ROTTEN TOMATOES: Deconstructing Harry, Day 1: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Comments

Deconstructing Harry, Day 1: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

by Matt Atchity | July 08, 2009

Summary

Welcome to another RT watching party! So far, we've Bonded, Trekked, Terminated, and... Fridayed? Jasoned? Anyway, with the upcoming release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, we thought it would be a good time to take a look at how the series has progressed so far. Before I get started on this first installment with my review of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, let me give you a little background. I've seen each one of the movies when they were released, and for the most part, I'd seen many of them before I'd read the corresponding book. I typically don't like to read a fantasy series until the final book has been published, and so I hadn't read any of the books until Deathly Hallows was available. That means that I'm now looking at these movies again in a slightly different light, which will definitely color my reviews. One last note: I can't guarantee that I won't be spoiling some of the plot details of the past movies, but if you've been living in a cave and haven't seen the movies, I don't know why you're reading this anyway (except for you, Mom). As an adaptation of J.K. Rowling's first novel, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a solid film. It may not equal the stunning triumph of Peter Jackson's first Lord of the Rings adaptation, but it's a pretty good movie just the same. The filmmakers take great care to show loving respect to the source material, and for the most part, that's a good call. But the film follows the book's plot a bit too slavishly, and that makes for a very long (and sometimes slow) movie. Back to Article

(1-67 of 67 posts) | Reply

nutzo.ssl writes:
on Jul 08 2009 05:52 PM

This should be interesting. The 3rd film so far remains the best film, but 4 and 5 were both very good. I think you are spot on with 1, not perfect, a tad long, but ultimately does what it needs to do. A tough task is introducing this many characters and constantly pushing plot forward, but I think what saves it are the performances as you pointed out.

I'm very hopeful for Half-Blood. It was one of my least favorite books (which means, I liked it a lot, but didn't love it), but I think the leaner plot might lend to one of the better movies.

(Reply to this)

Logan A. writes:
on Jul 08 2009 06:00 PM

It's crazy seeing them that young in a movie!
But I'll say the Fourth is my favorite thus far, followed closely by Three (which would be my favorite if they had the whole quidditch match. The Fifth movie disappointed me. I had high hopes and they cut out some of my favorite scenes from the books and the whole movie had an overall feeling of being rushed.
I have high hopes for Numero 6, I hope it doesnt disappoint!

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 08 2009 06:03 PM

I kinda liked the level of detail and wished you would have continued in that vain for the middle and end of the movie, but then again I'm a huge potterphile.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Jul 08 2009 06:06 PM

Yeah I liked the first film a lot even though I agree that the great chemistry wasn't quite there yet. I would give it an 8/10. I thought Chambers got a little better but still had a few problems. Azkaban is definiely the best and I really liked Goblet. Pheonix was really fun but it wasn't on level with Azkaban and Goblet. I only read the first four books which were great, I should probably finis the series. Cant wait for Half Blood Prince, it looks pretty great.

(Reply to this)

tgibfo writes:
on Jul 08 2009 06:12 PM

Good calls, all. For the time, it was perfect, but with the other films adding so much or excising so much, this does suffer a bit on repeat viewing. Plus, the stories get increasingly better! Dead on with Snape and I'm crushed that Richard Harris died before the end of the series......

(Reply to this)

Logan A. writes:
on Jul 08 2009 06:17 PM

In reply to this comment (#2522369)
Ahh yeah Richard Harris WAS Dumbledore. Gambon is great, but I'd have loved to have had Harris till the end

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 08 2009 06:18 PM

In reply to this comment (#2522369)
True that. Gambon sucks as Dumbledore.

(Reply to this)

Logan A. writes:
on Jul 08 2009 06:53 PM

I wouldn't say he sucks, I do like his spin on Dumbledore, but Harris was great in 1 & 2

(Reply to this)

michael b. writes:
on Jul 08 2009 07:01 PM

as for the movie to the book, chris columbus stayed very true to the book, almost to a fault. but can you really complain about faithfulness in his films when the other directors and steve kloves have butchered the latter films. richard harris was great, and there really wasnt a better suited actor than gambon for the part, especially for the fight in the ministry in movie 5

(Reply to this)

Chris B. writes:
on Jul 08 2009 07:29 PM

chemistry? are you serious? it was the first entry into a series of movies in which the lead actors had almost no acting experience, whatsoever. that, and the fact that said actors were just kids. I don't see how anyone can make that argument.

as for Dumbledore, Richard Harris was great and I can't think of anyone else who could've replaced him any better than Michael Gambon.

