Chris-Columbus Movie Reviews

I SAW THE MOVIE AND I LIKED IT.. BUT I JUST DIDN'T LIKE THE ENDING. I WOULD PROBABLY WATCH IT AGAIN THOUGH.

I saw this film while I had first entered high school way back when. This movie holds a special place in my heart. The film was told through the eyes of Neil Klugman (Richard Benjamin). I know he was enraptured by the lovely Brenda Patimkin (Ali MacGraw) but I also knew he had another eye on the success of her family. I know that I had my eye on Ali MacGraw. At that time in my life she was the epitome of poise, grace and beauty. The way I see this film it is about two lovers or would-be lovers that never seem to be on the same page. Benjamin is genuinely attracted to MacGraw but does she really like him or is he just a convenient partner for her sexual coming of age? Is she just using him? Then there is a change. By the end of the film you wonder if the message is that you make the bed that you sleep in. I read Phillip Roth's novel after I had seen the film. I thought the scene in both the film and novel where Brenda and Neil first meet was heartfelt and magical. However, the most memorable scene in the entire film is between Ali MacGraw and Jack Klugman (Mr. Patimkin, Brenda's dad) at the wedding. Jack Klugman gave an excellent performance throughout this film. But in this wedding scene you can really feel a father trying to protect his daughter from the worldliness of life and if only he could really be there all the time for her to help ease her pain. This film may look dated but for me it is eternal.

IT'S HER TOTAL PURELY SENCE'S WHERE SHE IS TOTALY NAKE AND HER UNTANS LINES ARE PURELY WHITE HAS HER OWN RUMBER WAS PURELY WHITE HAS YOU COULD POSSIBLE SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES JUST BY LOOKING AT IT IS ENOUGH TO TURN YOU ON? JUST LIKE MOVIE GOSER'S LIKE ME AND MY BAD FRIENDS ARE THINKING TO ARE OWN SELF? THAT WE WILL SEE SOMETHINGS LIKE THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN SO WE WILL SURELY HAVE THE VERY BEST HOT SEAT IN THE VIEWING HER NAKE AND BED SENCES AND HER SHOWER SENCES IN MY AND MY BAD AND GOOD MEN IN GOOD FAITH IN THE PUBLIC EYES? (LARRY MILLER TOLD AND THE REPORTER FOR THIS PRINTED NEWS ITEM HERE IT'S DONE BY HIM LARRY MILLER IN CAMPBELL CALIFORNIA.

A spinster who makes up corpses to look like movie stars and a cop who lives with his overbearing mother. A match made in heaven? Maybe, but there wasn;t much chemistry between Ally and John here. His mother does a good job and the neighbor nearly steals the film. not something to go out of your way to see.

This movie has all the makings of a winner. A plot that is identifiable to almost any moviegoer, (everybody knows somebody in this situation.)A cast consisting of a fine comic lead, good supporting characters and two Hollywood legends. And a script that fits each actor like a glove.

John Candy pleases in this low key role of a lonely police officer tied too tight to his mother (O'Hara) who has very strong opinons about almost everything and who plays the mother guilt card like no other as he is pursuing his interest in an equally lonely lady (Sheedy). I watched this with my own mother who is O'Hara's age and saw her nodding in agreement all over the film. (until her full blooded Siclian fists clenched when O'Hara's character described us. The look on her face was worth the price of the movie alone.)

The story is plesant and worth your money, Candy & O'Hara work well together (who would have thought she would outlive him!) but the real power of the film is her interaction with Anthony Quinn. Classic film buffs like myself will get a real charge out of Quinn once again persuing O'Hara, but this time without an Errol Flynn as a rival. That sub plot is at least as interesting as the main one and for my money is better. It is classic Maureen O'Hara, the strong woman who is chased by the strong man and frankly is a great contrast to the the exact opposite situation between Candy & Sheedy.

In the end to nobodys surprise love conquers all and Candy's final immagined scene (contrasting with several ones eariler in the film) gives him closure. That final scene is my favorite and show O'Hara playing a character she has always excelled at. Considering the events of 9/11/01 the ending has even more meaning as we see a member of "The Greatest Generation" setting an example (albert a fictious one) that would be bravely followed in reality 10 years later.

I've said little about the good performances by Sheedy and Belushi, not to mention several other supporting characters in minor roles, they all add to the picture, but the stars make this film. Buy it.

I saw the movie on Pax tv, channel 16 here in Salt Lake City and it was very good. I like Maureen O'hara, she played in Miracle on 34th Street, I have that video. I am going to order Only the Lonley because it is very moving and entertaining, I thought that it was interesting when Maureen O'Hara "Tells it like it is" to John Candy's girl friend and almost ruins their plans for getting married.

THERE'S just something slightly disturbing about seeing teens whizzing through the air on broomsticks ...... not quite fitting - something Pasolini might have invented..... then there's the "Magic", and the violence at school? Just what are we telling the younguns here? Not as if this is Lindsay Anderson's "IF" ... but close, close.

Most of this is quite a tangle between seemingly good and evil, but for the audience? Who the heck knows? The effects are great - better than the first - but this one's overlong - especially the spider sequence - just goes on and on and on.

The ghost in the lavatory is quite fun though .... brings quite a chill back from childhood.

Maggie Smith still sems to be one beat away from Jean Brodie [the very affected 1930 pronunciation], Richard Harris is just plain ill, Branagh is ... Liberace?

Only Alan Richman - semi-asexual - delivers well, and the youth playing Tom Riddle ... great find hope to see him back.

Just wonder what this one's all about

NOW something about Crowley starring Hopkins could be rather piquant .....

In 2001, Director Chris Columbus (Home Alone) proved that he could handle children, special effects and the marvelous world of J.K Rowling in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". I liked the first, but still didn't feel completely filled. Of course, I had bigger expectations for "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets". It was one year later, and the filmmakers had that whole year to clean out their mistakes and make a better movie. Once again, I was not COMPLETELY satisfied with "Chamber of Secrets" but Columbus did learn a few points about filmmaking and it certainly is more in-tune with the spirit of J.K Rowling than the first was.

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has not had a good summer. After dealing with his non-caring aunt, uncle and cousin, a strange impish creature called Dobby claims that he should not return to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry or he will be in mortal danger. However, Harry does not take any of this advice seriously, and reunites with Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger (Rupert Grint & Emma Watson) and heads back for Year II at Hogwarts. However, something is not right this year at the mystical Hogwarts: Students are turning up "petrified" all over the school and messages are written on the walls in blood, mentioning a mythical room in the castle called the "Chamber of Secrets". Who is the culprit? Could it be the muggle-hating Draco Malfoy? Could it possibly be Hagrid, the dangerous creature-loving half giant? Or is it Harry? A word to the wise: If you have never seen the first film, read any of the books or don't know a damn thing about Harry Potter, please, do not risk yourself with "Chamber of Secrets". It's a continuing story, and the movie doesn't stop to introduce us with the characters or the setting or theme. You will have no chance with this film if you don't know what "Quidditch", "Muggle" or "Mandrake" means. Back to the other side of every viewer: The Potter fan. As a reader of J.K Rowling's book, Columbus disappointed me with 2001's "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". The film was plaqued with amatuerish acting, below-average special effects and a storyline that couldn't keep whole interest in the 152-minute running time. I was anxious and nervous for "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets": Not only was it directed by Chris Columbus, it was longer and a great deal larger in scale than the original. However, the movie is really quite good.

