Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

It's all just so confusing...

T, that looks like the exact same review. Try it again.

I hope you've changed your opinion on Richard Harris's performance. He was wise, noble and very eccentric - exactly like Dumbledore.

"Hmmm... earwax flavour"

__________________
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.

bigval: you'll probably have to hit refresh. It looks perfectly normal to me. Anyway, I still don't like him much...I did notice that he delivered one or two lines well, but the rest was a shame. Anyway, he just said "Earwax," not "flavour."

"Hmmm... alas... earwax!"

That was the line. Just after seeing it for the second time. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is officially one of the best films of the year and a certain children' classic for years to become. Why? Because I said so.

I had built up the film so much that the first watching was a bit of a letdown. I was expecting something wonderful, something thrilling but I knew the story so well and Colombus and Kloves stick to it so perfectly that there were no surprises.

At tonight's second viewing, I was able to look at the film much more objectively. This is a wonderful movie for kids of all ages, that includes 20-year old me. It has such wonderful imagination, thrilling spectacle and loveable characters. And there is magic at work especially in the details. Did anyone else notice the floating candles? Always on the edge of the screen, but barely noticeable. Anyone notice that Seamus' face was still singed the scene after his levitation accident? These tiny details that very few will spot show the love that the makers had for JK Rowling's creation. This special film is a homage to a special book.

My favourite line comes from Filch the caretaker:

(paraphrased)

"I used to like the old detention better. We used to hang the children by their thumbs. God, I miss the screamin' "

Yes, easily one of the best lines in the film. Filch was played to perfection by whoever that actor was. My brother loved that line, too...and he hates Harry Potter.

I did not read the book. But I know people who did. So I was expecting a great story. This movie did a terrible job of developing the themes of a great story.

In the beginning, Harry Potter is a special child living in a extremely mediocre setting. While he is living in this enviornment, he begins to discover his abilities and in doing so discovers how to get the better of his tormentors. The viewers then get to witness his redemption. This theme is very well developed in the movie, "Matilda". But in HP, it just doesn't happen.

Another really valuable theme that should have been developed was the idea of learning by exploring your enviornment and questioning things that it takes a lot of courage to question.
I never understood why HP kept exploring and searching for answers. What motivated his quest? Why was he so interested in that mystery object? It seems to me that the first thing most people do when they enter a totally new enviornment is to figure out how to survive there. But we find that HP very quickly becomes very confident in his new enviornment. He is totally comfortable and even takes for granted his magical powers. This should have been a process!

And finally, along the same lines; Why was the house competition so important? They seemed to be move emotionally charged by the victory of the house than the victory of good over evil. What gives here?

And don't just say, that's the way English prep school are. Take a movie like "The Little Giants". Every American knows how important winning is in little league football. But that doesn't mean that the writers shouldn't develop a good story so that more is at stake than just a football victory.

HP readers accept my verdict but say that its not relavant because this movie is just the begining of the story. And the great literary themes will be developed in the sequels.

Fine. So this movie was not really a movie at all. It was a setting for a movie.

Andy

__________________
Andy Kohlenberg
Israel

Yes, it should have been a process. I admit that they did not illustrate that transition from wonderment to comfort (well, even in book four he's still in amazement, and sort of naive about it all) very well. However, people who have read the books, it seems (I should know, I'm among them), just fill in those gaps, seeing as how they read them already.

What gives? They're kids! Kids want to win. Kids love that kind of stuff. In the book, Slytherin is played up more as the most despised house. In the movie, you get one line to hint at it: "There wasn't a bad witch or wizard that didn't come from Slytherin." In the book, this is expanded upon: they're very ambitious, but, as a result, more of them go astray. They've also won the House Cup many years running...in the book, when Gryffindor finally wins it, it almost makes a new era. They have a famous, talented student on board now, and are, in a way, starting a dynasty of their own. This is minor stuff for the movie, though, and I don't blame them for cutting it out.

And yes, that is the way they are...no, it does not make up a story...the story stood on it's own without it.

What motivated his quest? Wouldn't YOU be curious about that object? I sure as hell would...and I'm not 11...when those kinds of things are at their most interesting. Anyway, another note: in the books, they're off doing other things in the background, which is really more realistic. Real kids would get into all kinds of trouble, or have other "things" going on...in the movie, there isn't time for more than one or two of those subplots.

