Harry Potter

[Babydoll]

I finally got to see it.  All it did was asked question, but none of the question were answered.  That really bothered me.  It was more special effects than anything else.   Are they going to answer all the questions in the next movie?  

Plot : I rate it at two.
Special effects : I rate it  at eight.

[jmc]

The problem is, it's an ongoing series.  The first movie only introduces characters.    The movie was okay, but I think the books really don't translate well to film.  Since the story is set in a school, there's a lot of repetitive action, classes, Quidditch games, etc.  Children and young people's fiction tends to be that way.  But I can't see people sitting still for a whole series of movies where the characters pretty much do the same things over and over.

[Mofo Rising]

Well, I liked it.

But think about this, SORCERER'S STONE was 152 minutes long, and it may be the shortest book in the series.  GOBLET OF FIRE, the fourth book, is over 700 pages.  How long is that movie going to be?  (Shudder.)

[J.R.]

What about Friday The 13th Parts 1-10?

[jmc]

Yeah, but watching teenagers  get chopped to pieces in film after film is a lot more entertaining than watching kids go to school.  

I think the books are just really hard to film.  For example, Quidditch--okay, the first movie had a big Quidditch scene, but if they're going to be true to the books at all, each film will have to have at least one big Quidditch scene like that one.  I don't know how they're going to pull that off and keep the audience interested.

[John Morgan]

In recent years, most critics don't like movies that are ALL SPECIAL EFFECTS AND NO PLOT.  I remember when Willow was released. George Lucas said the the movie going audience wanted special effects and that Willow was going to give that to them.  Well, the story was lame, the concept was lame, the acting was lame, the plot was ....well you get the idea

With Harry Potter, I felt I was being attacted by special effects.  Every few minutes, some computer animated something was blasting its way toward the screen.  Most of the stuff had nothing to do with the plot too.  I know it may have been "in the book," but that's why they have editors remove stuff in the translation from text to film.  The audience will NOT GET BOGGED DOWN in the extra stuff.

I felt the movie was all special effects and no plot.  I guess I got confused with all the special effects that had nothing to do with the main story.  (I have never read any of the books so I'm not sure as to what is to come.)

Yes it was llllllllooooooonnnnnngggggg.  At the end, when the head Wizard guy said, "Another year has passed."  I FELT LIKE IT HAD.  I couldn't contain my laughter.

[Neville]

I more or less enjoyed the movie, mostly because of the great work of the british supporting actors. And the girl who played Hermione was just great. Anyway, I agree in that it was too long, but what I found more annoying was how predictable the filmaking was. I mean, it was all based on the pattern "Boys open their mouths as thay see something breathtaking" followed by a CGI effect. And that every 5 minutes.

[ErikJ]

The one thing everyone tends to forget is, just like the books, the movie was made for kids. So next time try to but yourself in a child like frame of mind. When you still believed in magic and monsters. Ah, too be young again.