I want to go sooooo bad.  But I know we'll wait because we hate crowded theatres.  I'm jealous of y'all who are seeing it soon.  Its gonna be so neat!

I'm considering making the 5 hour drive home just to see it with my friends.  I'm so psyched.  I've heard almost nothing bad in the way of reviews, which is rare enough.  I just think it's going to be wonderful.

So. Excited.

That is all.

I wish that there would be midnight showings. Because, you know, child-free zone. Plus, extra cool and full of kooky fanatics. It could be a great pick-up scene for the bookish, non-bar-oriented crowd.

Well, maybe not midnight showings, but I bet there'll be 10 o'clock showings.  Monsters, Inc. had showings to 11pm when I went.

Yup, there're showings up to 11:30 pm at the New York theaters I researched.  I'm going to a 9:45 show myself, which I'm hoping is late enough to keep the kiddies away.  

Can. Not. Wait.

I admire your restraint.  I had to get tickets to the first show I could make once I got off work.  So I'm seeing a 7:00 show that will be filled with 8 year olds who got their bedtimes pushed back.

But, dude  Quidditch.  On. Screen. That is worth any price of admission

A bunch of people in my office are leaving early to go to the 4:30 show! Wheee! I'm so excited.

I bought our tix and the kid taking my money said "how many" and I said "six" and he said, "how many kids?" and I whispered, "none."

Oh, well, what can you do?

sigh.  I have work, so I can't go home to see it.  I don't wanna go by myself (children drive me crazy, and if I don't have folks to complain to, I won't enjoy myself).  I'm going to have to wait 'til Thanksgiving weekend to see it, and then I'm going to have to convince people to see it for the second time.  This stupid movie better be #### good, for all this.  At least I don't have to worry about anyone spoiling the ending.

Through a divine twist of fate I got sneaked in to a preview screening tonight. What's really odd is that for a movie that's selling out shows days in advance, there were a lot of empty seats in the theater. I mean, these people won tickets and didn't bother to show up?

Anyway, point is - yes yes yes yes yes! I don't want to give stuff away but I will say that considering how much they had to cut it still held pretty true. My friend hasn't read the book(s) but she was only confused by one little part. I have to say that considering the near-constant special effects, what really made the movie for me was the acting by all the kids. Every single one was so spot-on (except I'd pictured Neville as blonde). On the other hand, Snape was so over-the-top as to be hysterical rather than menacing. But there were some scary things.

And I know I'm so in the minority on this, but I find the whole "surround sound" thing to be so distracting - I always think it's someone behind me making noise.

That worries me a bit.  I want Snape to be menacing and ambiguous/dark.

But okay.  No more on this thread from me until I see it Sunday.  rmd and I have tickets to see it at a premium theater, which will be a new experience for me.  They serve you dinner and everything.

In the meantime... are the actors underpaid? I'd say almost certainly, but I expect most of them will get a chance to renegotiate before movie 3 (this story would seem to imply that their contracts cover the first two).

(Edited by Claudia at 1:59 pm on Nov. 16, 2001)

Oh, yikes.  I hope the WB bad blood doesn't hurt the casting possibilities for future films.

Well, I guess I'll weigh in with my review.  

I was kind of disappointed.  While the plot was faithful to the book, keeping in nearly every action element, so much of the details, the quirkiness, the texture of the book that makes Harry's world so wonderful, is missing.  I really liked most of the performances, particularly Hermione, Ron and Hagrid but was sort of disappointed with Harry and Dumbledore.  But what I really felt was wrong was that there was never a sense of a larger world outside of Harry and his two friends.  You never had a sense of the other students, of the school-wide antagonism towards Slytherin, of any other characters besides Harry, Ron, Hermione and a little bit of Neville.  The film seemed to be in such a hurry going from event A to event B that it rarely stopped to wonder and amuse and explore more of this world.  It goes from event A to event B very competently but not very interestingly.  There's one brief scene where Harry walks with Hedwig out in the snow and then she takes off and the camera follows her through the air and it's a lovely moment where we can just enjoy the scenery and get a sense of life but it's a rare moment.  I will say that the movie flew by, it never dragged for me, and I laughed out loud a couple of times but I was kind of disappointed.  And I think had I never read the books, I wouldn't have been as disappointed but I also wouldn't have been able to get very much from the film.  It comes off as a very cookie-cutter big-budget kid movie but doesn't capture the imagination the way the books do or the way a great movie does.