"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" tries to aim at it's target audience, kids, and in my opinion, I say it succeeds there. It's not a movie for real little kids ages 7 and below. They'll be restless at the 161-minute running time, it would scare the pants off them, and it would be a bit of a chore for them with the labrinythian plot with nothing else to enjoy but the visuals. Columbus states that it is darker and scarier than "The Sorcerer's Stone". Darker? A bit, yes. Scarier? Really nothing a child 8 or above couldn't handle with a parent by their side, which is somewhat of a disappointment. Rowling is a lot more darker than what Chris Columbus presents on screen, but I guess he doesn't want angry parents shouting at him. But a joyful pleasure of Chris Columbus' direction of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is how visually alive it is. Pearly-white ghosts drift through chamber to chamber and paintings on the wall come to life once you get a closer look at them. A Quidditch match is boosted with flying players, Golden Snitches and threatening bludgers (one trying to get at Harry). The special effects deepen with gigantic spiders, a lethal snake, flying cars, phoenixes and magical spells, all which are visually appealing. A problem with "The Sorcerer's Stone" was that the special effects weren't truly magnificent. In "Chamber of Secrets", the special effects are all tightened and spit-shine. There is not one special effect that is not believable (at least, not for me). They are dazzling! (Specifically the finale monster) Hogwarts School has seemed have grown into a much more "living" invironment filled with strange creatures. It has a much darker (and more satisfying) look than what it looked like one year ago, a sort of kiddy-fide, video game setting. It's progressing into the darker stages of Rowling's work.

The acting: Is it an improvement over "The Sorcerer's Stone"? In a simple answer: Yes, a huge improvement. I was particularly impressed with Daniel Radcliffe this time around. As Harry Potter, Radcliffe has seemed to grown with a lot more confidence in his role. He now knows how to portray believable emotion and also possess some heart. Sure, they somewhat made him into Indiana Jones or some kind of mini-Gladiator, and even sometimes at the end, the title could've been "Indiana Potter and the Chamber of Doom" but he needs to be heroic. Rupert Grint, however, was a bit mistreated. Chris Columbus seems to only want to use him as the source of laughs, and has kind of misplaced the nature of Ron Weasley. He is just as brave as Harry and is quite anxious for adventures. Emma Watson's Hermione was the best of three. In "The Sorcerer's Stone", she was forcing her lines that sometimes made me cringe! But in "Chamber of Secrets", Watson has wisened up and has presented the sassy and all-knowing Hermione from the books straight on the screen. The adult cast is also, once again, fabulous. Richard Harris gives his last role as Professor Albus Dumbledore, and Minerva McGonagall played by Maggie Smith. Two great actors steal the show: Kenneth Branagh and Alan Rickman as the preening Gilderoy Lockhart and the menacing Severus Snape. First, 'ol Professor Lockhart. Branagh's self-promoting new professor is a complete kill and never fails to generate laughs. The latter, Professor Snape played by Alan Rickman, is once again carefully planned, menacing, dark, funny and mesmerizing all in one. He is taken a back seat in this, but still will not give up his charm.

"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is more plot, less discovery. The joy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" was seeing this all for the first time. In "Chamber of Secrets" we are plunged right into the plot at first moment, and then never let go. Quidditch matches, duels, showdowns with creatures, an attack by spiders and the grand finale bring promise to the future installments. They are much more emotionally-driven than these first two, and with Alfonso Cuaron on the director seat, there should not be any disappointments. Until 2004, we'll manage with "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets". Visually dazzling and wonderfully acted, but not the perfect movie. There are problems, but they'll eventually be worked out in the future. So long Harry Potter. Until we meet again.

About a couple of days ago, I managed to watch "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" at the movie theater. And let me just say that this second installment to last year's widely popular "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is twice as good and even better than the first film! You see, "The Sorcerer's Stone" was all about introduction and discovery, etc. But now, "The Chamber of Secrets" is when they jump right into the story (kind of like "Lord of the Rings"). "The Chamber of Secrets" has a lot more humor and about 10 times as much action than the first film! And the direction of Chris Columbus ("Home Alone 1 and 2", "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone") was excellent as always! The performances from the very talented young stars Daniel Radcliffe ("The Tailor of Panama", "The Sorcerer's Stone"), Rupert Grint ("The Sorcerer's Stone"), and Emma Watson ("The Sorcerer's Stone") were solid, commanding, and flawless in every way possible! The performances from veteran actors Richard Harris ("Unforgiven"), Robbie Coltrane ("Alice in Wonderland"), Alan Rickman ("Die Hard"), Kenneth Branagh ("Wild Wild West"), John Cleese (007: "Die Another Day"), Maggie Smith ("Gosford Park"), Julie Walters ("Billy Elliot"), and Jason Isaacs ("Black Hawk Down") were outstanding as well! This next chapter in author J.K. Rowling's beloved "Harry Potter" series follows the book with perfection all the way as the film focuses on Harry's second year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Once again, Radcliffe plays Harry, whose infamous past (his parents were killed by the vile Lord Voldemort) makes him a celebrity student at Hogwarts. In "The Chamber of Secrets", Harry returns to the enchanted institution after a miserable summer vacation with his wretched Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw) and Uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths). Hogwarts' Sophomore term is filled with more Quidditch (the rugby-on-broomsticks sport AND my favorite part of the movie), more sage instruction from kindly professor Albus Dumbledore (Harris), and more detention-baiting high jinks with giant gamekeeper Hagrid (Coltrane) and best friends Ron Weasley (Grint) and Hermione Granger (Watson). There are also some new characters that are introduced in "Chamber", including the foppish Gilderoy Lockhart (Branagh), Hogwarts' newest Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, the ruthless Lucius Malfoy (Isaacs), father of the equally ruthless Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), Harry's arch-nemesis, and a little creature named Dobby, who warns Harry about the strange goings-on at Hogwarts and what would happen if Harry went back to Hogwarts for his second year. Strangely as it turns out, someone (or something) is turning Harry's classmates into statues. Is there a link between this rash of petrification and creepy alum Tom Riddle, who speaks to Harry via a talking diary? (Answer: No.) (Just kidding: Of COURSE there is!) The special effects of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" were just as mesmerizing as the the special effects of "The Sorcerer's Stone"! Especially the special effects that were used in both the Quidditch match between Harry and Malfoy, which was faster and a little more violent, and the scenes when Ron and Harry fly to Hogwarts in a supernaturally souped-up Ford Anglia! To me, it seems as though Daniel Radcliffe looked more actively heroic in "Chamber" and that the role of Harry Potter seems to have affected his look as he's gotten older and that he's starting to feel like a leading young man now. And that is what I liked about him and the "Potter" films (kind of reminded me of Haley Joel Osment in "The Sixth Sense" and "A.I."). In conclusion, I think that "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" was the most challenging, most entertaining family film that I've seen since "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"! In fact, just watching "The Chamber of Secrets" will leave me with a feeling of going back and watching the first film again, especially since "The Chamber of Secrets" has great performances from a top-notch cast, extraordinary special effects, laugh-out-loud humor, and a powerful storyline! I REALLY can't wait for the next "Harry Potter" film, "The Prisoner of Azkaban", to be released in theaters, nor can I wait to see what the inevitable 2-disc DVD of "The Chamber of Secrets" has to offer next year!