I thought it was an amazing movie. It has some great lines, some great symbolism, and is based on a great story. It's not perfect...but then again, you can't expect it to be. I think the majority of negative reviews are the result of expecting it to live up to unreasonable hype.

Yes. The hype creates an expectation that the movie will have the qualities of a god movie or even a great movie. But I judge all movies by the same standards.

Are the characters interesting and likable Is the development of those characters and their personalities interesting, exciting, suspensefull?

The giant was the only character that I "liked" alittle. But not much.

HP just looked a lot like Bill Gates. Other than that, I didn't see anything particularly interesting there.

Does the movie have an a new way to emotionally charge great philosophical issues? On this score I compare it with Toy Story, which had a superb approach to the question of "What is man? - Just flesh and blood or the idealized allmost alpowerfull beings we are made out to be?" I don't expect every movie to reach the level of toy story on this point. But every good movie has to have some meaning. Otherwise its just an action flick.

Nothing personal, but I didn't see anything at all resembling "What is man?" in "Toy Story." These are movies primarily targetted at children...they have to be judged on that scale. Expecting a movie aimed at children to have deep, profound philosophical undertones makes about as much sense as me going to "Fried Green Tomatoes" and complaining about the lack of action and special effects.

Anyway, I LOVED the undertones that I did see. The Mirror, for example, was handled well...a great concept from the book, nearly perfectly adapted to cinema. "It does not do to dwell on dreams, if we forget to live." That mirror is a symbol of many things: drugs, sex, or just daydreaming in general...wasting away with fantasies and desires and ignoring the real world right in front of you. Great messages. It's not highly profound and life-altering, but then again, it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be interesting, and it's supposed to encourage children to keep their feet on the ground, and keep them down to earth.

Bill Gates? He looked nothing like him...only similarity was some round glasses. I've got round glasses...doesn't mean I look like Harry Potter. Anyway, I thought the cast was, on the whole, fantastic. Hermione is likeable, but still gets on your nerves. Ron is sort of embarassing at times, but still someone you'd be glad to know. Harry is just flat out interesting to me...but that's partially because I've read the books, and therefore know what's supposed to be going through his head and such.

I liked this movie well enough, I guess. It certainly isn't everything it could have been, but that's not what I was expecting, so...here are my complaints:

- The kid who played Harry was very poor in comparison to Hermione and Ron. Those two kids were excellent, but I didn't think Harry was on their level.

-Not enough scenes of them in class. I thought the classes were really well put-together, and we only saw each of them like, once. Still, I can see where they're coming from, they didn't want a three hour movie.

-The scene on the chess board when Hermione says "you're a great wizard" and talks about she's only "clever", felt unbelievably false to me. I was amazed something that corny made it into the flick, but, alas.

I did like this movie. I can't wait for the next installments. I would most definitely recommend it to all, and especially those who haven't read the book. I wish I hadn't read it before seeing it.

I dunno...I can't really wish, under any circumstances, that I hadn't read the books. They're a part of me now. And yes, that little exchange was indeed corny. The line about being a great wizard could have meant more if they'd gone into their grades...Harry is not a fabulous student there, but he's obviously talented. That could have been her way of saying that. Anyway, I'm not ready to declare natural talent like his as unequivocally better than a studious nature, like hers.

And yes, Radcliffe did seem dry at times...although there were some lines that I think he truly nailed. A few expressions that he had down pat. The look of wonderment he had was good...but he didn't get many chances to use it.

I really can't say anything negative about this film. I read all 4 books to my kids so I am very familiar with the stories and the film hit the first book dead on. If I had any complaint at all it would be that the movie tried too hard to conform to the book making the show go a bit slow.

As for the actors... I found them all to be great. I thought Radcliffe was spot on as Harry. I think he should be dry at times... I mean if we're buying into the story as we watch this is a kid that's been forced to live under the stairs for 12 years. I'd be dry too. I thought Emma Watson was outstanding as Hermione. She displayed great talent and poise... she's a natural. She'll be a big star one day.

I can say one thing negative about the film...even though I said I couldn't. Some of the CG was ruinous. I liked the troll, quidditch etc. but the scene where Harry is chasing keys on a broomstick...yuck. You could tell it was just an undefined nurb and the movement was way too fast. But that's being picky.

I give Harry Potter 9 out of 10 stars.

A great movie is a great movie for all ages. If a movie succeeds in drawing attention to an important issue and shedding new light on it, then it really enriched the viewers. That's the scale I use to judge all movies.

