Digital Theatre [DTheatre.com]
 SPONSOR
Search for  

NAVIGATION
HOME
CHAT
SUBMIT NEWS
RESOURCES
HELP
COMPANY
GALLERY
STOCK PHOTOS
TIPS ARCHIVE
AWARDS/REVIEWS
CONTACT



Quote of the day:

"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

NETWORK
find books, dvds and movies:
  aigc.net
  dark horizons
  wonko.com
  IMDB
  badass mofo




Topic: Dtheatre.com Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
By Jack on November 19, 2001 11:10 AM


The Harry Potter phenomenon - and make no mistake, it is a phenomenon - is unlike anything we have seen in recent history. Rather than being the result of clever marketing and hucksterism, Harry Potter's popularity began at the grass roots level. And, what's more, this craze is not derived from a movie, video game, or television series, but from one of the oldest forms of mass-market entertainment: a book. Of course, now that the cat's out of the bag, the marketing has begun in earnest. There are Harry Potter lunch boxes, trading cards, toys, wrapping paper, etc. But it's important to remember that these things followed the phenomenon, they didn't drive it.

Having only seen the film and it's marketing ploys but never read the book myself (forgive my "lack of culture"), here is my review and opinion of the movie.

For those of you who've made a comfortable home under a rock for the last several years, Harry Potter is a story of a boy wizard (good start for any story) who's apparently a celebrity of sorts among other wizards such as himself. The story follows a traditional poor-boy get's a break scheme as he's accepted into the "Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" where he is to learn the art of magic. There is of course an evil plot to do harm to Harry, and he and his friends Ron and Hermione have to save the day.

At two and a half hours, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone runs a full hour longer than the standard kid-film length, but it's still an easy film to enjoy.

The CG Eye-candy such as Diagon Alley and Gringotts Bank, the moving pictures, Hogwarts Castle, the Sorting Hat, the ghosts in the Castle (including a cameo by John Cleese), Fluffy the three-headed dog, the ugly troll, and so on was impressive and comparable to the CGI in The Phantom Menace (Gasp! Did he just say that?).

While the acting talent of little Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) was short of an Oscar the two other young actors and actresses were very enjoyable. The adult actors aren't given much time but they all present solid performances. Most notable would be the performances of Alan Rickman (as Professor Severus Snape who was simply fantastic) and Robbie Coltrane (Gamekeeper Rubeus Hagrid).

Conclusion: Watch this movie, you won't regret paying to see it in the big screen. It was overall a very enjoyable movie. 8.3/10.



[ comment on this story | comments (72) ]
Reader Discussions:
 RE: Review: Harry Potter   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 19, 2001 11:15 AM

saw it, hated it. Word to big bird.

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 19, 2001 11:16 AM

Sucked, watch "life as a house" instead, its almost the same exact movie. House is better baby!!

      Weeehhooooooo!!

40
 RE: Review: Harry Potter   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 21, 2001 3:38 AM

Life as a house was excellent.  I wouldnt mind having Jenna Malone jump in the shower with me...

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 17, 2002 3:07 PM

who f*cker hell no it waz good!

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 17, 2002 3:07 PM

you f*cker hell no it waz good!

 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 19, 2001 1:20 PM

Mr. Dobalino Mr. Bob Dobalino.

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 19, 2001 8:45 PM

Actually it's a song by Del tha Funkee Homo Sapien and it's called 'Mista Dobalina' - but I dont know why the previous poster is mentioning it.

Anyhow, I actually liked Harry Potter.. took my 8 year old and her friend to see it.. they really enjoyed it.

 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 19, 2001 5:34 PM

ok, clue me in. who is bob dobalino and why is he being paged.

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by Error11 (No Email) on November 19, 2001 8:57 PM

Do I have to see the movie to find out who Bob is.  If not let me know now, becuase i am likely to be listening for the page through the entire movie and it will most likely ruin my cinematic experience.

40
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 20, 2001 2:03 AM

My younger brother has read all the books and he thinks it great. I went to see the movie and thought it was actually pretty good. Some of the actual plot details seemed a bit like rip-offs of Lord of the rings like his cloak that can make him invisible or his scar that hurts whenever a certain person is near but that's probably down to the woman who wrote the book rather than the people who made the movie. Overall, considering how much it had been hyped up, it was good with some decent effects and acting.

60
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 20, 2001 2:05 AM

Sorcerer's stone? On my copy of the book it's called the Philosopher's stone, what gives?

80
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 20, 2001 4:06 AM

The original British version of the book and the film are entitled Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Sorcerer's is the American title...