THERE'S just something slightly disturbing about seeing teens whizzing through the air on broomsticks ...... not quite fitting - something Pasolini might have invented..... then there's the "Magic", and the violence at school? Just what are we telling the younguns here? Not as if this is Lindsay Anderson's "IF" ... but close, close.

Most of this is quite a tangle between seemingly good and evil, but for the audience? Who the heck knows? The effects are great - better than the first - but this one's overlong - especially the spider sequence - just goes on and on and on.

The ghost in the lavatory is quite fun though .... brings quite a chill back from childhood.

Maggie Smith still sems to be one beat away from Jean Brodie [the very affected 1930 pronunciation], Richard Harris is just plain ill, Branagh is ... Liberace?

Only Alan Richman - semi-asexual - delivers well, and the youth playing Tom Riddle ... great find hope to see him back.

Just wonder what this one's all about

NOW something about Crowley starring Hopkins could be rather piquant .....

In 2001, Director Chris Columbus (Home Alone) proved that he could handle children, special effects and the marvelous world of J.K Rowling in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". I liked the first, but still didn't feel completely filled. Of course, I had bigger expectations for "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets". It was one year later, and the filmmakers had that whole year to clean out their mistakes and make a better movie. Once again, I was not COMPLETELY satisfied with "Chamber of Secrets" but Columbus did learn a few points about filmmaking and it certainly is more in-tune with the spirit of J.K Rowling than the first was.

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has not had a good summer. After dealing with his non-caring aunt, uncle and cousin, a strange impish creature called Dobby claims that he should not return to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry or he will be in mortal danger. However, Harry does not take any of this advice seriously, and reunites with Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger (Rupert Grint & Emma Watson) and heads back for Year II at Hogwarts. However, something is not right this year at the mystical Hogwarts: Students are turning up "petrified" all over the school and messages are written on the walls in blood, mentioning a mythical room in the castle called the "Chamber of Secrets". Who is the culprit? Could it be the muggle-hating Draco Malfoy? Could it possibly be Hagrid, the dangerous creature-loving half giant? Or is it Harry? A word to the wise: If you have never seen the first film, read any of the books or don't know a damn thing about Harry Potter, please, do not risk yourself with "Chamber of Secrets". It's a continuing story, and the movie doesn't stop to introduce us with the characters or the setting or theme. You will have no chance with this film if you don't know what "Quidditch", "Muggle" or "Mandrake" means. Back to the other side of every viewer: The Potter fan. As a reader of J.K Rowling's book, Columbus disappointed me with 2001's "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". The film was plaqued with amatuerish acting, below-average special effects and a storyline that couldn't keep whole interest in the 152-minute running time. I was anxious and nervous for "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets": Not only was it directed by Chris Columbus, it was longer and a great deal larger in scale than the original. However, the movie is really quite good.

"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" tries to aim at it's target audience, kids, and in my opinion, I say it succeeds there. It's not a movie for real little kids ages 7 and below. They'll be restless at the 161-minute running time, it would scare the pants off them, and it would be a bit of a chore for them with the labrinythian plot with nothing else to enjoy but the visuals. Columbus states that it is darker and scarier than "The Sorcerer's Stone". Darker? A bit, yes. Scarier? Really nothing a child 8 or above couldn't handle with a parent by their side, which is somewhat of a disappointment. Rowling is a lot more darker than what Chris Columbus presents on screen, but I guess he doesn't want angry parents shouting at him. But a joyful pleasure of Chris Columbus' direction of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is how visually alive it is. Pearly-white ghosts drift through chamber to chamber and paintings on the wall come to life once you get a closer look at them. A Quidditch match is boosted with flying players, Golden Snitches and threatening bludgers (one trying to get at Harry). The special effects deepen with gigantic spiders, a lethal snake, flying cars, phoenixes and magical spells, all which are visually appealing. A problem with "The Sorcerer's Stone" was that the special effects weren't truly magnificent. In "Chamber of Secrets", the special effects are all tightened and spit-shine. There is not one special effect that is not believable (at least, not for me). They are dazzling! (Specifically the finale monster) Hogwarts School has seemed have grown into a much more "living" invironment filled with strange creatures. It has a much darker (and more satisfying) look than what it looked like one year ago, a sort of kiddy-fide, video game setting. It's progressing into the darker stages of Rowling's work.

The acting: Is it an improvement over "The Sorcerer's Stone"? In a simple answer: Yes, a huge improvement. I was particularly impressed with Daniel Radcliffe this time around. As Harry Potter, Radcliffe has seemed to grown with a lot more confidence in his role. He now knows how to portray believable emotion and also possess some heart. Sure, they somewhat made him into Indiana Jones or some kind of mini-Gladiator, and even sometimes at the end, the title could've been "Indiana Potter and the Chamber of Doom" but he needs to be heroic. Rupert Grint, however, was a bit mistreated. Chris Columbus seems to only want to use him as the source of laughs, and has kind of misplaced the nature of Ron Weasley. He is just as brave as Harry and is quite anxious for adventures. Emma Watson's Hermione was the best of three. In "The Sorcerer's Stone", she was forcing her lines that sometimes made me cringe! But in "Chamber of Secrets", Watson has wisened up and has presented the sassy and all-knowing Hermione from the books straight on the screen. The adult cast is also, once again, fabulous. Richard Harris gives his last role as Professor Albus Dumbledore, and Minerva McGonagall played by Maggie Smith. Two great actors steal the show: Kenneth Branagh and Alan Rickman as the preening Gilderoy Lockhart and the menacing Severus Snape. First, 'ol Professor Lockhart. Branagh's self-promoting new professor is a complete kill and never fails to generate laughs. The latter, Professor Snape played by Alan Rickman, is once again carefully planned, menacing, dark, funny and mesmerizing all in one. He is taken a back seat in this, but still will not give up his charm.

"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is more plot, less discovery. The joy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" was seeing this all for the first time. In "Chamber of Secrets" we are plunged right into the plot at first moment, and then never let go. Quidditch matches, duels, showdowns with creatures, an attack by spiders and the grand finale bring promise to the future installments. They are much more emotionally-driven than these first two, and with Alfonso Cuaron on the director seat, there should not be any disappointments. Until 2004, we'll manage with "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets". Visually dazzling and wonderfully acted, but not the perfect movie. There are problems, but they'll eventually be worked out in the future. So long Harry Potter. Until we meet again.

