View Full Version : Harry P. The movie...was or wasn't it what you expected?
January 1st, 2002, 05:45 PM
I would REALLY like to know if HP and the philosopher's stone (the movie) was what you expected, in my opinion it was totally what i expected, except for the parts that they cut from the book, but the actors were really great and the special effects as well, tell me what do you think!!
Ps. I can't wait for the 2nd movie to come out!!
Ps2. Did you noticed that in the part that Hermione, Ron and Harry go to Hagrid's cabin, when hagrid is playing the flute, harry, or should i say, Daniel Radcliffe, got his voice changed? ha ha http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif
January 1st, 2002, 07:25 PM
I wasn't crazy about it, there were a number of points about the movie that i thought would have, and should have, been handles better. I've gone into detail on other threads, so i won't waste space here. It wasn't a dud, but I thought it would have been a little better.
It's funny though, I loved the harry potter books, but wasn't crazy about the movie. But then I wasn't crazy about the lotr novels, but i loved the movie. Go figure.
January 1st, 2002, 07:52 PM
Supposedly, Daniel Radcliffe's testorerones (is that the right word?) kicked in the middle of the filming of the movie.
This was why Harry Potter seems to become bigger in the middle of the movie (from his small-ness in the beginning) then back to small again in the ending. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif
Looking at my post, that sounded awful. Sorry, my brains not working properly at the moment. It's past lunch but I'm still working without a single meal since breakfast...
(Shambles off in search of small little creatures...)
[This message has been edited by estranghero (edited January 02, 2002).]
January 1st, 2002, 07:59 PM
Sorry guys, have to move this to TV and Film!
January 2nd, 2002, 02:09 AM
I thought it was OK, thats about it. I liked the kid who played Ron and I liked Hagrid.
I thought the film dragged, whereas the book was a smoother quicker read.
I don't think they focused enough on the Weasleys, the relationship bet Harry and Dumbledore and there wasn't as palpatable a fear about mentioning Voldemort (or rather say "you-know-who" or "he-who-must-not-be-named")
I give it about a 6 out of 10.
January 5th, 2002, 05:17 AM
I just didn't think it was any good because:
1.Ron, Hermoine and Harry were acted really badly. It was painfully wooden. Even Draco was pretty poor.
2.Too much had to be missed out.
3.Didn't get me excited like LOTR, The Fellowship of the Ring (best film ever by the way) or Gladiator or quite a few far superior films.
4.Didn't work somehow.
I'd give it about 5 or 6/10.
Daniel Radcliffe looks so queer. I don't quite imagine Harry looking like that but then again they could have done a lot worse.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.