100
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 20, 2001 4:18 AM

That's so stupid! what's the matter, don't they think Americans can spell phillossofer- philsfer- filosopfer... Oh, to hell with it, Sorcerer.

120
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by billbordendt (doesntwork@noway.how) on November 20, 2001 7:56 AM

Not spelling, it's just the publisher's assumption (probably a very safe one at that) that few American's, and even fewer American children, have ever heard of the Philosopher's stone, much less understand that, in the Middle Ages, Alchemy was general classified in the branch of Magic called natural philosophy. By calling it a Sorcerer's Stone, they don't have to explain anything.

120
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 30, 2001 2:09 PM

Please do not assume that American are stupid and have no historical education.  You, my friend, have much to learn.  Try starting with the American Revolution!
Go USA!!!!!!

120
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by dvsalias28 (ironjaw73@hotmail.com) on November 20, 2001 8:29 AM

the phlosophy of philosophers is to not repond to query as repugnantly assine as yours GO USA


120
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 20, 2001 4:00 PM

But what about the ole' Stand Up Philosopher?

80
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 20, 2001 9:33 AM

stupid Yanks.

80
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 27, 2001 2:34 PM

I heard the British version is called the Philosophers Stone but was changed for Americans because it has a different meaning or connotation here.

80
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by Loath (sam@aigraphics.com) on November 20, 2001 12:35 PM

From the phrase "what gives?" I assume you are British. Here is a piece of news that may interest you:

The title of the source novel in the UK was "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" and the movie will bear the same title for the UK release. All scenes where the stone is mentioned by name will be filmed/looped accordingly to produce two different versions of the film to adapt to the title.

80
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by dvsalias28 (ironjaw73@hotmail.com) on November 20, 2001 8:25 AM

no it does not say philosphers stone unless you got it at odd lots missprinted books or something


100
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 20, 2001 9:35 AM

nice sentance buddy...go smoke another one.

120
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by 100% AMERICAN (hellskitchen_@hotmail.com) on November 20, 2001 2:19 PM

In Bulgaria it's "Harry Potter & the Kidney Stone".

120
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 20, 2001 2:25 PM

so I assume in Ireland it's the Blarney Stone?

120
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 21, 2001 2:24 AM

With all the hype and merchandising that's gone with the movie I'm suprised they didn't call it Harry Potter and the McDonalds Happy meal.

 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by scichick (imscichick@ivillage.com) on November 21, 2001 4:20 AM

I thought the movie was good, but not great. I'm glad I went to see it, but it's not one I'd see again. I would see the next three, if they're making all the books into movies, and I think I'll read the book now just to compare.

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 21, 2001 4:53 AM

You've got a point there. I think I might read a few of the books now after seeing the movie.

 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 21, 2001 7:15 AM

the movie Licked big hairy moose balls off a plate

 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 21, 2001 7:21 AM

eat moose balls and then lick a big turd in a public bathroom and spit it on harry the moovie sucked
no guns
no nuedys
no sex
no sex
damn the world no sex 8 dollar movie

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 23, 2001 1:09 PM

u. r. a. perv.

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 1, 2001 9:29 AM

I just want you to know that i was reading this review with my 5 yr. old and i must say that i don't think this has anything to do with the review of a children's movie, you need to grow up and take it somewhere else!

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by Jayavanti ((email secure)) on November 22, 2001 8:01 AM

Grow up! Do you even realize how absolutely inane and immature you sound.  Some of us have actually been looking for real reviews on the movie.  I didn't realize that every moron on the planet was going to be putting in their two-bits.  I guess I'll try another link...something far away from half-wits (or quarter-wits like you).  AUGH!

 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 21, 2001 7:25 AM

lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalallll                      friends for life lost virginity at twelve
its a happy world im twelve and two days old hahahahahahahah

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 23, 2001 1:10 PM

u know no one would want to have sex with you. unless it was a whore but that doesnt count!

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by 100% AMERICAN (hellskitchen_@hotmail.com) on November 21, 2001 11:21 AM

good work. now try telling someone who believes you...Virg.

 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 21, 2001 7:27 AM

jk rowling slept around with the lockness monster and another big prositute

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 22, 2001 1:55 AM

No sex? wait till the next movie, Harry Potter and his two friends end up having a threesome.

40
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 17, 2002 3:10 PM

that guy who said "no SEX?" your such an infomaniac! you are so addicted to sex! go and watch an XXX rated movie, this is PG you ass!