About a couple of days ago, I managed to watch "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" at the movie theater. And let me just say that this second installment to last year's widely popular "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is twice as good and even better than the first film! You see, "The Sorcerer's Stone" was all about introduction and discovery, etc. But now, "The Chamber of Secrets" is when they jump right into the story (kind of like "Lord of the Rings"). "The Chamber of Secrets" has a lot more humor and about 10 times as much action than the first film! And the direction of Chris Columbus ("Home Alone 1 and 2", "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone") was excellent as always! The performances from the very talented young stars Daniel Radcliffe ("The Tailor of Panama", "The Sorcerer's Stone"), Rupert Grint ("The Sorcerer's Stone"), and Emma Watson ("The Sorcerer's Stone") were solid, commanding, and flawless in every way possible! The performances from veteran actors Richard Harris ("Unforgiven"), Robbie Coltrane ("Alice in Wonderland"), Alan Rickman ("Die Hard"), Kenneth Branagh ("Wild Wild West"), John Cleese (007: "Die Another Day"), Maggie Smith ("Gosford Park"), Julie Walters ("Billy Elliot"), and Jason Isaacs ("Black Hawk Down") were outstanding as well! This next chapter in author J.K. Rowling's beloved "Harry Potter" series follows the book with perfection all the way as the film focuses on Harry's second year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Once again, Radcliffe plays Harry, whose infamous past (his parents were killed by the vile Lord Voldemort) makes him a celebrity student at Hogwarts. In "The Chamber of Secrets", Harry returns to the enchanted institution after a miserable summer vacation with his wretched Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw) and Uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths). Hogwarts' Sophomore term is filled with more Quidditch (the rugby-on-broomsticks sport AND my favorite part of the movie), more sage instruction from kindly professor Albus Dumbledore (Harris), and more detention-baiting high jinks with giant gamekeeper Hagrid (Coltrane) and best friends Ron Weasley (Grint) and Hermione Granger (Watson). There are also some new characters that are introduced in "Chamber", including the foppish Gilderoy Lockhart (Branagh), Hogwarts' newest Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, the ruthless Lucius Malfoy (Isaacs), father of the equally ruthless Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), Harry's arch-nemesis, and a little creature named Dobby, who warns Harry about the strange goings-on at Hogwarts and what would happen if Harry went back to Hogwarts for his second year. Strangely as it turns out, someone (or something) is turning Harry's classmates into statues. Is there a link between this rash of petrification and creepy alum Tom Riddle, who speaks to Harry via a talking diary? (Answer: No.) (Just kidding: Of COURSE there is!) The special effects of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" were just as mesmerizing as the the special effects of "The Sorcerer's Stone"! Especially the special effects that were used in both the Quidditch match between Harry and Malfoy, which was faster and a little more violent, and the scenes when Ron and Harry fly to Hogwarts in a supernaturally souped-up Ford Anglia! To me, it seems as though Daniel Radcliffe looked more actively heroic in "Chamber" and that the role of Harry Potter seems to have affected his look as he's gotten older and that he's starting to feel like a leading young man now. And that is what I liked about him and the "Potter" films (kind of reminded me of Haley Joel Osment in "The Sixth Sense" and "A.I."). In conclusion, I think that "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" was the most challenging, most entertaining family film that I've seen since "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"! In fact, just watching "The Chamber of Secrets" will leave me with a feeling of going back and watching the first film again, especially since "The Chamber of Secrets" has great performances from a top-notch cast, extraordinary special effects, laugh-out-loud humor, and a powerful storyline! I REALLY can't wait for the next "Harry Potter" film, "The Prisoner of Azkaban", to be released in theaters, nor can I wait to see what the inevitable 2-disc DVD of "The Chamber of Secrets" has to offer next year!

this is the best movie ever! if you liked the first one then you will definetly love this one no matter what! Little Kevin has done it again-he's all by himself again but this time in New York around christmas time. at first he is really happy that he is in new york without his family who are in Florida (where there is no christmas trees)after getting in a fight with his older brother (Buzz) and then in a fight with the rest of his family. But he soon learns that he wants his family to be with him after reuniting with the wet bandits (Marv and Harry). But on the way he gets in trouble with the Plaza hotel (New Yorks most exciting hotel)and he saves DUNCANS TOY CHEST from being robbed. and he also meets a couple of friends that at first scared him.on christmas eve his mom finally finds him at rockafella center and the family is all together. this is by far my favorite movie because (1) it takes place in New York (2)it takes place during christmas time and (3) the story is great!

"Home Alone 2" has everything the original did, and some extras. It's a little bit different, but in a good way. Kevin McAllister (Macaulay Culkin) boards the wrong plane and heads to New York City while his family is on their way to Miami. Only this time, he's not stuck at home, he's in a big city. Also, in this one, he makes a few friends, most notably a pigeon lady and a toy store owner. "Home Alone 2" has more drama in it than the first one did, and when you hear Kevin talk to the pigeon lady and find out why he vows to stop the 'Wet Bandits' once again, you'll notice that.

But don't get me wrong, "Home Alone 2" doesn't suffer any in the comedy department. The traps are just as clever and hilarious, and the movie is just as much of a holiday classic as the original "Home Alone" was. If you liked the original "Home Alone," or if you like Christmas comedy movies, I'd recommend getting "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York."

I loved this one, Harry and Marv get messed up really bad.

this is the best movie ever! if you liked the first one then you will definetly love this one no matter what! Little Kevin has done it again-he's all by himself again but this time in New York around christmas time. at first he is really happy that he is in new york without his family who are in Florida (where there is no christmas trees)after getting in a fight with his older brother (Buzz) and then in a fight with the rest of his family. But he soon learns that he wants his family to be with him after reuniting with the wet bandits (Marv and Harry). But on the way he gets in trouble with the Plaza hotel (New Yorks most exciting hotel)and he saves DUNCANS TOY CHEST from being robbed. and he also meets a couple of friends that at first scared him.on christmas eve his mom finally finds him at rockafella center and the family is all together. this is by far my favorite movie because (1) it takes place in New York (2)it takes place during christmas time and (3) the story is great!

"Home Alone 2" has everything the original did, and some extras. It's a little bit different, but in a good way. Kevin McAllister (Macaulay Culkin) boards the wrong plane and heads to New York City while his family is on their way to Miami. Only this time, he's not stuck at home, he's in a big city. Also, in this one, he makes a few friends, most notably a pigeon lady and a toy store owner. "Home Alone 2" has more drama in it than the first one did, and when you hear Kevin talk to the pigeon lady and find out why he vows to stop the 'Wet Bandits' once again, you'll notice that.

