Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1440x600 | 8121.78 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x528 | 6714.68 MiB | 720p | |
|
712x296 | 963.2 MiB | divx | |
|
480x200 | 650.4 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Let The Magic Begin.
Journey beyond your imagination
The Magic Begins November 16th.
Learning Can Be Magic
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is the first film in the Harry Potter series based off the novels by J.K. Rowling. It is the tale of Harry Potter, an ordinary 11-year-old boy serving as a sort of slave for his aunt and uncle who learns that he is actually a wizard and has been invited to attend the Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry is snatched away from his mundane existence by Hagrid, the grounds keeper for Hogwarts, and quickly thrown into a world completely foreign to both him and the viewer. Famous for an incident that happened at his birth, Harry makes friends easily at his new school. He soon finds, however, that the wizarding world is far more dangerous for him than he would have imagined, and he quickly learns that not all wizards are ones to be trusted.
| John Cleese | |
| Alan Rickman | |
| Daniel Radcliffe | Harry Potter |
| Robbie Coltrane | Rubeus Hagrid |
| Richard Harris | Albus Dumbledore |
| Rupert Grint | |
| Emma Watson | |
| Warwick Davis | Professor Flitwick/Goblin Bank Teller |
| Ian Hart | Professor Quirrell |
| Maggie Smith | Professor Minerva McGonagall |
| Saunders Triplets | Harry Potter (Age 1) |
| Fiona Shaw | Aunt Petunia |
| Harry Melling | Dudley Dursley |
| Richard Griffiths | Uncle Vernon |
| Derek Deadman | Tom |
| Ben Borowiecki | Diagon Alley Boy |
| Verne Troyer | Griphook the Goblin |
| John Hurt | Mr. Ollivander |
| Richard Bremmer | He Who Must Not Be Named |
| Chris Columbus |
7.20 out of 10 (72768 votes)
Visitor Reviews
could this beeeee any worse!!!
posted on 26 Aug 2009SPOILERS AHEAD!!!OH MY GOD i cannot believe i paid money to see this film, it wasnt my fault, Lord Of The Rings was sold out. Too long for kids to enjoy, too childish for adults, destined to please no one! Good British actors including Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith and Richard Harris do what they can with a disjointed script and over acting child actors.
Some of the special effects were good but we've seen the like before eg. the half horse half man straight out of an episode of Xena. Oh and good idea to set up a menacing villain like Rickman only to have him become a good guy....not. Frankly i could do with the two and a half hours back please. :-(* out of ****
Could have been a great movie but...
posted on 24 Aug 2009The story of Harry Potter could have been brought to life through the magic of cinema. Unfortunately, that was not executed. The pacing of the film is extremely slow, which makes me wonder how a 6-year old child would be able to sit still for two and a half hours straight when I couldn't do it. Another thing I questioned is that the movie title includes the Sorcerer's Stone...yet, the stone isn't even mentioned until the middle of the movie. When Harry becomes a seeker and plays in his first game, we are excited and interested by the quick and useful cuts. Yet as the game is over...we are left unfulfilled, once again. About ten minutes later, six people walked out of the theater. This continued throughout the movie. By the end of the film, there were approximately 15 people left, out of 25 or 30. On a positive note, the special effects used in the film were very good as well as some of the visual aspects. If there is a sequel to this film, I hope that it will include some excitement, lose the turtle-paced conversations and cuts and include something to keep the audience enticed.
