*** Official "HARRY POTTER & THE PHILOSOPHER'S/SORCERER'S STONE" Discussion Thread (2 Viewers)

[ikiru]

I saw this movie this weekend and I was dissapointed. I had heard that people were saying positive things about this movie (I didnt hear the actual reviews, but I heard they were positive).

I felt the movie tried to do too much and the end result was a bunch of "oh, by the way" solutions to some problems (getting the stone) and overdeveloping solutions to other problems (the whole sports event to set up how he got the key...by the way, wasnt it convenient that there happened to be a broom floating there?). I didnt feel like the antagonist character was fully developed... come to think of it, none of the characteres were developed very well. The movie started out fairly well with some eye catching effects to really open up the wizard world, but it really didnt take off much more than that.

The movie turned out to be pretty flat and predictable. I do think there was some potential in the whole Harry Potter world that the movie failed to bring out.

-ikiru

 

[Luc]

I feel pretty much the same way as Rob.

Perhaps, I needed to be a Harry Potter fan to enjoy it (read the book, know a bit about the characters and their world). It's like someone who never been introduced to the Star Wars watching SW: Episode I TPM for the first time. Not knowing who Anakin is, who C3PO is, ect would just take away the effect of the movie. Harry Potter's plot and storyline just couldn't keep me interested for 2.5hrs.

My wife felt the same way. I hate to say it because I know you fans will jump on me for it, but I labeled it a kid movie along the same line a A Never Ending Story.

 

[David Rogers]

So sad to see all the Potter flames.
If you read the four books, you'll note that as they progress (as Harry ages and becomes more accustomed to the 'Wizarding World'), he becomes more bold and forthright.
I have noticed a trend in popular fiction (particularly television and cinema) for audiences to label performances that are understated, quiet, or just plain small as 'bad'. I disagree, but its probably an entire other discussion that I know boils down to Preference, and thus is basically a non-productive thread.
As written, the series leans the majority of the dialog from the trio (Harry, Hermonie, and Ron) towards the last two. For most of the first two books Harry is very quiet, and most of his dialog is internal thought. Only somewhat in the third, and much more so in the fourth, does Harry begin to "grow a spine" and be bold about his interactions with the Wizarding World. Based on this, I find the vast majority of the complaints about Radcliffe's portrayal of Harry to be odd, to say the least.
HP isn't an action movie made by Michael Bay, king of short-attention span theater. Its a surprisingly faithful adaptation of an extremely popular book series; and the whole of the books are about the world Harry is being introduced into now that he's a student at Hogwarts.
Myself, I'm looking forward to the others. Currently, my worst 'fear' involving Potter is the studio changing their mind about the whole deal, and thus we'd not have all the books adapted into movies.
I've never owned a book series *and* a matching set of films before, never even really heard of them existing. The list of books I'd give vital portions of my anatomy to have in movie form (with good casts and effects, faithfully adapted) is painfully large. That there exists even this moderate possibility of someday owning a set of seven Harry Potter movies (even if some of the later ones are two-parters) is extremely enticing. I won't like the books less when (if, gaaah :frowning: ) they finish out the movies, but I just like seeing the fruits of the author's and my imaginations brought to life on the big screen. I suppose the you could say the geek in me likes the idea of seeing a box set of DVDs that say "Harry Potter" on them.

 

[Joseph Young]

I walked out of the theater after 45 minutes...

But not voluntarily. Let me explain --
Just at the scene where Ron is performing a spell on his rat on the Hogwarts train, I heard this sudden high pitched alarm/siren sound. I though to myself.. 'wow.. what an odd audio effect. sounds out of place.' Suddenly these flashing blue brilliant police-type lights began spinning all over the theater, and over the alarm a prerecorded voice began speaking.
"We ask that you leave the theater at the exit doors in a calm and orderly manner. There has been an emergency reported in this facility."
When I walked around the front of the theater, I noticed a string of fire engines forming a crescent moon in front of the ticket window area.
Needless to say I have not had the opportunity to revisit the last 2/3 of this film. Perhaps I will wait for the DVD.
Cheers,
Joseph

 

[Gruson]

I wish I was lucky enough not to see the last 2/3 of the movie.

I wish I had an alarm to tell me to leave! I almost did walk out but I kept thinking, this has to get better.

It didn't.

 

[Steve Owen]

So sad to see all the Potter flames.

If you read the four books...

That, in a nutshell, was my problem with the movie. I haven't read the books. The movie was a lot of fun, and I enjoyed it, but I agree with the complaints stated here. It was clearly made for fans of the books. It doesn't stand on its own quite as well.