But don't get me wrong, "Home Alone 2" doesn't suffer any in the comedy department. The traps are just as clever and hilarious, and the movie is just as much of a holiday classic as the original "Home Alone" was. If you liked the original "Home Alone," or if you like Christmas comedy movies, I'd recommend getting "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York."

I loved this one, Harry and Marv get messed up really bad.

I never read any of the Harry Potter books, but my mother had read the first in the series and enjoyed it, so I treated my parents to an afternoon at the movies.

As my mother had already read the book, she knew in advance who the villain was... but as someone who hadn't read it, it came as quite a surprise.

The special effects are excellent, but are not constant... so this film may be a little too slow-paced and/or cerebral for tiny kids.

Fantasy is fun... and most people go to the movies not only for entertainment, but from escape. I won't go into a diatribe about "New Age" or Witchcraft influences... quite frankly, they are everywhere and I don't want to beat a dead horse... but aside from those concerns, a parent should be concerned with the trend in all child-targeted films (including this one) of making authority non-existent.

Harry Potter has been orphaned and growing up with hateful, loathesome relatives. Too many kids in our society live in blended families or other situations in which there is favoritism and/or verbal and/or emotional abuse.

Harry is "rescued" from his life as the unwanted child by being whisked away to Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Parents are not present, nor do they visit. The children at this school live in dorms on campus and there are several "forbidden" rooms that contain monsters or booby-traps and all children are informed that a visit to the library will result in certain death. That school is one scary joint! But the attitude of the film is "let's have fun" and "there are no consequences for disobeying authority" and "if you don't like the ways things are going, cast a spell."

We live in a very selfish society... and the story subtly gives the message that adults are only good for instruction in some areas, but can otherwise be ignored and not listened to.

Yes, it's "just a movie," but in a world where kids are kidnapped from their own bedrooms and terrorists are looming around the corner, kids tend escape further and further into fantasy and have less and less interest or desire for reality.

In a nutshell, if you're going to buy this movie for your kids, then you need to watch the film with them and talk to them about it and ask them questions about what they thought about it. Any movie, including this one, should not be used as a babysitter or as a substitute for exhibiting family values instead of just espousing them.

As for myself (an adult) and for my parents (in their 60s), we found the film to be entertaining, humorous, clever and a good way to escape... but we all agreed that we never needed to see it again. Some films (like Star Wars) can be seen over and over again... this is not one of those films... at least not for adults. Kids who obsess on Potter, et al, may feel differently.

Well, it's finally arrived. The filmed version of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" arrived on May 28 in a 2-disc set jam-packed with Special Features. Well, sort of. First, the movie, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, is an adaptation of J.K Rowling's fantastic and successful novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (original UK name; movie and book dubbed in America). When I first saw the teaser Trailer, I was screaming! Harry Potter looked so fantasic on film! But when I saw it in theaters, it was far from the teaser trailer but still, it was a great movie. And the film was so true to the book, probably even more true than Peter Jackson's epic, The Fellowship of the Ring. Almost everything from the book is in there, with a few scenes and a particular character cut for an overlong running time (the movie's 152 minutes). Besides the faithfulness, they've cast some of the best British actors to play Hogwarts Staff and supporting characters. But the actors were looking at is the main trio. Harry is played by the extremely well look-alike, Daniel Radcliffe, Ron by funny Rupert Grint and Emma Watson playing the bossy but clever Hermione Granger. Surprisingly, the children hold up a definite performances, with most emotions expressed. The adults play well too. Maggie Smith plays the strict Professor McGonagall and Richard Harris playing the old and wise Professor Albus Dumbledore. But by far, the best performance of the whole film was Alan Rickman, playing the silky and sinister Severus Snape, the Potion's Master. You simply couldn't get a better Snape. He expresses everything Snape contains, sly, sinister, moody, mysterious and striking. Perfect cast, really. And you simply can't review this film without talking about John Williams' score. He's definitely not been original the last few years but still, he gives off the Harry Potter feel almost fully (Howard Shore's Fellowship of the Ring score takes best). The CGI effects are some of the best in recent filming, from a troll, to a baby dragon, to a CGI villain wizard bent on destroying poor Harry. Though some CGI effects could've been tightened up a bit. You could definitely see poor computer generation when a CGI Harry interacts with the CGI troll and The Quidditch Match. But then, Radcliffe did do most of his stunts. And the transfer from Theater to DVD is nice and crisp, keeping with all of the original colors from the theatrical release. The only problem is the bits of grain and small picture shimmering throughout the film. It's not a huge problem but may affect some people. And now, the "supposedly" greatest DVD ever. The second disc is set up somewhat like a game, as you are a new student in Hogwarts School. The gripe about the second disc is that the menus are so confusing and the small animation effects take too long to load to the next menu. You'll go through Diagon Alley to get your supplies and money but first you'll have to find which bricks to hit. This caused a bit of trouble and was annoying. There is one 10-15 minute interview with Chris Columbus, David Heyman (producer) and Steve Kloves (screenwriter) as with a few crew members. This was disappointing because many were expecting an interview with AT LEAST Daniel Radcliffe or any other actor but they didn't. They did talk about Sorcerer's Stone a bit and a little on Chamber of Secrets. Nothing phenomonal. And you can also access seven deleted scenes on the second disc. Cool so far, until you try to find them, heh. It takes so long to find the deleted scenes and you'll do it all over again when you want to see them again. While the deleted footage is great, it's only about ten minutes...all scenes combined. But they ARE worth it. In the end, it's a five star quality movie but the special features are too simple, as its for kids basically. The deleted scenes are really the only reason I put in the second disc. Let's hope for a "Special" Special Edition later sometime. Only a four star DVD. Could've been a lot better.

A film by Chris Columbus

This is the first film in the Harry Potter series and it is adapted from J.K. Rowling's novel of the same title. A common complaint about movies that have been adapted from a book is that the movie strays too far from the book and that it makes too many changes. This is sometimes necessary as film and novels are two different mediums and need to tell stories in different ways, but sometimes unnecessary changes are made. Happily, this is not the case with this movie. This movie is extremely faithful to the book, and I think the film works because of that.

By now, many people probably have a good idea what Harry Potter is all about. For those who are not in the know, here's the story for this movie. Young Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is living with his aunt and his uncle because his parents died when he was an infant. It is obvious they do not want him around as he is forced to live in the closet under the stairs and he is treated like a servant, an unwelcome servant at that. One day owls start arriving at the house and deliver letters to Harry. We see that the letters are from "Hogwarts." Harry's uncle keeps destroying the letters, but more come each day. Finally he has had enough and Harry's Uncle takes the family (including Harry) to a remote island where no letters can reach them. It is at this point that Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) finds Harry, tells him that Harry is a wizard, and that he is to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. See, Harry is a wizard, and is the son of a wizard. Harry's parents were not killed in a car accident (as he had been told), but rather they were killed by the Dark Lord Voldemort, a wizard gone bad. Harry is the boy who lived, which is why he is famous in the wizarding world.