Over-hyped Kids Flick
posted on 20 Aug 2009I saw "Potter" in an open frame of mind. I have not read the books, and know next to nothing about the whole Potter phenomenon. I'm also not particularly into the occult, though that can be interesting, like anything else.What was not particularly interesting was "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." I found it derivative and unoriginal. Every Halloween cliche and image, from magic wands to flying broomsticks to trolls to centaurs, is dragged out of the closet one more time. The film is fantasy fulfillment for the pre-teen and teen set, and as such has a certain value. As art, though, it falls short.The acting is the film's greatest weakness. The child stars clearly were picked for their looks and not any particular acting finesse. The child they picked - to the accompaniment of international hype - to star as Potter has all the makings of another Mark Hamill. He no doubt will become a legend among Potter groupies and do the inevitable boatload of sequels, but shows no particular promise outside this particular role. His primary acting talent is to give a big toothy grin whenever his enemies are tormented or he triumphs at something or other (which happens with monotonous regularity). In between triumphs, he generally just looks blank, which is a welcome break from his mugging when everyone sees how wonderful he is.The most striking thing about the other actors is how their talents are utterly squandered. Most striking is John Cleese, who floats in as a ghost and is given absolutely nothing of interest to say. Perhaps they are setting his character up for the sequels. However, since I'm reviewing this film, not them, why he is present at all is a mystery. Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane are the only actors that make any impact, though John Hurt is fine in a cameo. This film badly needed strong contributions from the likes of Cleese, Richard Harris and the rest, but the script hamstrings them and instead dwells on the kids. It's too bad, because a film about the adults in this make-believe world would have been an artistic, if not financial, success.Technically, the film falls flat in a number of areas. Most annoying is the background score, which loudly intrudes at every possible instance. Harry walks down a path - and the music wells. The editing is a horror, as scenes that could have been riveting, such as the chess match toward the end, are butchered. If you are going to base the outcome of the tale on a chess match, at least show a little bit of the game! The film's makers clearly look down on their audience as people either incapable or uninterested in understanding a chess match. Instead, they substitute neutered violence by the chess pieces when they capture each other. There was no drama, just more chances for Harry and his crew to look around blankly yet again and await the inevitable triumph. The end of the film, when Potter's school rivals are emotionally crushed, was unintentionally depressing to this viewer. Can't Potter succeed without his lessers being humiliated? Not in this film.The affected upper-class British accents make a number of the characters, particularly Harry's friend Hermione, appear unsympathetic and ridiculous at times. Expecting a 13-year-old to play a know-it-all and still remain likeable was way too much of a chore for this particular proto-actress. The entire film has a certain voyeuristic flair to it, dwelling on images of sumptuous banquets and manor halls and the like. There is great possibility for satire here, but the film misses its chances and plays it straight. I'm sure a host of comedians are salivating at the prospect won't waste the opportunity.A bit of inventiveness might have saved the film, but that is sorely lacking. There is little original about this "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" type of tale. The hyped ball game in the middle of the film makes little sense, as Harry (of course) saves the day by singlehandedly catching a butterfly or something after half his team has been wiped out, thus nullifying the efforts of everyone else involved. Ultimately, the film is a fantasy about exciting times at boarding school, with these "magical" students going back to their homes at the end, which makes no sense at all. Harry saves the world, but what really matters is that he shows that his crew is superior to his school competitors. This sort of "For me to win you must fail" ending seems in vogue right now, in films like "Legally Blonde," and is far from attractive.Scenes and motifs are ripped off from much better films, such as "Time Bandits," "Total Recall," "Rollerball" and "The Longest Yard." I recommend any of those films over this one.So was there anything redeeming about the film? Certainly. The three pre-teens I saw the film with loved it, particularly the four-year-old, who has seen it three times (so far). Hard for something to seem unoriginal when you are that age - which tells you something about the natural audience for this film. Children and undemanding adults will no doubt find the constant stream of tired occult images and colorful characters riveting, but they do not make for high art.This film, running at about three hours, will be a great babysitter when it comes out on dvd, the "ET" of its time. If you have kids, you no doubt will wind up owning it, and if possible should wait until then to have them see it. Otherwise, try to find someone else to take them to see "Potter" during its theater run. You'll be doing yourself a huge favor. Five stars out of ten for keeping the kids quiet for that long.
It's good, but I loved the book too much to love it
posted on 20 Aug 2009The wonderful thing about a book is that you can sit down and linger over all your favorite parts of it. When I was not too much younger, I'd re-read my favorite scenes of children's books I loved over and over, savouring them. Here, it's all rushed. Sure, it's Harry Potter's greatest hits in complelation format, but I felt stunned, rushed and at the same time bored during the film. I wasn't awed. I wasn't thrilled. Except for a few brief moments, I generally sat there keeping up to pace and wondering how they'd do the scary scenes. (Those, and the Quiddich match, were wonderful and real movie savers) It's a nice little film, and perhaps if I was 14 or so I'd want to see it again, which is of course the point. But not now.