40
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by Jayavanti ((email secure)) on November 22, 2001 8:08 AM

Is there anyone out there who has read the book AND seen the film?  I'd really like to know how it compares. Although, I suspect, as with everything else, the book is better.  I've read all 4 books and enjoyed them immensely.  I look forward to seeing the movie, I think.  I'm not quite sure with the quality of most of these "reviews."  Thanks to those of you who gave actual reviews. I may see the movie this weekend.

60
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 22, 2001 9:57 AM

Having read the books and seen the movie...I have to admit they stayed pretty true to the book as far as events go...but I found the film lacked a lot of the character development I loved in the books...i guess there isn't enough time..the movie would've been about 5 hrs long to pull that off.  
My main criticisms are technical ones...a lot of the film was very poorly lit, and I wonder if this was a cop-out to cover up missing details in set-designs and average special effects. Also, the chess sequence was a perfect opportunity to show some great CGI animation, but instead they used some lame explosion and crumbling shots.
Alan rickman's performance was good, Radcliffe was flat, and I wish they would stop casting that midget Warwick Davis in stuff...whatever happened to Billy Barty? He was the best "little person" for all those roles...

80
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 30, 2001 11:15 AM

What ever happened to Billy Barty?

He died.

80
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by Jayavanti ((email secure)) on November 22, 2001 9:12 PM

Thanks for the thoughtful review.  I really appreciate it.

60
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 23, 2001 2:02 PM

am a father and a TV
show producer and soon to be movie producer.
I give HP the movie
an 8 out of 10.  It's a very good beginning in a series.  Might outsell Titanic.

It has no sex--for those who wrote, because that is not
relevant to a movie for
and about 12 yr olds.

IT is a fairy tale told
reasonably well.  The books are excellent and
are taken from other books and the author willlingly admits that.

Because of her honesty, I give the books a 9 and the movie an 8.

I will read the next 3 books [read all 4] and will see the next movies.  

does that guide you?

80
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 24, 2001 3:24 PM

Hello dad,

I'm a mom and two of my youngest children (10 & 12) have read the books and love them.  I am looking forward to seing the movie with my kids.  I will have to read the books to compare.

My 12 y.o. girl is just fascinated with spells, wizards withces, and magic.

It's nice to see children geting interested about a novel as much as they are with all those violent video games.



80
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by Jayavanti ((email secure)) on November 26, 2001 9:58 PM

Yes.  Thank you for the  input.  It was well thought out and concise.

60
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 30, 2001 2:03 PM

I have read the book and have seen the movie.  The book is MUCH better.  The movie skipped over parts and didn't quite explain some things.  But I thought it was good.  The kids did a great job.  Read the book first.

 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 25, 2001 12:55 AM

The movie was so-so.  Not bad, nothing great.  It's the production that was fantastic...CGI, props and all.  Story-wise...ho-hum.

For those who read Lord of The Rings series, Mrs. Rowling created a total rip-off from Mr. Tolkien.

Kinda sad, actually, since not only is it similar to the story, but even the words she suppossedly invented  bear close resemblance.

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 26, 2001 12:26 AM

To the contributor longing to see Billy Barty in another role, I must be the harbinger of bad news: he's dead. So, while I'm sure you could exhume the partially decayed corpse of Mr. Barty, unfortunately, it'll be difficult to get him to act in any scene where's he's either not asleep or not a dead body. Then again, a lot can be said for animatronics...

40
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 26, 2001 3:24 AM

Hey, if they can bring back Bruce Lee using CGI then why not  the little man himself.
Anyway, I think the Minime guy is pretty good.

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by Gabi (vaporeon@gabriela.net.ar) on November 26, 2001 10:17 AM

Which words did she invent? All the strange words I saw  on the first 2 books were deformations of English words (I can't say anything about the other ones, because I haven't read them).

40
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by Skullfire (skullfire@clarinmail.com) on November 26, 2001 4:19 PM

Oh shut up! Your english sucks almost as mine does!

Borrow me a book next time, by the way.

60
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by Gabi (vaporeon@gabriela.net.ar) on December 3, 2001 4:29 AM

Speaking of your English...
What do you mean by "borrow me a book"?
Do you want me to borrow a book from you, or do you want me to lend you a book?

80
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 9, 2001 2:26 PM

I find it amusing there are many illiterate people who manage to use the computer and find such sites as this to share their misery with others.  Harry Potter was meant mostly for children who still enjoy engaging in fairy tales and make believe.  Of course there are people of all ages who enjoyed the movie as well as the books.  Let's leave these discussion boards open for those who have something meaningful and mature to say, rather than those who choose to abuse sites as this one.

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by Jayavanti ((email secure)) on November 26, 2001 10:03 PM

Would you be so kind as to write some of the words J.K. Rowling supposedly invented?  I read all four book and am confused about these words, which the author is said to have invented.  what words???