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on Jul 08 2009 07:36 PM

Whoa! Those kids are tiny in the first movie! What a trip.

(Reply to this)

tfortier writes:
on Jul 08 2009 07:36 PM

Columbus created what we know of the Potters movie, getting the tone right and casting amazing actors. That first movie was a real great start. The third had a twist we will sadly not see anymore.

(Reply to this)

ninja13 writes:
on Jul 08 2009 07:52 PM

I like Prisoner the most but this would probably be my second favorite. I agree that Gambon sucked especially in Goblet. I hated Goblet and was disappointed by Phoenix. Half-blood looks pretty good though. It was my second least favorite book to Order of the phoenix which I really hated the fifth time.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Jul 08 2009 07:53 PM

Yeah I think Mihcael Gambon is awesome.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 08 2009 08:06 PM

In reply to this comment (#2522407)
For me he's completely missed the point of Dumbledore that Richard Harris nailed so perfectly. Dumbledore doesn't get angry, he doesn't get flustered, he doesn't get worried. He's just Dumbledore, that's part of what makes him intimidating and presents the air of invincibility. I can understand that that's probably not the most fun for an actor and he wants to separate himself from Harris, but if it works live with it. The scene in Phoenix where he yells at the kids "don't you have studying to do!!!" Was so blatantly un-Dumbledorish it was distracting to me and his performance is full of those moments. When Harry gets his name pulled from the Goblet of Fire, The Duel at the Ministry where he's breathing heavy and looks like Voldemort has him on the ropes. It was a stunning action sequence don't get me wrong, but it wasn't how I would have expected Dumbledore to do it. I don't know, maybe I'm nitpicking, but that's how I feel. Plus being a fan of English theater I've seen firsthand the difference between being a master like Sir Laurence Olivier, Sir Ian McKellan, or Sir Anthony Hopkins and just being old and British.

(Reply to this)

AniMill writes:
on Jul 08 2009 08:07 PM

At first I really missed the original Dumbledore (Harris), but as time has progressed I realize that the new one (Gambon) really improves the character by providing more depth and outright gusto... I don't think Harris would have been as forceful and serious as Gambon played in Phoenix. I have great respect for Harris, but Gambon has become Dumbledore to me.

I just hope the music in Prince doesn't suck like it did in Phoenix.

Oh yeah, jokerboy1991 you HAVE to read the last three books, because Hallows will mesmerize you... I read the last half of the whole book in one night's sitting. It REALLY is that good and the best of the books.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 08 2009 08:10 PM

Who knows though that emotional style may payoff since the ending of Prince calls for a more emotional Dumbledore. Though he'll have to be delicate with the Draco scene on the tower. That'll be the make or break scene for me in this movie I think.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 08 2009 08:17 PM

In reply to this comment (#2522410)
Yes, but Dumbledore isn't supposed to be blustery. He's meant to be effortless almost a senile old man who just happens to be a genius and able to turn you to cinders with the flick of a wand.

(Reply to this)

ColinTheCimmerian writes:
on Jul 08 2009 08:59 PM

I haven't read the books, but I have seen all the movies thus far. I'm sure I haven't enjoyed any of them as much those who have read the books, but I still thought they were all pretty good, including this one. Because it was geared more for kids, at times I felt like it lacked edge, and the child actors were a weakness, but the movie just looked so great visually, and the music was so good, that I thought it was successful just as a feast for the senses. It also had a certain magic to it; it was engaging in a way I can't really describe. I know that sounds cheesy, but some movies can capture that effect, and some just can't, no matter how hard they try. As an outsider to the series, I was appreciative for all the detail. In the later movies, which were quicker paced, and as I understand it, had significantly more material cut, I often felt like I was missing something; as if I was expected to know certain things that weren't actually presented on screen. I didn't really get that feeling from the first movie.

(Reply to this)

Ice M. writes:
on Jul 08 2009 09:10 PM

would u like to find something we all interested in...here is a interesting dating site named ------Tallfinder.com ------where many sexy singles who like making friends and chatting there..welcome to join us and hope you have fun.

(Reply to this)

indiefilmfan2 writes:
on Jul 08 2009 09:13 PM

Good read. I was curious, Matt, if you are watching the Potter films on DVD or Blu-ray. I heard the video quality is excellent on the BD.