What a thrill to see JK Rowlings world come to life!
posted on 18 Aug 2009I have read all 4 of the Harry Potter books at least 2 times each. I love these stories, they bring me back to a time when I was a child. A time when my imagination ran wild. It is so exciting to see the kids get into books again. So here comes the Socerers Stone, Wow... I was so amazed at the attention to physical detail. Like the Castle, or the Hogwarts Express, and even the Characters themselves, they are all so believable. Robby Coltrane, (Hagrid) was perfect, I think Rowling was thinking of Coltrane when she wrote the part in the book. Alan Rickman (Snape) is a true bad guy in most films, and he doesn't disappoint in this one either. I knew that not every detail of the book would be able to fit in the 155 min film, and the few details that were left out, really don't affect the actual plot. This film had me in goosebumps from the time it started, until the thrilling end. I have no doubt that the Chamber of Secrets will be just as good or maybe better..It is certainly worth the $8.00 to see the film.
A delightful thrill of magic!
posted on 18 Aug 2009I saw Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone on the first Tuesday after the movie hit theatres. I was with my 6th Grade class, and we had read the first book in class. I had been very excited prior to the event, and did not regret the excitement that I had had about seeing the movie. I watched the movie with close attention. I thought that what you were watching was what you had to take your mind to. Daniel Radcliffe as 'Harry Potter' did a superb job. I think he was the best person for the part. 'Ron Weasley' played by Rupert Grint was very good. As well, he suited the part. Emma Watson as 'Hermione Granger' was excellent. And we all know 'Hagrid' played by Robbie Coltrane, was the best and funniest part of the movie. I do wish Christopher Columbus had put in all the parts in the movie that J.K. Rowling had in the book. Although I wish the movie had been not so long.
A Must
posted on 16 Aug 2009I did not read the books or heard a lot about them before seeing this.I borrowed this movie for the kids to watch. I ended up watching the whole movie, and continuing to watch it after the kids went to bed. I have placed an order for the movie. This one belongs to my collection.Pure escapism. Do not rent this. BUY IT NOW.
Overrated
posted on 12 Aug 2009Second rate special effects and not enough humor to help you get through a 2 1/2 hour movie. I am assuming you have to have some knowledge of the books to understand, I did not so much of it was boring. What would have helped would have been some American actors to provide comic relief (Robin Williams).
Smoke and Mirrors
posted on 08 Aug 2009In the opening scene of 'Philosopher's Stone,' Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) muses that the entire world will one day know the name of Harry Potter. The disturbing thing is, she isn't far from the truth. The 'Harry Potter' books, created by single British mum, J.K. Rowling, are now the most popular and best-selling books in history, their worldwide sales surpassing those of J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy epic, 'The Lord of the Rings,' which for the last few decades has enjoyed the exalted position of being the highest-selling novel in history. So if you haven't heard the name of Harry Potter by now, you must have spent the last few years buried away in an underground cave on Pluto, with forks in your eyes and your ears stuffed with lead. These days, it's almost impossible to enter a shop without seeing his bespectacled face staring back at you from either a packet of jellybeans, a magazine, a pair of boxer shorts, a kitchen knife, or a tin of lawn mower fuel. Which is why it's no surprise that this is undoubtedly the most hyped film in cinematic history. But the big question on everyone's lips is: does the film live up to that hype? And the answer - yes and no. Not being an avid Potterite, I went in to watch the film with quite an objective point of view. I barely knew anything of the story, the characters or really what to expect. Two hours and thirty-five minutes later, I'd realised one thing - this is a movie clearly made for the fans, the younger ones at that. Don't get me wrong, it's not that 'Philosopher's Stone' is a bad film, it's just that it's not a particularly good one. Visually, it's stunning. Columbus has truly brought the fantastic imagery of the world of Hogwart's to the big screen, and it really does look spectacular. Costumes, set design and special effects are all amazing, and are certainly some of the film's greatest assets. On the whole, the cast is great, particularly Robbie Coltrane's gentle giant Hagrid, Alan Rickman's deliciously dark Professor of Potions, Snape, and Harry's best friends, ginger-haired Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and know-all Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). As the boy from the cupboard under the stairs, 11-year-old Daniel Radcliffe does an adequate job, but lacks the believability