40
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 27, 2001 5:03 AM

Muggles, Quiditch, can't think of any more off the top of my head.

40
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 27, 2001 2:30 PM

Muggle, names of the plants and potions, etc

 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 27, 2001 2:40 PM

The guy who played Snape sucked. In the book, Snape is a prick, the guy who played him was just creepy. The rest of the movie was okay though, but I think they could've chosen a better Draco.

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 27, 2001 3:56 PM

I would've liked to have seen more of Norbert the dragon's part of the story....I also wanted to see a "howler" message...

40
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 28, 2001 4:20 AM

Doubtless the Dragon will play a bigger part in the next movie.

P.S
Religion is the true root of all evil.

60
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by cousinzeb (no thanks) on November 29, 2001 10:58 AM

Doubtful.  The dragon isn't in "The Chamber of Secrets".  BTW, I read the book before I saw the movie, and thought that the movie did far better than most other movie adaptations of books (Jurassic Park comes to mind - UUUGH!)

 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by ivorypanther (No Email) on December 2, 2001 2:22 AM

Having read all of the books, I must say that this movie was very well done. The casting couldn't have been much better, really. As for the way the whole thing compared to the book, excellent.
For whoever said that Rowlings ripped off Tolkien, get with the program! Every other fantasy writer has been "ripping off Tolkien", some more blatantly than others.

20
 RE: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 3, 2001 2:54 AM

I guess in that case no one needs to worry about copyright. Well I'm off to make a movie about an island zoo populated by dinosaurs, I'll call it: Billy and the cloneosaurus.

40
 RE: Billy and the Clonosaurus   > reply 
Posted by Skullfire (skullfire@clarinmail.com) on December 3, 2001 3:49 PM

Anyone else wondering who will play Billy?

60
 RE: Billy and the Clonosaurus   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 3, 2001 11:26 PM

How about Billy Barty? Even though he's currentlly decomposing under several feet of hardened soil, I'm sure he could be exhumed for one more shot at the big screen. Go Billy's body!

80
 RE: Billy and the Clonosaurus   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 4, 2001 2:46 AM

At least he could do his own stunts and they wouldn't need to worry about the insurance. And, even though he is dead and half decomposed he still has more acting ability than Keanu Reeves.

100
 RE: Billy and the Clonosaurus   > reply 
Posted by Skullfire (skullfire@clarinmail.com) on December 4, 2001 11:12 AM

You forgot that Keanu is a living droid created by the Matrix.

120
 RE: Billy and the Clonosaurus   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 5, 2001 4:47 AM

KEANU REEVES: Dar... erm... dare is doh spoon? what is dar matewix?

120
 RE: Billy and the Clonosaurus   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 5, 2001 4:47 AM

KEANU REEVES: Dar... erm... dare is doh spoon? what is dar matewix?

120
 RE: Billy and the Clonosaurus   > reply 
Posted by Skullfire (skullfire@clarinmail.com) on December 5, 2001 4:30 PM

They are gonna screw it big with the sequels.

120
 RE: Billy and the Clonosaurus   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 6, 2001 3:15 AM

KEANU REEVES: Dar... what's a seeqwell?

120
 RE: Billy and the Clonosaurus   > reply 
Posted by Skullfire (skullfire@clarinmail.com) on December 6, 2001 4:08 PM

Bill & Ted's Greatest Adventure?

120
 RE: Billy and the Clonosaurus   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 7, 2001 3:54 AM

KEANU REEVES: I like movies, they are real cool, huh huh hu hhuh hu h uh uh uh u hu h u

 
Discuss this story


LOGIN
Username: Password:
Need an account?
Sign up Now!
Note: Logged in users do not have pop-ups and pop-unders.
More Options
User Utilities
Help
WIN STUFF!
DEMI'S BACK!!!Win a copy of Striptease!
RECENT HEADLINES

Upcoming Loch Ness Documentary by Werner Herzog

Weekend Top Ten Box Office Films

New Indiana Jones Movie in Two Years

More comic adaptations: The Punisher

Interview: The Angels Talk!

RIAA Plans To Sue Individual Downloaders

South Park Team to Create Puppet Movie

Weekend Top Ten Box Office Films

SENSELESS SURVEY
How bad will Tomb Raider II be?
It Will Rule
Meh/Could Be Worse
I Pray For Death
Almost-Tolerable


[view results]

LINK US!

dtheatre.com
dtheatre.com

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the poster. The rest © 2000 Digital Theatre, an Ai Graphics (AIGC) Production.