(Reply to this)

Jordan K. writes:
on Jul 08 2009 09:24 PM

IIRC in the first novel, it took well near half the book before Harry Made it to Hogwarts, so its no surprise that it took a bit of time in the movie.

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Jul 08 2009 09:26 PM

Completely agree with you, Bigbrother.

Gambon is total rubbish as Dumbledore. He's said himself that he hasn't read the books, that he's "interpreting the character". *F* that! I don't want his blind take, I want the ruddy character! Harris nailed it. Harris *was* Dumbledore. For me, Harris' passing was the biggest blow the films have been dealt. Gambon just makes Dumbledore so... frustrated, and visibly shaken about everything, and it's, it's just not Dumbledore. Bleh.

I'm honestly most looking forward to HBP for the romantic bits and the last act. Toss in the (likely) lone scene of Thewlis' Lupin (who dukes it out with Rickman as my second favorite casting choice in the series). Beginning sounds cool too, as does Quidditch... alright, I'm looking forward to everything except the butt-ton of Gambon scenes, haha. :)

(Reply to this)

jacobugath writes:
on Jul 08 2009 09:30 PM

I'm sorry. I don't see how anyone can think the fourth movie of this series was even worthy of being called "good." It was terrible, particularly if you're even a small fan of the books. Dumbledore tried to kill Harry (practically) and Gambon completely failed in this film. The third movie, while by far the most creative and energetic, was at best an unfinished hack job of a movie. Daniel's performance was nose-holding bad (Have you forgotten his attempts at crying outside the Three Broomsticks?), and Gambon still didn't have a clue how to play Dumbledore. Lupin wasn't all that hot, either. The second is decent although slow until they botched the basilisk scene by putting in a legless dinosaur as the snake, but Brannaugh was utterly brilliant. Fifth was ok. I've only scene it once. All I remember was how terrible the fight scene was between the D.E. and Order in the Ministry.

(Reply to this)

jacobugath writes:
on Jul 08 2009 09:33 PM

In reply to this comment (#2522409)
I'll go on a leg here and say that neither played Dumbledore perfectly, but both captured aspects of his "awesomeness". Harris had the mystical and elusive air of Dumbledore, that intangible power, while Gambon has a little more of that eccentric and silliness. The best Dumbledore would have been the way McKellen played Gandalf. Gandalf, in my mind, WAS Dumbledore (not to mention that JKR practically ripped off the character).

(Reply to this)

Mike S. writes:
on Jul 08 2009 09:39 PM

Another vote for Harris and another fan of the books, books on CD (a fantastic experience - at least the US version with Jim Dale's unbelievable narration) and movies who strongly suggests that Gambon read the books and then apologize to Potter fans everywhere for his dreadful, harsh spin on Dumbledore. Harris was spot on - Gambon's performance a disgrace (He looked like he was going to hit Harry in Goblet - give me a break!)Harris - Perfect Gambon - Perfectly awful.

(Reply to this)

Logan A. writes:
on Jul 08 2009 09:41 PM

Well I just watched HP3 and its the best, the sets are great

(Reply to this)

Mister_Prophet writes:
on Jul 08 2009 09:47 PM

I have not read the books, but took my little brother to see the 3rd one when it came out, and I've watched them all since that one. Not having seen Harris' take, nor having read the book...I have no opinion of Dumbledore, other than that in the films he's a old wizard character that channels a Gandalf similar to Ian McKellen's performance in LOTR...only just not as interesting.

I always thought of the films I've seen in this series that the acting was rather unbalanced. There are some side characters that have come and gone in there that just seemed way more into it than some of the main ones, in particular Harry. My favorites have been Alan Rickman and some of the villains.

I really enjoyed the 3rd one, which surprised me at the time because I was not expecting to and was not a fan. And I didn't seem lost going into it, even though it was the third movie. I have not really enjoyed the rest of them as much but they aren't terrible.

(Reply to this)

Chris N. writes:
on Jul 08 2009 10:44 PM

I'm amazed how many people find the fourth an even remotely acceptable film. It was absolutely awful, the lone exception being Ralph Feinnes' fantastic performance as Voldemort. Michael Gambon, while a good actor, is an abysmal Dumbledore and makes me desperately long for Richard Harris every time he delivers a line. I admit that I am too emotioanlly invested in the novels to review the films objectively, but they all could have been so much more (despite many perfectly cast roles - Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltraine, Alan Rickman, Jason Isaacs, Gary Oldman...I could go on).

