Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

→ in

bigvalbowski's Avatar
Registered User
Sunday morning, I packed into a car with 7 cousins of mine, ages stretching from 11 to 16, to see the movie I've been waiting months to see, Harry Potter.

Was I impressed? Yes. Is it a good movie? Yes, sir. Is it an all time classic that kids seventy years from now will be wanting to see? No.

To all fans of the Harry Potter books, I think the film is a very successful adaptation. It leaves very little out. It has very few additions. The production details are spot on, from Diagon Alley, to the magnificent Hogwarts to the complexities of Quidditch (which is a marvel of special effects wizardry). And thankfully, there isn't a note of complaint from me about the casting. Radcliffe has the toughest role, but he is Harry Potter. I couldn't visualise anyone else in the role. His co-stars Ron Weasley and Hermione ("Harmynee", my prononciation of that name was all wrong) are perfect. Hermione is bossy and over-confident, so it's a tribute to the young actress that she makes her sympathetic. Ron has all the best lines. He was easily the audience's favourite. And the adult parts? They're played by the cream of British talent and British actors are the best in the world, no question. Robbie Coltrane, as Hagrid, has the largest role and he's very cuddly.

What was bad? Well, for me, the direction was played a bit safe. I campaigned for Columbus because I wanted a director who wouldn't mess with it but the script was so good that it could have been a bit fancier.
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.

"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."

I ain't gettin' in no fryer!

"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

Actually, Spud, both J.K. Rowlings' book and the movie are titled Harry Potter & the Philosopher's Stone in the U.K. For some dumb reason, Scholastic (the American publisher) decided to change the title for the North American edition. To keep proper identification with audiences, the title switch will remain in place for the film.

So technically, Philosopher's Stone is the original title, and blokes in the U.K. are probably laughing at you for 'correcting' them.
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

I dunno, I wouldn't call the decision dumb. It wasn't completely necessary, but "Philosopher" doesn't make as much sense to us Yanks. "Sorcerer" is a better fit. I doubt it would have made a huge difference either way, though. Anyway, congrats, bigval, on getting into an advanced screening! I'm green with envy. Can't wait to see it.

"Philosopher" doesn't make as much sense to us Yanks? OK, speak for yourself and the folks you know. Like I said, it was some dumb reason.

Anywho, most of us will get our chance in a matter of days now. My family is all gathering on Friday and already have our tickets. I haven't read the books and don't care about the movie one way or another, but I'm open to checking it out and seeing what all the hubub is, Bub.

Dude, read the first book...seriously. It's an incredibly light read...and it'll make the movie so much more enjoyable...and enjoyable movies are a good thing. Anyway, "Philosopher" still makes sense, but it's not a appropriate as "Sorcerer," given it's supernatural nature. When I think "Philosopher," I think theology and logic, etc...nothing to do with magic. Like I said, though, I doubt it would make much difference either way.

I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Saw this last night and must say, I loved it. Was done very well, the sets, the cast, everything. Since I have never read any of the books, I felt a little lost, but for the most part, I pretty much understood the differences between muggles and wizards.

If the movie wasn't enough 3 count em, THREE wonderful teaser/trailers. First off, LOTR, I had a moment of silence while that trailer was playing.. Second, Scooby Doo teaser. Although this movie looks to suck, the teaser was quite hilarious. A Batman-esque type teaser, then scooby turns to reveal himself. Third, Monsters Inc., actually this was more of a go see our movie instead type of thing. Which was hilarious none the less.

Don't have much to say, because the movie just took my breath away. Everything about it made you believe in this other world out there. Hagrid's character gave me a few good laughs as well as Weasley's character.

I really hope even if you're not a fan of Harry Potter that you go and check this out. Well worth the admission price to go see it. Lengthy it may be, but well worth it.

Registered User
TWT, I'm with Holden on the fact that Philosopher's Stone makes more sense. You don't seem to realize that the "philosopher's stone" is a real mythological object. J. K. Rowling didn't come up with the idea. It's been in legends for hundreds of years. It's degrading to Americans to assume that we don't know this. And that's why they should have kept the original title.

Actually I did know that...but if you ask me, it's a poor title. "Sorcerer" is much more appropriate. When I think of a philosopher, I do no think of magic, or the occult, or anything supernatual. I think of theology, I think of Socrates, etc. Is it insulting? I don't know. I'm not insulted at all. I do think, however, that "Sorcerer" makes a lot more sense.

Registered User
Originally posted by TWTCommish
Actually I did know that...
My apologies.

None necessary...but it is sort of funny that people think it might be insulting, when in fact most people do not know what it's based on a real legend. I dunno how insulting it can be if it's true! Anyway, I didn't give it much thought. I just started at the screen like a googly-eyed idiot the whole time.

Would it have been so horrible if people's first thoughts when picking up that book (or seeing the movie) were of Socrates, Plato and Kierkegaard? How many people probably thought Raiders of the Lost Ark was going to be about searching for Noah's Ark and Mt. Ararat? Do you think they were disappointed or dismayed to learn about the Ark of the Covenant instead?

American's are generally treated as stupid, and rightly so most of the time. I'm just insulted every so often to be lumped in with the "Jerry Springer" and WWF watchers, dig? Phil Osofee? Who dat?

Horrible? Don't be so dramatic. No, it wouldn't have been horrible: but it would've been incorrect...A POOR TITLE. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" makes a lot of sense: people are trying to raid the Lost Ark. It's not misleading. Now, no one living on this planet picked up Harry Potter expecting a book on theology, either, but let's face it: some words convey certain things, and "Sorcerer" more accurately conveys the subject matter than a word like "Philosopher."

I tried to get tickets for yesterday, but I couldn't. So I tried to get tickets for saturday, but I couldn't. So I tried to get tickets for sunday, and I couldn't get them until a 10:30 showing. I'm bummed.

That's a bummer. Out here we didn't have too much trouble. We got them the day before for a fairly crowdered theatre...but it was only about 70-80% full anyway, so we probably could've gotten in without purchasing any in advance. There were a few people in robes there...not sure if they were meant to be Quidditch robes, or just plain old Hogwarts robes...doesn't matter much either way. The whole thing was a great experience, and highly amusing. There were two teenage girls walking behind me as I entered the theatre. One of them, in a shrilly, overly-excited voice said "Harry Potterrrrrrr!" Geez, and I thought I was one of the few teenage losers who loves the books. I learned otherwise yesterday.

FYI: just wrote a review of the movie, sort of on the fly (I rarely take a lot of time when writing things like this...if I do, it might not get done at all). You can check it out here:


You can disagree with it by replying.

Now With Moveable Parts
Originally posted by Holden Pike

American's are generally treated as stupid, and rightly so most of the time. I'm just insulted every so often to be lumped in with the "Jerry Springer" and WWF watchers, dig? Phil Osofee? Who dat?
It's amazing the stereotypes people will create. I'm from California, so obviously, that means I'm blonde, live by the beach, and say things like," Cowabunga, dude!" The reality couldn't be further from the truth. Just like most people don't even watch WWF or Springer. I'm not gonna say that Americans should " rightly" be thought of as stupid. Neither should you, Holden. I hate it when people get all anti-American-culture. If it was so retarded, why do whole bunch of other countries copy us? Ever been to Japan?

I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
TWT...regarding your review.

The Quidditch arena had a lot of seats actually...the towers, then below that was area for more seating. So if there was 1,000 kids attending Hogwart's, they were probably all there.

Are they planning on releasing another Potter movie before long???