|
|
|
| |
Visit the Official Movie Site.
|
Harry Potter
February 4, 2002
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Richard Griffiths, Fiona Shaw
Directed: Chris Columbus
"Harry Potter and Sorcerer's Stone" opened Friday as one of the most anticipated movies of the year. Based on the book by J.K. Rowling, this movie follows a boy named Harry Potter as he goes to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and learns everything needed to be a wizard. Starring Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter. Rated 'PG' for a couple scary moments but suitable for most everyone. Time between bathroom breaks: 153 minutes.
|
|
| |
Imagination, fantasy, and magic came alive in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." This movie brought words from a book onto the big screen. Although the book was still better for me, the effects and characters did a wonderful job in keeping this book ranked high on my list.
Four months ago, I decided to read the first book to see what the big deal was. To tell you the truth, I'm not much for reading and if I do end up reading, more likely it's a romance novel. To my surprise I was hooked. I absolutely loved it. I even went out and got all four books.
Many have probably heard all of the controversy behind these books; that they are all about witchcraft and evilness. People have been protesting the books and recently the movie because of this. If someone doesn't want their family seeing it, they shouldn't bring them, but don't try to stop others from enjoying it.
I recommend this movie to all age groups, but especially to those who have read the book. My guess is they will appreciate it a little bit more than others.
Is this movie worth the price of admission? OH YES!! Would I see it again? Yes. Also visit Harrypotter.com and you can get sorted through the sorting hat. I got into Gryffindor.
|
| |
Even without reading any of the Harry Potter books, I enjoyed this movie. No prior knowledge of the book is needed and now that I know the story, maybe I'll be able to understand what my nephew has been talking about for years.
"Harry Potter" was a visually stunning movie. If a picture really is worth a 1000 words, then I understand why these books are so long. Most of the special effects were cool too, except when Harry flew on his broom. Those scenes looked too much like a cartoon.
While I thought it was a good movie, I'm sure people who have read the book liked it much more, which is no surprise. Fans of "Star Trek" and the "X-Files" enjoy those movies more than most people but they're still decent flicks. Knowing the characters and watching them come to life had to be awesome for the fans, young and old.
Also, I spent a lot of time during this flick trying to figure out who Harry reminded me of and I finally got it. Remember the nerdy older brother from the first family on "Charles in Charge?" That's him.
Is Harry Potter worth the price of admission? Yes, but not the wait in line. Would I see it again? I really don't need to but I wouldn't mind.
|
|