(Reply to this)

Chris N. writes:
on Jul 08 2009 10:46 PM

In reply to this comment (#2524720)
I read your post and honestly though I had written it, but perhaps forgotten. Couldn't agree more with regards to, well, absolutely everything you wrote.

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Jul 08 2009 10:48 PM

A really entertaining film, that suffers from too many "Look at that moments"! 8/10. It's solid entertainment, but onsidering it was released around the same time as "The Lord of the Rings", it seemed a little less impressive.

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Jul 08 2009 11:21 PM

By the way, you should do a "Halloween" retrospective.

(Reply to this)

Tyrant writes:
on Jul 08 2009 11:32 PM

Yeah, I wasn't too fond of the series at first. I like it more now, right around the time of Prisoner of Azkaban came out I started to enjoy them. Also, Alan Rickman is just great. Him and the actor who did Sirius Black really got me interested. They're just great. Looking forward to the next few days of this retrospective.

(Reply to this)

BrokenDreamer writes:
on Jul 09 2009 12:46 AM

The challenge of the later movie adaptations is that, while the first two books were in an acceptable range of around 300 pages, the books got longer and therefore more difficult to adapt. Steve Kloves and Cuaron did an excellent job refining a relatively long novel and forming a wonderful film, but Goblet of Fire was over 700 pages long and then everything after that was in the 800 page range. It is impossible to get everything the fans want into a reasonable running time. Kloves had to make tough decisions. Personally, I appreciated his effort on Goblet of Fire and his contributions to all of the films. Order of the Phoenix was not written by Kloves, which automatically changes the film. Michael Goldenberg had to turn a 800 page novel into a 2 hour film and he did it without the experience working in the franchise that Kloves had. The point is that it is hard to satisfy the fans when you are trying to adapt a novel of Harry Potter's lengths. The writer has to decide what stays and what goes. Not everyone will agree with these choices. However, I think he did a serviceable job (I don't know how Goldenberg did because I didn't see that particularly film).

(Reply to this)

Nick P. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 01:24 AM

Sorry to speak ill of the dead, but Richard Harris was a terrible choice for Dumbledore. The character is supposed to be highly energetic and full of life - if simultaneously rather sombre. Harry doesn't even really notice that Dumbledore is an old man until the fifth book if I remember rightly. When he does realise his age, it comes as a surprise.
But - again, I'm sorry to say this, because it's a bit sick - Harris looked like an animated corpse for some years before even starting on the Potter movies. He doesn't vaguely carry off a portrayal of the greatest wizard of the age - just an elderly headmaster.

You're all right about Gambon though, he sucks too, but for the way he plays the part rather than anything to do with his look.
My opinion right from the start has been that Ian McKellen was by far the best choice for the role, but sadly he was already cast at exactly that time playing a very similar part in Lord Of The Rings.

(Reply to this)

Laura M. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 02:27 AM

I kinda liked the level of detail and wished you would have continued in that vain for the middle and end of the movie, but then again I'm a huge potterphile.

http://ezinearticles.com/?id=2513600

(Reply to this)

Laura M. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 02:28 AM

I kinda liked the level of detail and wished you would have continued in that vain for the middle and end of the movie, but then again I'm a huge potterphile.

http://ezinearticles.com/?id=2513600

(Reply to this)

danielkwood writes:
on Jul 09 2009 02:37 AM

Great in-depth review. I agree with you about the movie being very long and slow and that it goes into a lot of detail but for me, I find that a great thing. Because I liked the movie so much, I was happy that it was a long movie and I found that there weren't many moments in the movie where I was bored or not paying attention considering the length of the movie. I think the great thing about the series is that each movie is different and even though The Sorcerer's Stone isn't as dark or exciting as the later books and movies, it is still a great introduction to the series and a lot of fun.