and realism displayed by his child co-stars, required of a film's title character. This, however, may not be entirely his fault - Harry, at times, is given such awkward and cliché-riddled dialogue, that even if delivered by a classically trained thespian, it would still sound strained and uncomfortable. At 155 minutes, the film is overlong, and slow-plotting dilutes the story's action, with a few periods boring one of the friends I sat with to the point of having to repeatedly hit himself on the head with a glass bottle, in order to both stay awake and remain entertained. On the other hand, some scenes manage to be quite exciting - such as Harry's first Quidditch match, and the central trio's encounter with a huge troll - no matter how predictable they may be. The ending, however, is totally anti-climactic, and is an enormous let own - a perfunctory wrap-up that's coated with more sugar than a fat man's Weet-Bix. This left me with the feeling that all of the magic on screen was nothing but simple smoke and mirrors, with some stylish design and special effects not able to make up for a flawed and obvious narrative.After viewing the film, I re-read 'Philosopher's Stone,' and realised one thing: the film lacked what made the book so special - it's tongue-in-cheek sense of humour. Everything else was there, and the plot follows the book religiously, but that sneaking suspicion that the whole thing was really just having a bit of a go at us simply wasn't conveyed in the film. It does seem to lack the two-leveled humour that supposed `kid's movies' like 'Shrek' and the 'Toy Story' films have shown us recently, and may leave Potter-illiterate parents looking at their watches every three seconds, excusing themselves for their fifth toilet break since the opening titles.While 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' is certainly not the greatest film ever made - not even close to the best film of this year - it's obviously going to make more than enough money to pay for the series of Potter films that will inevitably follow, while obliterating every box-office record in history along the way. If you're a fan, you'll love it, and be queuing up to buy tickets to the next session after you leave the cinema. But, for those few among us not familiar enough with the world of Harry and his Hogwart's colleagues to be able to correctly define the term 'animagus,' the film does seem a little hollow. It's an enjoyable enough film to watch, even if only for the sake of seeing what all of the hype is about, but it basically comes down to one thing - the fact that while the books were written by a magic person, the film was obviously made by muggles. Just look out if the Harry Potter franchise ever joins forces with McDonald's - they'd create a power terrifying enough to rival even Lord Voldemort himself.
An excellent illustration to the book
posted on 06 Aug 2009There have been some truly excellent reviews, so I just wanted to add a few strokes which the previous people might have missed.The Director swore to stay close to the book and he did that. Too close in fact, so to those of us who are familiar with the book and see movies as an art form in itself it looked like a series of excellent illustrations with moving characters in them (like illustrations in all the magical books should be :) I was curious how it would look to someone who had NOT read the book (yes however hard it is to believe, but such people do exist), and I found one. Her reaction was: "It was a very pretty cartoon strip".And finally the Quidditch (?sp?) Match was perhaps a bit too long and had too much influence of G. Lucas (not that either are necessary bad things - it was very visual).GO SEE IT (if you haven't yet), but do read the book first and try to get it on the biggest screen there is around).
Could have been better.
posted on 31 Jul 2009I love the book series, and had been looking forward to this movie almost all year; still waiting impatiently for the 5th book. Unfortunately, this first movie was a little disappointing.I had no problem with the length, to follow the book they would have to run it a little longer than the average children's movie. They should have made it a little longer and not left out some of the important parts; it mostly followed the book, but edited out a lot and made a few short cuts that strayed from the text slightly, even mixed a couple parts around.The choices for actors were excellent in my opinion, though in some scenes they didn't behave in a realistic manner; not following the mood of the scene. Also, as someone else pointed out, in the movie Harry's eyes were blue rather than green.The graphics were pretty good, but they could have come up with some better ones; I've seen better mythological creatures in Hercules: The Legendary Journeys.However, even though the movie had some disappointing aspects, I enjoyed it overall; we'll probably buy the video(or DVD, if we ever get a player 8-p) as soon as it's released. Perhaps they will do much better with the following movies; I look forward to seeing the next in the series.