I liked the movie, but I know what you're talking about, Aberdeen. It wasn't a cheer-at-the-end movie, though it was well done. I think the problem was just time, they couldn't fit everything in, it was already 2-1/2 hrs. Plus, many of the other kids characters are really developed more in the later books, but I missed seeing more of the classes.

I thought Snape was just right, but then I adore Alan Rickman. He even seemed sort of sexy, and that definitely didn't happen in the book! I thought Dumbledore was a bit off too. He was a little too nice. The kid that played Harry did a nice job, very understated. Loved Ron Weasley and Hermione was right on the money.

Ron was AWESOME!!! Hermione tended to annoy me slightly with her over pronounciation. Harry was okay. Maggie Smith - well, the woman's a goddess. As for Robbie Coltrane? Love him. Hated the kid playing Draco, but that was probably the point.

I totally think he was the best thing in the #### movie. It really was VERY faithful to the book, which was both great and a little bad. I wasn't bored, but it was a little wrong. The set design and the look were incredible. I've sung in Durham Cathedral (I think where the dining hall scenes were filmed) and they really couldn't have chosen nicer places to film. It really did look incredible.

I loved it dearly. But I have to agree that perhaps if I hadn't read the books it would have been better.

I'm also in love with Sean Biggerstaff (Oliver Wood), though I feel really icky at the knowledge that he's only 18. But whatever. He's a cutie. And Scottish to boot.

(Edited by Ginni at 11:45 pm on Nov. 20, 2001)

Mmm, Alan Rickman.  Yeah, I thought he was pretty dead on.

I loved the movie, but it was missing something.  I guess that's just what happens with book-to-screen adaptations.  

I wonder who's going to play Dobby in the next one?  Heh.

I thought Oliver Wood was a hottie too! I'm relieved to hear that he's at least 18. He has a wonderful, melting accent.

Huh.  I was pretty disappointed.  It felt like they'd aimed it squarely at kids.  I wasn't really expecting that.  Also, they left out a lot of the details that I'd enjoyed so much, like Lee's color commentary of the Quidditch match,and Hagrid's anger when he finds out that the Dursley's have been keeping Harry's past from him.  Also, what was the point of introducing the dragon at all?  It wasn't painful to sit through or anything, but I was definitely fidgeting.

On the other hand, Robbie Coltrane and Alan Rickman rock my whole world, and the guy who played Argus Filch was just delicious.  I hope they give him more to do in the next movie.  And, wordy mc word word on Sean Biggerstaff.  Yum!  I am such an unabashed sucker for that accent.

Aw... he's so splendidly Scottish, too.

*sigh*

'Tis indeed a wunnerful accent.  And he's a cutie, too.

I'm finding the ones I remember most fondly are Ron Weasley and Draco Malfoy, though.  And of course Snape is in a category by himself.

My mother didn't recognize John Cleese or John Hurt until we identified them for her afterwards.  I swear sometimes I think I can't possibly be related to that woman.[1]  ;-)  I mean, the whole *theater* recognized John Cleese.

[1] This is not meant to cast aspersions on anyone who didn't recognize him, but rather to say that I know my British actors, by gum!

(Edited by Claudia at 12:54 am on Nov. 26, 2001)

I've seen it!  Well, I liked it quite a bit, certainly much more than the people I went with who were all disappointed, but I suppose I wasn't blown away by it.  It pretty much delivered what I expected and did the job efficiently - I don't know that I ever felt for the characters much or got swept into the story, there were no real 'magical' moments.  But I certainly enjoyed it.

There was some dreadful over-acting - Hermione girl, particularly (gah, get back to stage school) and also, I thought, Maggie Smith.  And I was rather bemused by Robbie Coltrane's accent - wasn't part of the point of casting him that Hagrid's Scottish?  Still, since Oliver Wood seems to have become an Edinburgher, I'll overlook that.  

Ron and Harry were great, I thought.  I have such an inappropriate admiration for young Daniel.  And Ian Hart, who I've always liked, was really good too - he's a very talented actor.  I'm still looking forward to the second one, since not only do the books get deeper as they go on, there will be less explaining and set-up needed, so more quirkiness and more plot.

Maggie Smith, really?  Do you have particular examples?

I agree about Hermione, and I blame it on the director.  That's the sort of thing directors ought to rein in and provide, well, direction about, but I have no indication Chris Columbus is capable of doing that.

Well, the only example I can think of is in the first scene where she says 'something something  - - HARRY POTTER' with a sort of archly exaggerated delivery.  But although she's clearly an excellent actress, I dunno, I just thought she was a bit mannered in this.  But then Prof. MacGonagall is a bit arch, so maybe that's okay.  And it didn't make me wince to hear her in the way that everything Hermione said made me hugely uncomfortable.  Yes, happy to blame Chris Columbus.