The "explanations" at the end reminded me of the end of a Scooby Doo episode. And no, the characters we're well developed... even given the length of the movie. There was just far too many characters that I'm sure the fans of the books would have been very dissapointed if any had been left out. The professor teaching the broom riding (forgot her name... sorry) is a good example. Was she needed at all to advance the story? A 2-3 minute montage of the kids going through classes, though somewhat cliche, would have been a better way to explain how they learned, for example, to ride brooms. Though that would have obviously deviated from the books, it would have allowed more time for character development.

The other thing that bugged me a lot, and that others have mentioned, was the editing. The cuts from scene to sceen were too quick. The one that sticks in my mind was the scene with the flying keys. The end of that scene with the keys slamming into the door was abruptly cut off and instantly your transported to a later moment in time. There were quite a few others like that where the transition seemed forced.

Like I said, my complaints aside, I did enjoy the movie. It was a lot of fun and some of the effects were really cool. But, as someone who hasn't read any of the books, I thought it could have been much better. I enjoyed Monsters, Inc. a whole lot more.

-Steve

 

[Rob_J]

I was not expecting much of a movie when I went to see it on the weekend, but boy was I surprised!
I don't care what others say about character development and whatnot, it's just a great movie especially for kids. I was sitting there with a childish look of amazement through the first half of the movie. The scene where Hagrid opens the brick wall to reveal the street behind it was just plain cool... I probably shouldn't have told you that. If I were a kid, I would think that pretty much anything was possible after seeing that movie. I thought it was a great way to look at life: if you're dealt a rotten hand, don't worry, you can make things better if you try, and those who give you a hard time will get theirs in the end as well.
My guess is that a lot of people had huge expectations of the movie before they went in to see it. Of course, with all the press this movie is getting, it would be pretty hard to make any movie live up to those expectations. I always try to watch a movie without being biased before entering it. I prefer to make my own opinions. In this case, I would say it was one of the year's best films. It was much better than Monster's Inc. and I would put it right up there with Shrek.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

So sad to see all the Potter flames.

Really? Where? I'm seeing disagreements and opposing viewpoints on the film but no flames.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Well I saw this on the weekend with my nephews. What can I say. I did not read the books - yet.
The movie was OK but it lacked - magic. Sorry - couldn't help that. Call it what you will chemistry, sparks. This movie didn't have it.
The cast was fine - especially Robbie Coltrane. Any difficulties the movie had, I lay at the feet of the director and as mentioned the editing. In more capable hands this movie could have had more oomph.
I must say though at the showing I saw - the audience clapped at the end. My older nephew who is 11 and has read all the books said it was the best movie he ever saw.
Looks like readers of the books enjoyed the movie much more than the nonreaders. Hope this isn't a trend that continues for LOTR.:frowning:

 

[Rich Malloy]

That, in a nutshell, was my problem with the movie. I haven't read the books. The movie was a lot of fun, and I enjoyed it, but I agree with the complaints stated here. It was clearly made for fans of the books. It doesn't stand on its own quite as well.

I haven't read the books, but my daughter has (and loves them). Neither of us were moved by the movie, but she went on and on about how exciting and emotional and scary the books are - even though the movie certainly isn't.

And so I'm not sure how faithful the movie is to the book (my daughter said they left out a lot of important stuff in the final quest/test for the stone), but I've never considered pure fidelity to the source to be the final arbiter for how good a movie is. There's a necessary transition between the page and the screen, and the best directors can infuse their films with the same spark that ignites the written words. But this movie was flat, lifeless, and utterly typical in every way - a predictably mundane Chris Columbus picture.

But my daughter assures me that the books are brilliant.

 

[Dave Poehlman]

I saw HP this past weekend and I liked it. I haven't read the books, my wife did... and she wouldn't shut up about them... so, I did have a grasp of the story going in. (sure she can go on and on about her HP books, but if I try to talk about something like Zelazny's Amber Chronicles.. I get the rolling eyes).

I will say.. it did seem like they rushed through the story a little and could have elaborated on the characters a little more. Perhaps they should have done a narrative? Broke it up into 2 movies?

Anyway... it's a good movie, if you don't try to over-examine it. It was obviously done with the book fans as the intended audience.

 

[TerryRL]

With a $2.5 million haul on Monday, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" has now earned $189.5 million. While it's a huge gross, 'Potter' is now not likely to pass the record held by "The Phantom Menace" as the fastest film in history to pass $200 million. 'Menace' did it in 13 days, at it's current pace, 'Potter' will pass the mark on Thursday or Friday. It's 14th or 15th day of release.

Still, the movie is clearly going to pass the $300 million mark sometime next month and will be the #1 film of 2001.

 

[Brad_W]

I just saw this movie about 30 minutes ago and enjoyed it a lot. The only real problem I had was how bad some of the CGI looked. I know the Troll looked very CGI and am not complaining about that, but when Harry was on him it was HORRIBLE! There was too much: quick shots of Harry being thrashed around (cgi) and then cut to him being hung upside down (real) for me to realize how they shot that scene.

Well, aside from my CGI complaint, I enjoyed it, or did I already state that?

Oh and NO Episode 2 trailer or Lord of the Rings trailer here.

 

[MathewM]

I'm glad to see some drop off in Potter's b.o. performance. Too bad the next film is already in the works. If for whatever reason that Potter underperforms in the long run (Terry, you seem to keep up with the numbers quite well. What were some original studio estimates?) there might be some incentive to make a better film. I think this film's legs are going to be limping in upcoming weeks. If LOTR opens as big as expected, I think you'll see quite the drop off.

Actually this post is mute because the Harry Potter corporate machine appears to be fairly unstoppable.

 

[TerryRL]

WB knew they had a major hit on their hands, I just think they over-estimated what sort of hit it would be. Originally, they were saying the movie would replace "Titanic" as the biggest film in history. Passing a $1.8 billion worldwide gross is a HUGE accomplishment and even though 'Potter' is incredibly popular, I never thought it had a shot at taking down that record. Hell, that's a record I doubt anyone will take down anytime soon. Afterall, "E.T." reigned as the biggest movie of all time for 15 years.

After the movie's opening weekend (WB had the opening estimates $3 million more than what it actually opened at, which is sort of a big gap, usually it's more like $1 million over at the most) WB predicted it would beat all of the records held by "The Phantom Menace". There was some level of surprise when the movie failed to pass $100 million faster than TPM did, especially considering it opened more than $25 million better ($90.2 million compared to $64.8 million).

WB then said that the film would break the $200 million mark in 10 days, 3 days better than it took TPM to do it. Now that that isn't going to happen, the studio has set it's sights on the more realistic sum of $350 domestically.

WB has done this before, they estimated that "Batman" would make over $400 million back in 1989 and replace "E.T." as the biggest movie in history, based on the $42.2 million opening of Tim Burton's first Dark Knight adventure. The movie ended up earning $251 million.

WB is sort of notorious for over-estimating how big they think a movie will be and put way too much of an emphasis on the "bottom line". Hence, why the "Batman" franchise turned into nothing more than a series of two-hour toy commercials.

(Little known fact: 1989's "Batman" was the first non-Lucas or non-Spielberg film to earn over $250 million domestically)

Hopefully, they'll continue to try and retain what made the 'Potter' books so popular in the upcoming sequels. I'm also glad that they're taking a hands-off approach to "The Matrix" franchise. There was talk that the WB execs wanted the violence "toned down" in the sequels so that the movies would make the more box office safe rating of PG-13. Luckily, that only turned out to be just talk.

WB should be happy in the fact that 'Potter' will one of the biggest hits in history, instead of stressing over whether or not it beats "Titanic", because that ain't gonna happen.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Terry, I have been following the developments on Harry Potter very closely and I have never read any of the claims you mentioned that WB made in your last post about how the film is going to do at the box office. If anything, it is the quite the opposite. WB has been very cautious in making any predictions on HP's box office performance.

Would you please give me some links to some of these claims? I am very interested. Thanks.

~Edwin

 

[Tino]

I have also been following Harry Potter reports and box office predictions for some time and have never heard Warner Bros. make those claims. If they did make those claims, I would definitely like to read them too.

 

[TerryRL]

Read these articles...
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Also read the last issue of Entertainment Weekly (WB owned magazine) with Potter as their cover story. As well as the Daily Variety magazine the week of Potter's release. The last issue of Premiere magazine had a good Potter article, as well as the Hollywood Reporter.
Also check out the websites for the L.A. and New York Times. The same goes for USA Today. All had good Potter articles about it's box office chances.

 

[RobertR]

Terry, NONE of the links you provided support your claim that WB was making overblown predictions about HP's boxoffice take (the first link doesn't work). In fact, all of the quoted predictions and speculations were by people not associated with WB. If anything, WB was trying to DOWNPLAY boxoffice expectations.

 

[TerryRL]

Go to the other sites I also put in the post.

And check out those magazine articles as well. Plus, read the article on Potter in Cinescape magazine.