Slowwwww, although moderately cute
posted on 27 Jul 2009The casting is good. The castles are real. The kids are especially cute and good. The ghosts are fun. But the music seems recycled. The special effects are underwhelming. And the movie just does not seem to WORK. There's a lack of suspense & the enjoyable qualities of the novel would have transferred much better with some narration.
Hype above substance
posted on 25 Jul 2009I've read the first Harry Potter book and I greatly enjoyed it. (As an aside I'm also a conservative fundamentalist Christian who does not think that Harry Potter is recruiting tool for Satan).However, I was greatly disappointed with this film. With an hour to go I was looking at my watch and hoping it would end soon. The pacing was terrible and for long stretches I was very bored. Visually I felt it was excellent but the screenplay adaptation was poorly done and at times the acting was abisimal. The book is far, far better and I doubt I'll bother with any future films.
For a long book adapted right try "Fellowship of the Ring", a longer film that did not drag and handled the "premise building" necessary in the first film of a book adaptation series much better.The next films better be much better if its going to go the distance....If this series goes to 7 films I'll eat a golden snitch.
A Very Nice Effort
posted on 25 Jul 2009Okay, I never read the Harry Potter Books. I couldn't have cared less, but I have nieces and nephews and other children in my life who are from ages 7 to 12 who have. What I had to do was remember what it was like when I was that age, so long ago, and what "new" movies I had to entertain myself with.So...I had "Oliver!", "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" and "Chitty, Chitty, Bang! Bang!". Other than those, it was "R" rated films that I was more interested in. Why? For that is what interested me via what Hollywood made available. I was "too old" for those cutie Disney Animated cartoons of that time, and too young for the adult theme films that were being advertised which I DID want to see. This is why I like this film, it brings back the genre for children, the wonder, the fantasy in film just for them.A nice effort production wise, with the casting, with the story. Children love fantasy, wonder, adventure, a character THEIR age doing and thinking like THEY would and...watching kids eat lots of "sweets". This Harry Potter film fit the bill. For me as an adult, it was...nice. For children between 7 and 12, its fantastic. The special effects were neat, the story was engaging for them, but what I liked the best was the school itself. I thought that the classes and interactions of the children with each other were on their level. So it was at a Wizards school. Point is, it could be at ANY school. (or boarding school!)In my surroundings, there have been a few adults/parents screaming about how this film and the school "Hogwarts" promotes kids to get into the black arts. I think that is so awful to think that, and I think it does not give children the benefit of the doubt. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is a nice little film about something a child/pre-teen has fun with. I actually compared it to the Disney film "Fantasia" and the scene of Mickey being the "Sorcerer's Apprentice". I watched that over and over as a 6 year old and trust me, I had no desire to get into "the black arts".To me, this film is geared towards that audience that has been forgotten AND portrayed in the last 15 years, the 7 to 12 year olds. Yes, Disney had alot of animation that was marketed to that group of children, but its been quite sometime to make a long full length feature film of fantasy where children are the focus, and they are just...children. Reminds me of "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" and "Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang"...fantasy films for the 7 to 12 year old to enjoy the movie going experience on their level, but NOT talking DOWN to them.Children under 7 may be a bit scared at some parts and teens over 13 may not get into this film at all. But for the 7 to 12 year olds, this film is a nice one for them in the same vein as "Oliver!" and "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was for me.
If i had a third hand, three thumbs up!
posted on 25 Jul 2009Warner Brother's depiction of Harry potter and the Sorcerer's stone passes the test! As anticipation built up for its debut in theatres, J.K Rowling's brilliant series was about to be loved by more than just its loyal readers. Now, everything entertaining and enjoyable about Harry Potter is accessible to viewers too. Eager fans and intrigued new ones all flooded movie theatres to get in on the new buzz! There were several scenes from the original book left out, but I wouldn't hold that against the producers as it probably conflicted with time issues. Either way, I thought the movie was a nice visual tribute to the book, despite the forever-present argument that movies don't do books must justice. After all, the fact that every kid in America knows who Harry Potter is is a true testament to its success. One thing in particular that I was highly fond of was the legitimacy of the characters emotions. For how fairy-tale like the story is, the movie did a really good job at avoiding cheesy lines accompanied by bad acting. In fact, the acting was so good I could make a real connection to the character's feelings. This movie is definitely worth seeing, 10 out of 10.