Oh, I thought Hermione was adorable.  Her personality in the books is over the top and I thought the performance conveyed that just fine.  I was distracted by her hair, however.  No way is that frizzy, bushy hair.  It had quite obviously been crimped and fluffed up by a hairdresser to make it appear bushier but I never believed in it.  

And I know from frizzy hair, let me tell you.

Hermione overacted like a monkey on laughing gas. She was far too aware of her own cutesiness and far too determined to push it as far as possible. She is going to grow up into a terrifying adult.

Not having read the book, I had a good time but it turned out suprisingly forgettable.

See, I'd heard all this stuff about Hermione overacting and Ron being this scene-stealing whiz kid, but I pretty much thought that all three of the child actors were working at about a Disney channel Friday night movie level, with each having better and worse moments.  After a while it stopped bugging me, because I got used to the idea that someone had attacked their scripts with a highlighter.

Ron was the cutest, and Harry had better lines, though, so in the final analysis, Hermione comes out a bit the poorer.  Also, she was not supposed to be that pretty.  She's supposed to be one of those librarian-with-a-bun girls who walk around all Plain Jane and then one day blossoms.  This girl was already Miss Adorable Britain.

I said the exact same thing right when I came out of the movie.

I decided to wait for final judgment till I watched it again because I spent the entire first viewing going "that's not how that happened, and that's different, and they left that out!"  Seeing it the second time I was able to relax and I enjoyed it immensely.  Way more than the first time.

Ananda, I too loved Filch, and the character has a bigger role in the second book so hopefully he will in the movie also.

Main things I'm annoyed they left out or changed?  Well for one the almost complete lack of Fred and George who are my favorite characters.  The afforementioned Lee Jordan commentary lackage.  Seamus all of a sudden being a walking disaster.  (What the #### was the point of that?  Why wasn't it Neville?  If you want to show more characters give him his own personality, don't steal Neville's.)  My second favorite line in the book, when the kids fall into the Devil's snare and Hermione realizes that she needs to defeat it with heat.

Ron:  So light a fire!
Hermione:  (panicking) But there's no wood!
Ron:  Have you gone mad?!  Are you a witch or not?!
Hermione:  Oh yeah.

Later

Ron:  Lucky Harry doesn't lose his head in a crisis.  "There's no wood."  Honestly!

Also, I really wanted Hermione to hug Harry before he goes off to face Quirrell just to see the look of terror on Harry's face.

Overall I thought the performances were great.  I too was drooling over Oliver Wood, and I just adore little Draco Malfoy.  That kid has charisma.  Good thing that Ron and Hermione have good chemistry too since they're going to fall in luuuurve.  

They so are.  But if Harry can't do better than that ninny Ginny (not our one!) or personality-free Cho, then bah.

The main thing I missed was not seeing so much of his grim life with the Dursleys.  It's not that I'm so fond of those scenes - by book 4, they're getting pretty repetitive - but they're important because otherwise Harry is just a little too perfect and successful.  I mean, he's famous, he always triumphs, he's rich, he's a star Quidditch player, etc, etc - we need to see him not always having things his own way if we're not going to hate his guts.  And I'm not sure if the film established this enough, but someone who'd not read the books would have to comment.

Sneaker, I'm pretty sure Neville was the walking disaster.  He just looked a lot like the kid playing Seamus.  I could be wrong.  (Neville looked nothing like I'd imagined him.  I always saw him as small and blond, not bulky and dour.)

It was definitely not Neville who kept exploding the end of his wand, though.

Just saw it again and it's definitely Seamus who explodes things. Why him? I don't know. He and Neville look a bit alike, but Seamus is smaller.

I agree with Sneak (big surprise) - I liked it a lot more the second time. I guess I was busy comparing it to the book the first time. The second time around I got more wrapped up in it and really enjoyed it.

Rupert Grint is adorable.  Still loveing the kid who plays Oliver Wood.

I finally got around to seeing this. I thoroughly enjoyed the first hour, thinking how amazing and engaging it was to see all this stuff come to life. Then, of course, there were nearly two more hours. It did drag a bit.

Like you guys, I detested Hermione. And while the wee actor playing Ron did a really good job, he just wasn't Ron to me. Didn't look right... I imagined Ron a lot more beanpoleyer and with more hair and less of a flat face. (I suspect my Ron is pretty American...) Daniel Radcliffe was really tremendous, though. What a cutie, and he emotes well. He was the closest to being the character for me, though I thought of Harry as having browner hair.

