his longing.
Another casting problem I had was Mr. Dursley.
He looked mean. The Dursleys are not really mean
people. They are ignorant, closed-minded and
small, but they are not mean. They really believe
that what they are doing is good for Harry. Magic
and imagination are evil to them. And what is
scary is that they believe they are right. To me,
Mr. Dursley should be more pious-looking, more
smug about his beliefs.
Well, those are some of my thoughts. Thank you
again for giving us a forum to express ourselves.
I got a few things off my chest here. I really did
love this movie in so many ways. And I do
recommend it. The special effects are wonderful.
And I loved the quiddich(?) scenes. They were so
well done! I wondered how they were going to
accomplish them!
I am looking forward to future books and movies
in this series!
|
|
It's
Magic
by JE De Matteo
Super
It is a magical movie. I enjoyed it
tremendously, and my hat is off Chris Columbus. Here we have a
group of excellent young actors, that someone told me, brings the book
to life. I have to admit that I didn't read the book, but this may
drive me to it.
The plot is a good one, the acting is good, and
I love the picture's look. Go see Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone,
you'll like it.
|
|
Harry
Potter: In Referencing L. Frank Baum
by Michael Flanagan
Solid
After seeing Harry Potter
the first time, I decided to read the book.
Once I had finished reading, I saw the
movie again.
The following are my impressions, as they
were during each night of moviewatching.
Night
# 1: Before the Book
I felt I was completely out
of the loop.
I was surrounded by children and adults
alike who had obviously read every HP book
written…probably twice, and most of them had
even read the J.K. Rowling companion guides and
coloring books and biographies and so on.
So I had to get used to the “oohs,”
“aahs,” and “oh this is whens” that
surrounded me throughout the picture.
Usually when I see a film and people are
making recognition noises that I don’t follow,
it means I’ve missed something.
In this case, however, I had to shut them
out and just watch the movie.
But I still couldn’t shake the feeling
of being the 81st wheel.
I enjoyed the movie.
Alan Rickman is perfectly menacing as the
darkly foreboding Professor Snape.
Richard Harris is absolutely wonderful as
the wise, kind old wizard Dumbledore. The children are great actors, never missing a beat and
pulling me entirely into their characters and
into the story. Fortunately, director Chris Columbus realized the importance
of the live people in making up for some of the
lacking magic effects.
It’s been over 25 years since Superman
the Movie and they still haven’t made me
believe anyone else can fly.
Fluffy looks like a Looney Tune character
out of place.
The owl sequence, however, is fantastic.
But the magic of Hogwarts seems lacking,
somehow. I
should be in awe of everything I see; yet it
inspires more momentary jaw-droppers than
lasting astonishment.
It certainly doesn’t
achieve the levels of some of my favorite
fantasy films, such as Excalibur and the Star
Wars trilo…er, saga.
But it was a fun-filled joy ride…to a
point. Harry
Potter seems to be too pumped up on its own
hype. A
fantasy film for children about a boy wizard
going to magic school doesn’t have to be
two-and-a-half hours long.
If a hatching dragon is going to be
introduced to the story, and then mindlessly
dismissed from it five minutes later, why bother
having the dragon in the first place?
If the answer to the riddle isn’t in
the library’s restricted section, why have a
ten-minute scene involving sneaking into the
library that goes nowhere?
These elements of the movie are both
brief and slight, but when you add several of
them together, you come up with a half hour of
unnecessary film. Harry
Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone has been
compared to The Wizard of Oz.
Only time will tell whether this
top-moneymaker becomes a cinema classic.
I’m sure that it will in its own
place…but I think Oz is too long, too.
Night#2:
After the Book
Now I get it.
Harry Potter the movie is more of
a companion piece to “Harry Potter” the
book. Once
you’ve got the book in mind, it’s more of an
exercise of “how do they do this” and
“what did they cut here” than watching a
film based on a book.
When examined in separate pieces and
compared to those same pieces of literature,
it’s a great adaptation of an enjoyable
children’s tale.
But movies should not be judged based on
adaptation.
If that were the case, Jaws would
be one of the worst movies ever for blowing up
the shark instead of having it roll over dead
from too many puncture wounds.
Film must stand alone as
film. Compare the number of people who have read The Wizard of
Oz to the people who have seen the movie,
and you’ll get a very tilted scale in favor of
the filmgoer.
Oz is a classic, though a lengthy
one, because of its place as a film in American
history, not because of the book on which it was
based. If
Harry Potter works better having read the book,
then the movie is weaker for it.
Sure, it’s a good time, and now that
I’ve read the book I’ll probably buy the DVD.
(That may be more due to addictive
tendencies.)
But Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s
(should be Philosopher’s) Stone
may not stand the test of time once the books
have gone the way of the pet rock.
|
| Awards
& Nominations: IMdb |
Full
Cast & Credits: IMdb |
| Links:
Official
Site, |
The Rumor Mill &
Trivia Section: IMdb
Do you have any trivia or rumors you'd like to
share?
|
| |
|