(Reply to this)

martinscorsese25 writes:
on Jul 09 2009 03:59 AM

Cuaron gave the best potter. at first i didn't like it because it was too different from the book and too different from the 1st and the 2nd(which was a more hollywood type film).. but as i grew older i learn to appreciate it more. it is by far the most emotional, most complex, most well crafted potter of all. not many RUSHED scenes. Cuaron takes his time. if Lubezki was able to shot the film then it will be better looking than what it is. i adore Azkaban because it thought me that not a great adaptation doesnt need to be word by word from the book

(Reply to this)

martinscorsese25 writes:
on Jul 09 2009 04:00 AM

Cuaron gave the best potter. at first i didn't like it because it was too different from the book and too different from the 1st and the 2nd(which was a more hollywood type film).. but as i grew older i learn to appreciate it more. it is by far the most emotional, most complex, most well crafted potter of all. not many RUSHED scenes. Cuaron takes his time. if Lubezki was able to shot the film then it will be better looking than what it is. i adore Azkaban because it thought me that a great adaptation doesnt need to be word by word from the book

(Reply to this)

tfortier writes:
on Jul 09 2009 04:06 AM

About Gambon take on Dumbledore not being accurate, I think its the directors fault. Director have to know what they want. In Azkaban, Dumbledore was quite ok, not talking much but he was ok when giving the clue about the time turner, he did some jokes then. But I have to admit that after that he went more and more serious wich is only half is character. I blame the directors for not seeing that and correct it. Harris was great, almost perfect except for a certain stiffness the real Dumbledore would not have (surprisingly strong and firm for his age said the books). Still I like Gambon in Azkaban and tolerate his difference in the 2 others (again, when he scream at students in Phoenix, this is a director decision to include that in the script. Gambon have nothing to do with that.).

I also didnt like Yates take on the dementors... they are hooded creatures. AND his take on that whole movie in fact. Phoenix was the worst for me. Only good thing is Bellatrix, which I guess he will overuse in Half-blood prince. She was not in the castle at any moment.

(Reply to this)

JettaJameson writes:
on Jul 09 2009 04:56 AM

In reply to this comment (#2522373)
I feel the exact opposite. RH played the role too feeble. It looked like you could blow him over with one big exhale. He looked weak and demure. MG is full of life. You actually believe he's super powerful.

(Reply to this)

jerry f. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 07:43 AM

i agree that 3 & 4 r d best, but as far as i know this one add new stuff like the beginning scene and parts of the last act, i hope dont dissapoint cause change a lot of the original plot like the 4 who dismissed the elfos plot. I really believe that S. Gloves is not the right writer and i would prefer that Yates dont return for the last one.

(Reply to this)

Warheart1188 writes:
on Jul 09 2009 08:22 AM

PoA was definitely the best in the series. CoS was the worst, every time I watch the movie I hate the way they did the plot more and more. SS was good, could've been a lot better but it was satisfactory effort nonetheless.

(Reply to this)

dj Mark writes:
on Jul 09 2009 08:27 AM

HP1 was definitely made for the fans. If you hadn't read the books (like me), it was long and tedious and rambling. But I remember thinking when the credits rolled that this film series had great potential to capture my imagination. And when Azkaban hit, it finally did.

Oh, and Gambon has made Dumbledore his own, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

(Reply to this)

Alejandro P. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 10:00 AM

by far the best is number 3 (in part by Alfonso Cuaron) but number 5 missed a lot of things and it was dissapoitning. I reaaly expect number 6 though it look awesome, i wuold have like that Harris stayed ....

(Reply to this)

Lanca R. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 10:15 AM

I think it's very clear that most of the people who've read the books and formed an impression of Dumbledore prior to the films generally prefer Harris, those who came in late or have seen the movies like Gambon. That's fair, I can accept that and the point is well taken about Harris appearing elderly. I always just took it that Harry was looking at him thru a kids eyes. Who really thought of their grandparents as old when they were 10 or 11 and I also remembered Harris from other performances and may have been attributing spriteliness where there wasn't any.

I think the most impressive thing is that the performances weren't more unbalanced as one poster said. They definately are in the early films, but I think that's an impossibility when you have children acting in the same movie as the creme de la creme of British cinema. I think it's a miracle there wasn't the Jake Lloyd type performances and these kids (Radcliffe, Grint and Watson) are going to be so thankful they were in these movies as they get older because they were given the opportunity to learn their craft at the feet of some of the greatest actors of any generation. Are they ever going to be intimidated by a co-star? I don't think so.

(Reply to this)

Reebee52 writes:
on Jul 09 2009 11:00 AM

You say it takes forty minutes to get to Hogwarts, but in the book he isn't there for a hundred pages or so. It's about a third of the book, I'd say.

But overall I'd agree with this article. A good introduction, and a good chance for the actors involved to get their feet wet. And though you say it's long, I will always feel these movies cut out too much important stuff (often at the expense of the unimportant).