This is not a thread about toy story. But I suggest that you watch them again. And maybe sometime we'll have a toy story thread on this website, (or another one, if you've already had one.)

Of course there are other elements that can make a movie entertaining, like action, humor, unusual scenery, emotion, ect...

But a great movie has to make the viewer feel something, think about something, want something.

Fine, he read those lines.

Again a great concept that could have been developed, and wasn't. The viewer has to be in tears over how emothionally damaged HP is by the loss of his parents and how terribly he yearns to be with them for the pulling away from the mirror to be really meaningful.

Take a look at the movie "Artificial Intelligence". The kid 's devotion to his mother is played out for the whole movie before the big day at the end when he meets her and then looses her again.

Its no good for an actor to just read the lines: "It does not do to dwell on dreams, if we forget to live." The movie has to show someone's dreams, show someone dwelling on them, show the cost of dwelling on those dreams, and finally, show the courage it takes to let them go.

Andy

Interesting points Akohl.

Toy Story 1 & 2 are much more thought-provoking than ordinary children's entertainment. Toy Story 1 has to do with jealousy and rejection while Toy Story 2 is concerned with forgetting about your past, growing up and moving on. The movies are so witty and fast paced that children don't pick up on the themes. If they did Toy Story 1, especially, would be a pretty harrowing experience.

Now onto your main point:

Harry Potter I won't dare call a great movie until at least a few years have passed. But I think it's got a pretty good chance to make to make that grade.

There's a lot of emotion in Harry Potter. When Harry succeeds at Quidditch, we rejoice with him. When Harry sits alone in front of his dead parents, we can feel his longing. When Ron sacrifices himself so that Harry can go on, our feelings are torn between sadness and happiness. Harry Potter rings us through quite a few emotions during its runtime.

It's themes aren't as adult as Toy Story but they are there for us to think about. Harry rarely, if ever, uses his magic wand in the movie, instead he combats evil with cunning, bravery and friendship. Three themes I admit, that wouldn't be out of place in Sesame Street but the film isn't embarassed of them and actually makes them seem fresh and genuine.

What do we want from the movie? Well, I want to see the next installment but I know that's not what you're getting at. This, I fear is where the film was lacking. There was never a real sense of urgency in the film. We never really felt that Harry was in any danger. We were never desperate for him to succeed because he never really was under serious threat. But this will pick up in its sequels.

I see Harry Potter more as a Wizard of Oz type movie than a Toy Story. The Wizard of Oz is an undoubted classic. It survives well 60 years later. Its themes, like Potter's, are ordinary - "There's no place like home", but they're done with such warmth and innocence that they can usually get through to the most stone-hearted adult.

There is a very fine line between emotion and relation to a character, and, as many people put it, "schmaltz." This movie did what it could to avoid cheesy tear-jerking moments. Now, personally, I think that it would have been very appropriate to have Harry tear up a little upon viewing the photo album at the end...I think most kids in that situation would. I do not think, however, that such things should have been commonplace. Harry is tough...hardened from a childhood around people who despise him. I think it's appropriate that he would be blunt, and not highly emotional.

The mirror scene, I think, was handled to near perfection, personally. The shot of him sitting indian-style with his chin resting upon his hands, just staring, motionless, is picture-perfect.

I would not say that a movie needs to emotionally movie you to be great. Make you want something? Sure: more movies like it. I don't think a great movie is required to ask some kind of deep philosophical question, however, and I REALLY don't think that either of the "Toy Story" movies are meant to be taken in the way that you may have taken them. I think they deal with very basic, standard plotlines. Clever and subtle in many ways, surely, but I don't think there are many deep, underlying tones there.

With Potter, though, there most definitely are. Many references to history and literature can be found throughout...and many parallels to great stories of the past, as well. Things like King Arthur, mythology, and even Star Wars come to mind. This stems, naturally, from the fact that it started off as a book...reading the books, the movie's underlying themes and messages because much more obvious, and appropriate.

This movie was pretty darn good 4 a children's film


Peace,

Interesting tidbit: Daniel Radcliffe, the actor who plays Harry Potter (for now, at least), has the same birthday as the fictional character: July 31st. What're the odds? 1 in 365, I suppose?

When I first saw the young Radcliffe as Potter, I couldn't believe how much he looked like the character. I mean he has two things in common with Potter that make me wonder if Rowling didn't base this character on Radcliffe in the hopes a movie would be made.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg