*** Official "HARRY POTTER & THE PHILOSOPHER'S/SORCERER'S STONE" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[TerryRL]

"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" took in $24 million this weekend, which is a hefty 58% down from it's numbers last weekend. Potter has so far earned $220 million. It also became the second fastest film to pass the $200 million mark, ranking behind only "The Phantom Menace". TPM took 13 days to pass the mark, while it took Potter 15 days. "Independence Day" is third as it passed the $200 million mark in 21 days.

The film is currently on pace for a final domestic tally in the area of $300 million. Next weekend will very likely mark the end of Potter's reign at #1 in the weekend standings as "Ocean's Eleven" hits theaters.

 

[Pete-D]

Looks like Potter will fall well shy of Star Wars Episode I.

I don't think any movie will break $400 million again until Star Wars Episode II, which may not have the same pre-hype (maybe a good thing given the expectations), but ticket prices are higher and also there are more high-end theater screens today than there were in 1999 (provided Lucas does choose the restrict how many screens the movie opens on). If Lucas loosens the nuse on how many screens Episode II can be on, then no question, it should handily crush Potter's first weekend IMO.

I think the Harry Potter saga (the entire film saga) will be remembered well, although I don't know if i'd put it up there with The Wizard of Oz just yet. I also agree, Home Alone is a great holiday film, its still terrific to watch even today.

I think Lord of the Rings will also become a classic, personally I just think it will stand better over the course of time because it has a better story.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

With Christmas parties coming in full swing starting next weekend, box office grosses will definitely be affected, especially HP's. 58% is a pretty hefty drop but it will settle at $300M, which is still respectable ($250M for Monsters, Inc.). I believe everything that needs to be said about its box office gross has already been said. Its now just a waiting period to that final number.

~Edwin

 

[TerryRL]

A $300 million haul is a damn impressive feat. HP will become only the tenth film in history to earn over $300 million domestically. HP did exactly what it needed to do, it became the biggest opening film in history, and will become one of the top ten biggest hits in history as well.

WB has plenty reason to be happy about how the film has performed. This boads very well for the prospects of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets".

WB also has "Ocean's Eleven" opening next weekend, which looks to be another big hit for Steven Soderbergh, followed by "The Lord of the Rings" from sister company New Line. With these films, AOT Time Warner is going to have a very merry Christmas.

 

[Derek Bang]

Just chiming in here, since I finally got around to seeing Mr. Potter. Must say I was disappointed. I agree with many of the sentiments issued here previously - very little emotion, Harry was reactive, etc. I checked my watch several times and got restless. It didn't captivate me at all. That being said, my expectations may have been too high. Overall, I thought it was a fun movie, but there is no way I would consider it a classic. Comparisons to the Wizard of Oz to me are very difficult. It just doesn't have the emotional pull that Oz had. I cared about Dorothy, Tin Man, etc. I never had any concerns about Harry's livelihood. I can't put my finger on it, but something was just missing. Hopefully the sequels find what is missing.

 

[Sam Davatchi]

I can't put my finger on it, but something was just missing.

You mean a director?

 

[Sam Davatchi]

I add my review here too because here it's open for discussion:
Just saw this today. One word, magic! Actually the lack of it. Now I see what people were talking about. People were talking about how they had problems with the editing of the movie and how things looked disjointed. Well, the problem is not actually with the editing but the direction. It's very uninspiring and unfortunate. This story had the potential of becoming an instant classic reference movie but it fails to achieve that. You don’t get involved in the movie and it lacks passion. Yes it’s true that it looks wonderful but it seems that all of Columbus’ occupation was how to accurately bring the pages of the book to the screen. They look like moving illustration of the story and fall very flat. It's like watching beautiful images one after another without emotion. But after all it's better than the Phantom Menace. The first thing WB should do is to fire Chris Columbus and find another director for the second movie.
:star::star::star: out of 4

 

[Rich Malloy]

Potter is no WIZARD OF OZ.

That's like saying The Mummy Returns is this generation's Indiana Jones. Once the hype wears off, it'll just be another second-rate movie with a giant budget and a few good opening weekends. There'll be a super-loaded DVD, about which everyone will complain about the image quality (though better than in theaters) and the DTS track will be a real kick for people who treat their subwoofers like a favorite child. A few very lame DVD review sites will proclaim it "The best DVD of the year", but no one will ever speak much about the tired, boring movie that spins up when they wanna demo how the quidditch scene sounds in 6.1.

And Sam, who's nailed this movie's weaknesses perfectly, will shave a star off his review.

 

[Brian Kidd]

I think people are being much too hard on this film. If you had no expectations whatsoever, were eleven years old and saw HARRY POTTER, you'd be blown away. I enjoyed the Hell out of it. Sure, it had a couple of laggy spots, but on the whole, it was leaps and bounds better than most other films. I can't wait for the next one.

 

[Tom Ryan]

Ok, for continuity's sake I'd like to say that, adjusted for inflation, there have been 71 films that have grossed $300 million or more. Potter doesn't sound as special anymore, does it? I'm not trying to dis it; I enjoyed the film. But the box office it's doing is not as spectacular as you folks are making out. What I think should be done is just to track box office success by the number of tickets sold. This would give a much better idea of the true magnitude of a film. For adjusted box office figures, go here:
http://www.boxofficereport.com/atbon/adjusted.shtml
-Tom

 

[Pete-D]

To be honest though, what really could Christopher Columbus have done without really changing the story from the book a lot (which would've been a no-no)? There's simply not a lot happening in the first chapter of the Harry Potter story arc. The ending in the book is pure Scooby-Doo, the "bad guy" is almost non-existant... there just isn't an epic struggle between good or evil here.

Even Steven Spielberg turned down this one saying he'd rather do the third Potter film because that's where things get more interesting.

I think in a way Lucas ran into the same problem with his prequel Star Wars trilogy. Nothing *really* happens in Episode I aside from introducing characters. The bulk of that story happens in Episode II and especially Episode III.

Of course that doesn't excuse some of the painful dialouge and poor pacing, but witty dialouge and great pacing do not make up for a relatively unexciting storyline to begin with.

To be fair to Harry Potter, it is a fun film. Visually it creates the world of "Harry Potter" better than even I would've imagined. The 11-year old in everyone probably had a blast with it, and the kids love it (which honestly is what's important after all). It's better than a lot of the movies for children coming out these days, that's for sure.

I'm sticking by my review of 3 stars out of 5.

 

[ScottR]

Not only did I love this film, but everyone that I know who has seen it loves it. Like I said before, box-office is not important to me.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Pete - as Sam pointed out - Columbus focus was on getting the look of the movie to match the book. Unfortunately he forgot to save some attention for the characters. Better editing with more reaction shots from the principals would have helped.

Someone compared this to the Wizard of OZ. I don't believe it will ever be in that class myself. WOZ, based on a book as well, not only had the look, but you also cared for the characters. Potter stumbles in that area.

Hence, the movie has no soul or as I mentioned previously no magic.