Still, it was fun. I didn't feel like I was in a kids' movie. And I'd forgotten enough about the first book to give it suspense.

Also, is it me, or were 80 percent of the actors in that movie Scottish? What gives?

Hogwarts is supposed to be in Scotland.  It doesn't say so in the books, but if you work out how long the train journey from King's Cross takes and things like the surrounding countryside (the overhead scenes of the train were filmed here), then that's the best guess.  I think JK Rowling has actually confirmed this.  Oddly, the way Hagrid's speech is transcribed (at least in the British edition) made me assume he was Scottish as well, which I thought was why they cast Robbie Coltrane - obviously not, though.

Well, I saw it again and I also enjoyed it more the second time.  Once you know exactly what to expect, it's easier to appreciate what you get.  I still don't think it's a great movie but it's enjoyable.

Hey, I still liked Hermione.  One of the reasons may be that I recently listened to the audio books, read by Jim Daley.  He does an amazing job with most of the characters and I highly recommend the tapes to everyone (they're also unabridged, which is very nice).  My only big problem with him, in fact, was his rendition of Hermione.  He makes her too fussy and too high-pitched girly and kind of weak sounding.  Maybe that's why I liked the actress in the movie, becuase I felt like she played Hermione as a strong personality while still retaining her eccentricities.  

Huh - interesting.  The tapes here are read by Stephen Fry, who's very good.  In fact, he should be cast as someone in one of the sequels, I think.

Do any professors get introduced in later books other than the Dark Arts instructors?  For a second I thought, hey, he *was* in it, but then realized I was flashing on his role in Gormenghast.

Well, the only major one I can think of is Professor Sibyll Trelawny, the doom-predicting divination teacher.  I suppose he could wear drag!

(I really wish Alastair Sim was still around to be in these films)

*laugh*  Oh dear.  Somehow, I can see him doing that.

Nothing wrong with being an Edinburgher, Pandrea!! Heh...

Hermione did annoy me. I'm still going to see it again, and I'm soooo owning it on DVD the day it comes out, but every time I've had to describe it to someone, I've used the words "Astounding" and "amazing". I have tempered it with "Exact to the book" and explained that if you've read it, you might be slightly disappointed.

Oliver Wood. Mmmm...

uh, can someone remind me who Seamus is? As in, what's his character in the book? I don't recall him. I thought that the exploding wand kid WAS Neville. Huh.

Seamus is the Irish kid in Ron and Harry's dorm.  It's Harry, Ron, Neville, Seamus, and Dean (who is black, American, and artistic).  Seamus is pretty much just Irish.

Huh?  When did it ever say that Dean is American or artistic?

Am I confused?  I thought Dean was the one who was always painting their Whee!! Gryffindor banners.  I could be wrong, it's happened before.  I'm not sure why I thought he was American.  I take it back.

Maybe because he likes soccer?  

Can any Uk readers confirm if in the British version the sport Dean likes is called football?  (That is what you brits call soccer, right?)

(Edited by SNeaker at 8:52 pm on Dec. 4, 2001)

Yup.  That's football, your thing is American football (because ours was first, so yah).  

Ok, but is that what it says Dean likes?

I think they all refer to it as soccer, in the American version.  I think what confused me was a scene where Dean shrugs at something the rest of the kids take very seriously, because he doesn't know what it means.  It actually refers to him being Muggle-born, not American. So, I take it back again.  Dean is black, likes soccer (West Ham, I think), and is good at drawing.  And that's it.

Sorry for the confusion.  Yes, it does say football in the British editions; soccer would sound weird.  And of course, it's Philosopher's Stone throughout, and in the film - I presume they shot two versions of the scenes where it's referred to by name, as the American one must have them say Sorceror's.

I wondered that too, Pandrea. Or perhaps every time the word "philosopher/sorcerer" is mentioned we don't actually see the person's mouth moving, so it could've just been dubbed differently. I'd see it again to check myself... but I don't think I will.

Nope, Entertainment Weekly explained that they shot two versions of every scene that referred to the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone. Makes me wonder if they were exactly the same. Maybe they'll be DVD extras.

I read somewhere that they really did shoot the scenes with dialogue about the stone twice.  I guess they had to work around the publisher's decision to change the name for American distribution.  So silly.  You'd think America is just one big kid's table.

(Edited by Ananda at 1:58 pm on Dec. 5, 2001)