The Popkorn Junkie :: Harry Potter and the Sourcerer's Stone

Have you read the book "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"? If you have then you know the entire plot of this movie-- if you haven't-- here's a brief synopsis: A young boy named Harry Potter is an orphan and lives with his only family-- his horrible Uncle Vernon, Aunt Petunia, and cousin Dudley. His life with these people is awful-- they treat him like a "dog that rolled in something smelly" (to quote the novel) and make him sleep in the cupboard under the stairs. One day Harry receives a mysterious letter but his Uncle snatches it away and destroys it before Harry can read it. Soon, more and more letters come and Uncle Vernon starts to go mad-- he uproots the family to get away from the thousands of letters addressed to Harry.

The next night a giant man barges in on the family and delivers a letter to Harry (one of the same that plagued Uncle Vernon)-- it's his acceptance letter to Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry is a wizard! The rest of the story involves Harry's first year of learning magic, making friends, playing Quidditch (like soccer on broomsticks) and finding out more and more about his past and his parents-- apparently he's famous in the world of magic!

Ok, it's a great story and the novels have captured the imaginations of children and adults alike. The Harry Potter books are a phenomenon and the movie has been greatly anticipated. Fans will not be displeased with the film when it comes to the story line-- director Chris Columbus stayed true to the book in most respects (many small details are left out and some events have been altered just a little in order to help move the plot along better). The film was two and a half hours long, if all the little details had been left in the film, who knows how much longer it would have been.

Now, the only thing that might disappoint those who are hard to please (like me) are the special effects. The movie is about wizardry and magic, yet there are only a few scenes in which anything magical happens. It would have been nice to see more magical things, especially in the class rooms (hardly any scenes about that at all-- which really disappointed me). The special effects that were there, some were fine, some were good, and others were laughable. Ever see "The Mummy Returns"? Remember the end with the Scorpion King animation? Some of the animations were that bad....but not all of them.

So, do I recommend this film? Sure. It was fun and it's a good story-- obviously, or else the book wouldn't have been a hit in the first place. It is a little long...2 1/2 hours will do a number on your rear, make sure you've got a comfy chair! If you haven't read the books and you enjoy films in the genre of fantasy then you will like Harry Potter. If you did read the books, you'll be happy that nothing important was left out and nothing was bastardized-- (think "Circle of Friends"). You'll enjoy it I'm sure....I'm not sure if you'll love it....but you'll enjoy it. I dunno, maybe I should see it again....maybe I'll end up loving it. But right now, when someone asks me I say "Ehhhh...it was good I guess". Take it for what you will.

-- Patsy ( 3 pops out of 4 pops )

Talk about this film with other Popkorn Junkies

Other Junkie's opinions.....

James ( 3 1/2 out of 4 pops )

I saw it yesterday with my parents and younger brother and it was the first time in I don't know how long that all four of us went to a movie together. My mom and I never read the book while my brother and father did, and we all liked the movie. I was never bored. I thought I would be but I really didn't know what to expect, so I just sat back and enjoyed myself. The guy who played the giant who finds Harry did a great job. Richard Harris was also good. The only thing that I didn't like was that there weren't enough black people in it. I mean c'mon, there has to be more than 2 black people in England, right? It was still a marvelous movie nonetheless.

Billy Ray ( 3 out of 4 pops )

I read the review Roger Ebert gave "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" and I was completely and utterly shocked at what he wrote. He said it was the next "The Wizard of Oz". I could not believe my eyes--to believe that he could even dream of comparing it to such an incredible Judy Garland classic. Sure, "Harry Potter..." is a pretty good flick, but it in no way compares to the magic and mystery of Victor Fleming's delightful romp. Daniel Ratcliffe is charming in his first major role as the wizardous Harry Potter, and the veteran British actors like Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman are exceptional in their supporting roles. The special effects are top notch and director Chris Columbus recaptures that childhood magic he was able to muster up in "Home Alone". The film grossed 93.5 million it's first weekend and that was completely deserved, but I hope people will stop calling it a classic, because that's what they called the film version of the Grinch and, though it was also good, it is far from the level of being labeled a 'classic'.

Mike ( 1 out of 4 pops )

I finally saw "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" and really disliked the film. This was a major disappointment to me after so many mostly good reviews. The film really lacked any sense of true excitement and had no suspense or mystery, and it didn't even have a good engrossing story. The movie seemed to be like a video game, with scene after scene with some different special effects going on. Many scenes began and ended without any narrative continuity, they just happened. It also looked like to me that during most of the film, that the kids were acting to the blue screen. Granted, the special effects were marvelous to look at... but the movie was really boring to me after a short while. And what was with mixing sorcery stuff with Greek mythology creatures?? This was by no means another "Wizard of Oz"!