At Hogwarts, Harry makes friends with Ron Weasely (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and makes an enemy of Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). Ron and Hermione are also first year students and are in Gryffindor House with Harry. Draco is also a first year, but is in Slytherin House (Ron tells Harry that "not a wizard went bad that wasn't in Slytherin"). Harry, Ron, and Hermione become good friends and get into little adventures together. They believe that someone is trying to steal something called the Sorcerer's Stone and since no adult will believe them, they try to figure this out on their own. At the same time, they are in the first year of school, so they have to go to their classes in magic. A little bit of time is spent in each class so that we get a sense of the school and a sense of the magic of that Harry and friends are supposed to be learning.

The movie is very faithful to the book, so most events from the book are included in this movie and while it is a fairly long movie (2 and a half hours), it moves along fast enough that you don't really feel like you've spent so much time. One of the reasons you don't feel the time is that the acting is fantastic. The actors are so perfect for their roles that they are almost exactly how I imagined the characters to be. Two actors who stand out are Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape. Rickman, especially, is a delight to watch. This role border's on Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) as one of his great characters. The movie also features Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall) and Warwick Davis (Professor Flitwick).

Even though I would recommend the book to anyone, I'm not convinced the movie is for everyone. I thought that the movie captured the events and the spirit of the book, but is missing some of the charm. Rowling's novel just sucks you in, but at times I thought the movie was only for fans of the book. I really enjoyed the movie, and I will give it a good rating, but it may not convert people who don't really enjoy fantasy (or movies that have fantasy elements).

I never read any of the Harry Potter books, but my mother had read the first in the series and enjoyed it, so I treated my parents to an afternoon at the movies.

As my mother had already read the book, she knew in advance who the villain was... but as someone who hadn't read it, it came as quite a surprise.

The special effects are excellent, but are not constant... so this film may be a little too slow-paced and/or cerebral for tiny kids.

Fantasy is fun... and most people go to the movies not only for entertainment, but from escape. I won't go into a diatribe about "New Age" or Witchcraft influences... quite frankly, they are everywhere and I don't want to beat a dead horse... but aside from those concerns, a parent should be concerned with the trend in all child-targeted films (including this one) of making authority non-existent.

Harry Potter has been orphaned and growing up with hateful, loathesome relatives. Too many kids in our society live in blended families or other situations in which there is favoritism and/or verbal and/or emotional abuse.

Harry is "rescued" from his life as the unwanted child by being whisked away to Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Parents are not present, nor do they visit. The children at this school live in dorms on campus and there are several "forbidden" rooms that contain monsters or booby-traps and all children are informed that a visit to the library will result in certain death. That school is one scary joint! But the attitude of the film is "let's have fun" and "there are no consequences for disobeying authority" and "if you don't like the ways things are going, cast a spell."

We live in a very selfish society... and the story subtly gives the message that adults are only good for instruction in some areas, but can otherwise be ignored and not listened to.

Yes, it's "just a movie," but in a world where kids are kidnapped from their own bedrooms and terrorists are looming around the corner, kids tend escape further and further into fantasy and have less and less interest or desire for reality.

In a nutshell, if you're going to buy this movie for your kids, then you need to watch the film with them and talk to them about it and ask them questions about what they thought about it. Any movie, including this one, should not be used as a babysitter or as a substitute for exhibiting family values instead of just espousing them.

As for myself (an adult) and for my parents (in their 60s), we found the film to be entertaining, humorous, clever and a good way to escape... but we all agreed that we never needed to see it again. Some films (like Star Wars) can be seen over and over again... this is not one of those films... at least not for adults. Kids who obsess on Potter, et al, may feel differently.

Well, it's finally arrived. The filmed version of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" arrived on May 28 in a 2-disc set jam-packed with Special Features. Well, sort of. First, the movie, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, is an adaptation of J.K Rowling's fantastic and successful novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (original UK name; movie and book dubbed in America). When I first saw the teaser Trailer, I was screaming! Harry Potter looked so fantasic on film! But when I saw it in theaters, it was far from the teaser trailer but still, it was a great movie. And the film was so true to the book, probably even more true than Peter Jackson's epic, The Fellowship of the Ring. Almost everything from the book is in there, with a few scenes and a particular character cut for an overlong running time (the movie's 152 minutes). Besides the faithfulness, they've cast some of the best British actors to play Hogwarts Staff and supporting characters. But the actors were looking at is the main trio. Harry is played by the extremely well look-alike, Daniel Radcliffe, Ron by funny Rupert Grint and Emma Watson playing the bossy but clever Hermione Granger. Surprisingly, the children hold up a definite performances, with most emotions expressed. The adults play well too. Maggie Smith plays the strict Professor McGonagall and Richard Harris playing the old and wise Professor Albus Dumbledore. But by far, the best performance of the whole film was Alan Rickman, playing the silky and sinister Severus Snape, the Potion's Master. You simply couldn't get a better Snape. He expresses everything Snape contains, sly, sinister, moody, mysterious and striking. Perfect cast, really. And you simply can't review this film without talking about John Williams' score. He's definitely not been original the last few years but still, he gives off the Harry Potter feel almost fully (Howard Shore's Fellowship of the Ring score takes best). The CGI effects are some of the best in recent filming, from a troll, to a baby dragon, to a CGI villain wizard bent on destroying poor Harry. Though some CGI effects could've been tightened up a bit. You could definitely see poor computer generation when a CGI Harry interacts with the CGI troll and The Quidditch Match. But then, Radcliffe did do most of his stunts. And the transfer from Theater to DVD is nice and crisp, keeping with all of the original colors from the theatrical release. The only problem is the bits of grain and small picture shimmering throughout the film. It's not a huge problem but may affect some people. And now, the "supposedly" greatest DVD ever. The second disc is set up somewhat like a game, as you are a new student in Hogwarts School. The gripe about the second disc is that the menus are so confusing and the small animation effects take too long to load to the next menu. You'll go through Diagon Alley to get your supplies and money but first you'll have to find which bricks to hit. This caused a bit of trouble and was annoying. There is one 10-15 minute interview with Chris Columbus, David Heyman (producer) and Steve Kloves (screenwriter) as with a few crew members. This was disappointing because many were expecting an interview with AT LEAST Daniel Radcliffe or any other actor but they didn't. They did talk about Sorcerer's Stone a bit and a little on Chamber of Secrets. Nothing phenomonal. And you can also access seven deleted scenes on the second disc. Cool so far, until you try to find them, heh. It takes so long to find the deleted scenes and you'll do it all over again when you want to see them again. While the deleted footage is great, it's only about ten minutes...all scenes combined. But they ARE worth it. In the end, it's a five star quality movie but the special features are too simple, as its for kids basically. The deleted scenes are really the only reason I put in the second disc. Let's hope for a "Special" Special Edition later sometime. Only a four star DVD. Could've been a lot better.