The third was the best, than the fourth. I really didn't like the fifth. Too much Umbridge (wayyy too much...) and an unexhilerating fight between DD and Voldemort at the end.

The first two aren't up to scratch either, but I can't fault them too much because the same thing happened with the books. It wasn't until the third when I suddenly realized how phenomenal this story was.

(Reply to this)

RT-Matchity writes:
on Jul 09 2009 11:15 AM

In reply to this comment (#2524715)
indiefilmfan, I'm watching them on DVD, but on my PS3, which has a much sharper picture than my dvd player.

(Reply to this)

RT-Matchity writes:
on Jul 09 2009 11:17 AM

In reply to this comment (#2524744)
Hey Ledawg, that's on the books in advance of the new Halloween film this year.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 09 2009 11:18 AM

I remember I saw this movie before I read any of the books (my ex-wife got me on my Harry Potter kick) and I liked it then, but now I can't hardly watch it. I never thought I would say it before reading the book for this movie, but you can be too slavish to the source material. Now I can't read that book or watch that movie. I'm not a big fan of Chris Columbus either though, and I think he made the movie too glossy, something I'm glad that was remedied in Prisoner of Azkaban (my current favorite movie in the series).

Great write up, I look forward to what you have to say about the rest of the movies. I think Columbus did better on the next one, but once again it's too slavish and too glossy in my opinion.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 09 2009 11:20 AM

I have to say that I'm very excited about Half Blood Prince too. That's my favorite book in the series as it has one of the darkest moments in the whole series (not the end reveal, but a moment between Harry and Malfoy that's just horrific). I'm can't wait to see this movie!

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 09 2009 11:27 AM

In reply to this comment (#2522373)
bigbrother: I agree with you on Dumbledore, Gambon just doesn't get the right feel of Dumbledore. At times he seems like a fool (patting Ron's broken leg in PoA as if he didn't notice Ron was there) and sometimes he's seems wrongfully angry (the way he approached Harry Potter in GoF when his name came out of the Goblet was all wrong considering he knew there was no way Potter could have put his name in there). Just stuff like that shows that Gambon doesn't know how to portray Dumbledore right.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 09 2009 11:30 AM

In reply to this comment (#2522384)
michael b.: Actually, I think that most of the other films actually did really well with their adaptations (although I have to admit that there are some things in GoF that really bothered me) but PoA and OotP are my favorite adaptations in the series so far. But I do have to agree with you that Gambon was perfect for Dumbledore in the Voldemort/ Dumbledore battle in OotP, that was my favorite moment in the entire series so far.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 09 2009 11:42 AM

In reply to this comment (#2524719)
TheIceGhost: The moment I'm waiting for in the movie is when Harry tries an unknown spell on Malfoy. That moment was pretty chilling in the book, and one of the series darkest moments in my opinion.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 09 2009 11:45 AM

In reply to this comment (#2524724)
jacobugath: Yeah, I really wish they could have gotten McKellan to play Dumbledore, but I can understand why he didn't do it. It is a daunting task to take on two iconic characters (Magneto and Gandalf) to add a third in there would have been insane!

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 09 2009 12:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#2524736)
Chris N.: I wouldn't say GoF was absolutely horrible, but it is the low point in the series for me. It's the only one of the movies I can't separate from the book because to me, they overdramaticized a lot of stuff (the dragon fight and the lake scene was way too overdramaticized) and left out a lot of other stuff that I think should have been put in there. Barty Crouch and Barty Crouch Jr. really pissed me off in this movie too. You were supposed to sympathize with Barty Crouch Jr., you were always meant to question whether he was a death eater or not, and they made it painfully clear that he was. And Dumbledore was terrible (except when he busts in on Mad Eye toward the end which was good).

But at the same time, I think Newell really showed what school life at Hogwarts would really be like more than any other director in the series, besides Yates who equalled it in OotP, and the final battle between Harry and Voldemort was good.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 09 2009 12:08 PM

In reply to this comment (#2524759)
Nick P.: The point that you're thinking of is the stress that Dumbledore was going through in the 5th book. He had started looking for the horcruxes and was exhausted and was looking older than he previously had. He was also consistently worried about Harry because Harry was the only one who could truly stop Voldemort.

So it wasn't that Harry had just noticed Dumbledore was old, it's that Dumbledore was looking older.

