Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

The Harry Potter Store

VHS	DVD	Soundtrack
Harry Potter Gifts Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone PlayStation Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone  (PC) LEGO Creator: Harry Potter   Harry Potter Boxed Set (Books 1-4) Harry Potter Levitating Challenge Game Harry Potter: The Forbidden Corridor

Movie Stills:

1. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone     (Shopping)     Contributing Critic Elizabeth Gray
2. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets    (Shopping)
3. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban    (Shopping)     

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 81^st 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.

The Rumor Mill & 
Trivia Section:  IMdb

Do you have any trivia or rumors you'd like to share?