A film by Chris Columbus

This is the first film in the Harry Potter series and it is adapted from J.K. Rowling's novel of the same title. A common complaint about movies that have been adapted from a book is that the movie strays too far from the book and that it makes too many changes. This is sometimes necessary as film and novels are two different mediums and need to tell stories in different ways, but sometimes unnecessary changes are made. Happily, this is not the case with this movie. This movie is extremely faithful to the book, and I think the film works because of that.

By now, many people probably have a good idea what Harry Potter is all about. For those who are not in the know, here's the story for this movie. Young Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is living with his aunt and his uncle because his parents died when he was an infant. It is obvious they do not want him around as he is forced to live in the closet under the stairs and he is treated like a servant, an unwelcome servant at that. One day owls start arriving at the house and deliver letters to Harry. We see that the letters are from "Hogwarts." Harry's uncle keeps destroying the letters, but more come each day. Finally he has had enough and Harry's Uncle takes the family (including Harry) to a remote island where no letters can reach them. It is at this point that Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) finds Harry, tells him that Harry is a wizard, and that he is to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. See, Harry is a wizard, and is the son of a wizard. Harry's parents were not killed in a car accident (as he had been told), but rather they were killed by the Dark Lord Voldemort, a wizard gone bad. Harry is the boy who lived, which is why he is famous in the wizarding world.

At Hogwarts, Harry makes friends with Ron Weasely (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and makes an enemy of Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). Ron and Hermione are also first year students and are in Gryffindor House with Harry. Draco is also a first year, but is in Slytherin House (Ron tells Harry that "not a wizard went bad that wasn't in Slytherin"). Harry, Ron, and Hermione become good friends and get into little adventures together. They believe that someone is trying to steal something called the Sorcerer's Stone and since no adult will believe them, they try to figure this out on their own. At the same time, they are in the first year of school, so they have to go to their classes in magic. A little bit of time is spent in each class so that we get a sense of the school and a sense of the magic of that Harry and friends are supposed to be learning.

The movie is very faithful to the book, so most events from the book are included in this movie and while it is a fairly long movie (2 and a half hours), it moves along fast enough that you don't really feel like you've spent so much time. One of the reasons you don't feel the time is that the acting is fantastic. The actors are so perfect for their roles that they are almost exactly how I imagined the characters to be. Two actors who stand out are Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape. Rickman, especially, is a delight to watch. This role border's on Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) as one of his great characters. The movie also features Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall) and Warwick Davis (Professor Flitwick).

Even though I would recommend the book to anyone, I'm not convinced the movie is for everyone. I thought that the movie captured the events and the spirit of the book, but is missing some of the charm. Rowling's novel just sucks you in, but at times I thought the movie was only for fans of the book. I really enjoyed the movie, and I will give it a good rating, but it may not convert people who don't really enjoy fantasy (or movies that have fantasy elements).

I never read any of the Harry Potter books, but my mother had read the first in the series and enjoyed it, so I treated my parents to an afternoon at the movies.

As my mother had already read the book, she knew in advance who the villain was... but as someone who hadn't read it, it came as quite a surprise.

The special effects are excellent, but are not constant... so this film may be a little too slow-paced and/or cerebral for tiny kids.

Fantasy is fun... and most people go to the movies not only for entertainment, but from escape. I won't go into a diatribe about "New Age" or Witchcraft influences... quite frankly, they are everywhere and I don't want to beat a dead horse... but aside from those concerns, a parent should be concerned with the trend in all child-targeted films (including this one) of making authority non-existent.

Harry Potter has been orphaned and growing up with hateful, loathesome relatives. Too many kids in our society live in blended families or other situations in which there is favoritism and/or verbal and/or emotional abuse.

Harry is "rescued" from his life as the unwanted child by being whisked away to Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Parents are not present, nor do they visit. The children at this school live in dorms on campus and there are several "forbidden" rooms that contain monsters or booby-traps and all children are informed that a visit to the library will result in certain death. That school is one scary joint! But the attitude of the film is "let's have fun" and "there are no consequences for disobeying authority" and "if you don't like the ways things are going, cast a spell."

We live in a very selfish society... and the story subtly gives the message that adults are only good for instruction in some areas, but can otherwise be ignored and not listened to.

Yes, it's "just a movie," but in a world where kids are kidnapped from their own bedrooms and terrorists are looming around the corner, kids tend escape further and further into fantasy and have less and less interest or desire for reality.

In a nutshell, if you're going to buy this movie for your kids, then you need to watch the film with them and talk to them about it and ask them questions about what they thought about it. Any movie, including this one, should not be used as a babysitter or as a substitute for exhibiting family values instead of just espousing them.

As for myself (an adult) and for my parents (in their 60s), we found the film to be entertaining, humorous, clever and a good way to escape... but we all agreed that we never needed to see it again. Some films (like Star Wars) can be seen over and over again... this is not one of those films... at least not for adults. Kids who obsess on Potter, et al, may feel differently.

Well, it's finally arrived. The filmed version of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" arrived on May 28 in a 2-disc set jam-packed with Special Features. Well, sort of. First, the movie, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, is an adaptation of J.K Rowling's fantastic and successful novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (original UK name; movie and book dubbed in America). When I first saw the teaser Trailer, I was screaming! Harry Potter looked so fantasic on film! But when I saw it in theaters, it was far from the teaser trailer but still, it was a great movie. And the film was so true to the book, probably even more true than Peter Jackson's epic, The Fellowship of the Ring. Almost everything from the book is in there, with a few scenes and a particular character cut for an overlong running time (the movie's 152 minutes). Besides the faithfulness, they've cast some of the best British actors to play Hogwarts Staff and supporting characters. But the actors were looking at is the main trio. Harry is played by the extremely well look-alike, Daniel Radcliffe, Ron by funny Rupert Grint and Emma Watson playing the bossy but clever Hermione Granger. Surprisingly, the children hold up a definite performances, with most emotions expressed. The adults play well too. Maggie Smith plays the strict Professor McGonagall and Richard Harris playing the old and wise Professor Albus Dumbledore. But by far, the best performance of the whole film was Alan Rickman, playing the silky and sinister Severus Snape, the Potion's Master. You simply couldn't get a better Snape. He expresses everything Snape contains, sly, sinister, moody, mysterious and striking. Perfect cast, really. And you simply can't review this film without talking about John Williams' score. He's definitely not been original the last few years but still, he gives off the Harry Potter feel almost fully (Howard Shore's Fellowship of the Ring score takes best). The CGI effects are some of the best in recent filming, from a troll, to a baby dragon, to a CGI villain wizard bent on destroying poor Harry. Though some CGI effects could've been tightened up a bit. You could definitely see poor computer generation when a CGI Harry interacts with the CGI troll and The Quidditch Match. But then, Radcliffe did do most of his stunts. And the transfer from Theater to DVD is nice and crisp, keeping with all of the original colors from the theatrical release. The only problem is the bits of grain and small picture shimmering throughout the film. It's not a huge problem but may affect some people. And now, the "supposedly" greatest DVD ever. The second disc is set up somewhat like a game, as you are a new student in Hogwarts School. The gripe about the second disc is that the menus are so confusing and the small animation effects take too long to load to the next menu. You'll go through Diagon Alley to get your supplies and money but first you'll have to find which bricks to hit. This caused a bit of trouble and was annoying. There is one 10-15 minute interview with Chris Columbus, David Heyman (producer) and Steve Kloves (screenwriter) as with a few crew members. This was disappointing because many were expecting an interview with AT LEAST Daniel Radcliffe or any other actor but they didn't. They did talk about Sorcerer's Stone a bit and a little on Chamber of Secrets. Nothing phenomonal. And you can also access seven deleted scenes on the second disc. Cool so far, until you try to find them, heh. It takes so long to find the deleted scenes and you'll do it all over again when you want to see them again. While the deleted footage is great, it's only about ten minutes...all scenes combined. But they ARE worth it. In the end, it's a five star quality movie but the special features are too simple, as its for kids basically. The deleted scenes are really the only reason I put in the second disc. Let's hope for a "Special" Special Edition later sometime. Only a four star DVD. Could've been a lot better.

