Just saw "Harry Potter..."

[Vin]

I just got back from seeing the movie, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." My mother suggested that I bring my younger siblings to the movies and they all wanted to see "Jimmy Neutron" or "Harry Potter." They choose "Harry Potter" and although I wanted to see "LOTR" or "Joe Somebody," I knew they wouldn't want to see that besides one of my brothers. Anyway, I had never read the "Harry Potter" books (nor have I read any "LOTR" books), so my knowledge of the characters were limited. The film was very long and I found myself quite bored at times. There were some very good scenes though. The film wasn't one of my favorites, but it was okay. My sister informed me that the film wasn't even as detailed as the book and would have probably been an hour or so longer. I know "LOTR" is longer, but it looks much more interesting than "Potter."

[James]

Harry Potter was tolerable. It felt rushed though and if very little creative thought had gone into it. The effects were very ropey (I thought the quidditch match was especially poor) and the acting just above bearable.

No comparison to LOTR. That was a bad lott you drew there.

Harry Potter books are to be recommended though. Far better!

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

You COULD see the movie and then say that you read the book...that's a good way of putting the movie in perspective.

This was a good movie to me, though. They kept to much of the book, and added barely anything new. My only real complaint was that, like all movies, they concentrated on action scenes more than the more characterizing scenes.

My rating? 95/100-it was a good adaption.