Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Bada0Bing · August 29th, 2008, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Amazon.com essential video
Here's an event movie that holds up to being an event. This filmed version of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, adapted from the wildly popular book by J.K. Rowling, stunningly brings to life Harry Potter's world of Hogwarts, the school for young witches and wizards. The greatest strength of the film comes from its faithfulness to the novel, and this new cinematic world is filled with all the details of Rowling's imagination, thanks to exuberant sets, elaborate costumes, clever makeup and visual effects, and a crème de la crème cast, including Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Alan Rickman, and more. Especially fine is the interplay between Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his schoolmates Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), as well as his protector, the looming Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane). The second-half adventure--involving the titular sorcerer's stone--doesn't translate perfectly from page to screen, ultimately because of the film's fidelity to the novel; this is a case of making a movie for the book's fans, as opposed to a transcending film. Writer Steve Kloves and director Chris Columbus keep the spooks in check, making this a true family film, and with its resourceful hero wide-eyed and ready, one can't wait for Harry's return. Ages 8 and up. --Doug Thomas

Finally watched the 4th highest grossing film of all-time. My boys and I just finished reading the book and I was very impressed at how closely the movie followed it. Although I'm not as engrossed in this story as most people, I'm still looking forward to seeing where it goes.

Quote:

Richard Harris only agreed to taking the part of Albus Dumbledore after his eleven year old granddaughter threatened never to speak to him again.

Funny.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241527/

Stout · August 29th, 2008, 08:25 AM

This one was by far the most faithful to the book. Number 2 is pretty close as well. Number 3 was way, way off, but a good movie on its own. Number 4 was far better than 3. Number 5 was about like 4, but it brought more of an edge, probably from how the books progress.