A film by Chris Columbus

This is the first film in the Harry Potter series and it is adapted from J.K. Rowling's novel of the same title. A common complaint about movies that have been adapted from a book is that the movie strays too far from the book and that it makes too many changes. This is sometimes necessary as film and novels are two different mediums and need to tell stories in different ways, but sometimes unnecessary changes are made. Happily, this is not the case with this movie. This movie is extremely faithful to the book, and I think the film works because of that.

By now, many people probably have a good idea what Harry Potter is all about. For those who are not in the know, here's the story for this movie. Young Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is living with his aunt and his uncle because his parents died when he was an infant. It is obvious they do not want him around as he is forced to live in the closet under the stairs and he is treated like a servant, an unwelcome servant at that. One day owls start arriving at the house and deliver letters to Harry. We see that the letters are from "Hogwarts." Harry's uncle keeps destroying the letters, but more come each day. Finally he has had enough and Harry's Uncle takes the family (including Harry) to a remote island where no letters can reach them. It is at this point that Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) finds Harry, tells him that Harry is a wizard, and that he is to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. See, Harry is a wizard, and is the son of a wizard. Harry's parents were not killed in a car accident (as he had been told), but rather they were killed by the Dark Lord Voldemort, a wizard gone bad. Harry is the boy who lived, which is why he is famous in the wizarding world.

At Hogwarts, Harry makes friends with Ron Weasely (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and makes an enemy of Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). Ron and Hermione are also first year students and are in Gryffindor House with Harry. Draco is also a first year, but is in Slytherin House (Ron tells Harry that "not a wizard went bad that wasn't in Slytherin"). Harry, Ron, and Hermione become good friends and get into little adventures together. They believe that someone is trying to steal something called the Sorcerer's Stone and since no adult will believe them, they try to figure this out on their own. At the same time, they are in the first year of school, so they have to go to their classes in magic. A little bit of time is spent in each class so that we get a sense of the school and a sense of the magic of that Harry and friends are supposed to be learning.

The movie is very faithful to the book, so most events from the book are included in this movie and while it is a fairly long movie (2 and a half hours), it moves along fast enough that you don't really feel like you've spent so much time. One of the reasons you don't feel the time is that the acting is fantastic. The actors are so perfect for their roles that they are almost exactly how I imagined the characters to be. Two actors who stand out are Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape. Rickman, especially, is a delight to watch. This role border's on Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) as one of his great characters. The movie also features Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall) and Warwick Davis (Professor Flitwick).

Even though I would recommend the book to anyone, I'm not convinced the movie is for everyone. I thought that the movie captured the events and the spirit of the book, but is missing some of the charm. Rowling's novel just sucks you in, but at times I thought the movie was only for fans of the book. I really enjoyed the movie, and I will give it a good rating, but it may not convert people who don't really enjoy fantasy (or movies that have fantasy elements).

I have just seen Bicentennial Man (on cable) for the second time. I loved it even more than my first time seeing it in the theater, because I knew the story in advance and could relax and look forward to it, without being overwhelmed by the wonderful special effects and little tidbits of wonderment that pervade the movie. Quite simply, Robin Williams portrays a robot who becomes human. But, it's so much deeper than that. I must say it is one of Robin's best works... and I've seen them all. It has his delightful comedy, but moreover, his perfect portrayal with pathos and beguiling charm. The movie begins with the robot (dubbed Andrew) being introduced to the family (with Sam Neill as the father). One of the little girls in the family makes a quick connection with the new robot (Williams), and they become fast friends... for life, as it turns out. As time goes by, Andrew (Williams) becomes more and more a member of the family. But, Andrew also becomes more human, and eventually goes to search for his identity, and to seek out others like him. The film moves rather quickly from one time period to another, since they have to cover Andrew's lifespan of two-hundred years (hence the title). Throughout his life, he is constantly evolving, whether mechanically, thru technological improvements, or just by learning human qualities. The thrust of it is that he eventually becomes human, but is not recognized as such until the end of his life. (There is a very moving speech he gives to some delegation who will decide if he is human or not.) It is a landmark film of human emotions and human joy, all experienced and displayed by a robot. It is not the comic fluff of some earlier Williams' films, nor the hardhitting drama of some of his others. Rather, it is the compelling joyousness and heartwarming comedy of a machine who wants to be human... played expertly by Williams, of course. I plan to watch it again, very soon. It is a great movie.

Unbelievable. I saw the previews and thought "it's just another Chris Columbus movie". I didn't plan on seeing it. Then, a few days after it was released, I was talked into it by a friend and though "well, it won't be TOO bad. Robin Williams is always funny". By the end of this movie I was sobbing uncontrollably, uncaring of the packed theater aroud me, unaware of anything else. And I'm a 18 year-old male who claims FIGHT CLUB is his favorite movie! Overall, 3 scenes stand out in my mind as making me sob like I did; The death of Sam Neil's character, the death of 'Little Miss', and finally the scene with Williams and his wife on their death bed (which was the one during which I was sobbing uncontrollably). This film was so incrediably moving that I still, even months and months after it's release, am in awe of it. I really connected with William's charater, I felt his burning desire to become human, to fit in, to experience life and even death. The acting was flawless in every aspect, the music stirring and lyrical, the special effects, that while in service to the story, were still breathtaking, the scope of the story being told suprising. And all of it done without horrid language or violence. See this movie. Ths is a mature Chris Columbus film, not the kiddie flick depicted in the trailers. See it and see what it's like to truely be human.

I am a huge fan of sci fi movies, but haven't seen many modern ones because I avoid R ratings. When I found this at the library and saw it was PG, I thought it would be good to watch with my 7 year old. I would not recommend this for a child under 12 because of the sexual innuendos.

This movie was very thought provoking. (What really makes us human and if we could possibly build robots to be like us.)

Robin Williams personality brought the right flavor to this complex robot.

It had the right blend of humor and drama for the subject matter.

The special effects were well done.

It was underrated.

I would purchase my own copy to watch again!