(Reply to this)

Geoff O. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 12:09 PM

Ah, ever since "Bonding With Bond," I've fallen in love with these little countdown lists that RT is doing. I only wish someone that hadn't seen the films were reviewing them.

Anyway, good assessment of the first film. The first two are so Chris Columbus, though, which works well for the more jovial nature of the first two books. They are so, so, so childish, impish, and any other "ish" that you can muster. But I love the wonder of the Potter universe, and it's great to see that on screen. I'm just glad that Columbus disappeared after the first two. He would have ruined everything from Azkaban and on (though critics of the way Alfonso Cuaron handled the third film might disagree).

But yes, in a a move that would become standard practice for the entire series, I was often surprised by which things they choose to excise from the films.

Looking forward to Half-Blood Prince. Early reviews have been much more positive than those for Phoenix, which, let's face it, was pretty much the weakest of the series. It didn't make any sense! Just two hours of incomprehensible dark moodiness.

(Reply to this)

Geoff O. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 12:12 PM

Oh, and I agree with many of the assessments of the two Dumbledores. I feel like Richard Harris perfectly captured the whimsical, capable, kind-hearted strength associated with Dumbledore, but I also question whether he would have been able to handle the more grisly scenes from the later books. I just cannot imagine the guy fighting Voldemoret in Phoenix.

Gambon is great at capturing the edgy side of Dumbledore, but I agree with those that cite examples of him actually portraying Dumbledore with a temper, which he really doesn't have. I mean what's the worst Dumbledore ever did in a book? He got a bit impatient with Harry in that great speech at the end of Phoenix, but that's about it (and I won't even get started on how horribly they handled that pivotal scene in the movie).

(Reply to this)

Daniel H. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 12:50 PM

Goblet of Fire was terrible... it felt choppy and not smooth what so ever, like scenes smashed together. My favorite was Askaban. And I seem to have liked Order of the Phoenix more then most. Here's my list, from best to worst:

1.) Prisoner of Askaban
2.) Chamber of Secrets
3.) Order of the Phoenix
4.) Sorcerers Stone
5.) Goblet of Fire

Half Blood Prince looks like it'll be an incredible adaption of the book. Look at the reviews, 91%! I'm mad that one ******* decided to give it a rotten and ruined everything... haha but yeah. I'm extremely excited.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 09 2009 01:48 PM

Daniel H: That review actually wasn't too bad, it just comes up rotten because the staff here feels that the overall tone was rotten (actually would agree that he extols the bad more than the good in his review).

Anyway, my list would look like this:

Prisoner of Azkaban - 9/10
Order of the Phoenix - 8/10
Chamber of Secrets - 7/10
Sorcerers Sone - 7/10
Goblet of Fire - 5.5/10

(Reply to this)

sorcerer's_cat writes:
on Jul 09 2009 02:20 PM

I have to agree with the posters saying that neither Gambon nor Harris really captured Dumbledore. Harris was too feeble, Gambon is too angry, and neither captures the twinkly-eyed occasionally hilarious character of the books. Remember, Ron and the twins are always saying Dumbledore is barking mad out of sheer admiration for their hero. The only truly authentic Dumbledore moment in the first film was at the end when he tried the every-flavor bean--"Alas! Earwax!" He's supposed to be somewhat whimsical, and it makes it even more impressive when he shows the power that makes him the only wizard Voldemort ever feared. And like Daniel H, I seem to be a minority OotP fan. But I will admit I didn't like it much the first time I saw it--it really grew on me after I got the DVD.

(Reply to this)

Rachel B. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 02:33 PM

In reply to this comment (#2522381)
I agree. In 1 and 2, you see Dumbledore in royal colors and he carried himself differently than the grey robes we see later.

(Reply to this)

KingSigy writes:
on Jul 09 2009 03:26 PM

This is a good review of the film. When I saw it (back in 2004 I believe), I felt like it was a bit boring. The actor's just weren't that great yet (I'm talking about the kids, of course) and too much went on to really get novice's intrigued. It still was a pretty good film, just with a bit of missteps. I thought the second one was worse, so I'm interested in what you have to say, Matt.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 09 2009 03:44 PM

In reply to this comment (#2524989)
sorcerer's_cat: I actually list OotP as my second favorite of the films.

(Reply to this)

Amalgamate writes:
on Jul 10 2009 10:41 AM

Harris was dying in the second movie so he looked frail and weak-he was OK int the first movie

Gambon is much better-lively, powerful, strong

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links