9 on a scale of 10
posted on 23 Jul 2009I went into this movie somewhat concerned about whether the subject matter would be offensive to me or anyone else who took religion seriously. I am quite aware that in western culture we tend to overlook many issues that conflict with historical (and conservative) religious viewpoints. Halloween would be a great example.However, as I watched this movie I realized that considering the absence of any direct references to God or to the Devil, everything else was pretty much fair game. Furthermore, I had to ask myself why would this movie be offensive and yet evil, non human entities such as the Klingons or the Borg aren't. And, I couldn't come up with an answer. So, I look at it as a modern day fantasy (which it is) set in London that isn't all that much different than a futuristic science fiction movie about the struggle between good and evil.Once I was over that issue, I could examine the movie on its merits. I had no idea how long it was until someone told me the time after the movie. I thought it was probably 2 hours, but I was surprised to hear it was over 2 1/2 hours. That clearly is a positive because it meant I wasn't bored.The movie is extremely well crafted and the special effects are first rate. I was reminded of so many other movies as I watched it from Superman to the Wizard of Oz. But, it was about as unique a movie as you could ever hope to see. Having not read the book (a ridiculous waste of time when I can get it all for just a 2 1/2 hour investment), I had no idea how fantastic was/is the imagination of JK Rowling. How anyone could create an entire world such as this is remarkable - to say the least. Really, the Einstein of imagination.One other thing. I noticed that the best two women groups in IMDB were under 18 years old and over 45 years old. And, the best men group is over 45 years old. That also is remarkable. It says that a story about a young boy in a fantasy world is liked as much or more by geezers such as myself. And, when you add the fact that ALL kids want to see it, you have the makings of a mega hit - perhaps the biggest of all time.
I Fell In Love For The Second Time...
posted on 21 Jul 2009Okay, it was not quite as good as the book was. Did anyone expect it to be? In books, we use our imaginations. Movies, the imaginations are given time off. For that alone, people forget that the movies that are based on books are only certain peoples imaginations instead of our own. But I digress...The movie was utterly amazing. It had ended far too soon for me. From the beginning with Dumbledor and his amazing lighter (or is it non-lighter?) all the way to the large scale version of Wizard's Chess, this was done with such taste and was meant to please both the child and the adult. I myself went to see it with a 4 year old, a 5 year old, a 26 year old, a 45 year old, and a 75 year old. I was not alone in saying it was worth the crowds to get in. We all fell in love that day. As we did with the books years ago.For anyone reading this that is upset because of the way Harry looked or that they forgot to put in something in the movie, please keep in mind that they made it closer to the book than any movie I have ever seen or heard of and that nothing is going to be exact. Also, the movie might have been about 9 hours if they did put everything in it. So look at it as what it was intended. A Movie. Not a book.
Harry Potter: disappointed in Daniel Radcliffe
posted on 26 Aug 2009I could not find any passion coming out of Daniel Radcliffe. All I could see was his trying to act hard, which made many scenes awkward. Harry is supposedly the one who develops the theory of somebody's trying to steel the sorcerer's stone and trys to stop it. This kind of stunts must requires lots of inspiration, insights or leadership. But I could not see any of these in this kid. He looks like just an ordinary normal everyday kid. Whenever he needed to provide a penetration or a leadership it looked just strange. It just did not match to his characteristics.Actually the other kids are doing good. Especially Tom Felton. He looks so natural as if he himself was a cheeky aggresive challenging kid but still hard to completely hate. Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are also doing good job.Film itself was taken very well. Special effect was very good, creating wonderful world of wizard. Generally it is still enjoyable but I wish Radcliffe could have done better.