Jump to content

Rate "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"!


MSM

  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Score.

    • 5 stars
      11
    • 4.5 stars
      6
    • 4 stars
      6
    • 3.5 stars
      1
    • 3 stars
      1
    • 2.5 stars
      1
    • 2 stars
      0
    • 1.5 stars
      0
    • 1 star
      3
    • I am not familiar with this score.
      0
  2. 2. Movie.

    • 5 stars
      1
    • 4.5 stars
      1
    • 4 stars
      7
    • 3.5 stars
      5
    • 3 stars
      8
    • 2.5 stars
      2
    • 2 stars
      1
    • 1.5 stars
      0
    • 1 star
      4
    • I am not familiar with this movie.
      0


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Score: 5. A truly excellent film score that, while not without flaws, simply blows me away with the number of things it does right. Probably the last all-new Williams score to capture the general public's attention.

Movie: 4. I'm very sentimental about it. Aside from that, it ain't bad...I think Columbus' direction worked loads better for this than for COS. As a rather young fan of the books, I was pretty happy with the film when it came out in 2001.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Score: 4.5. One of the best.

Indeed. I'd almost start using indy4's silly quarters and give it a 4.75.

I'll give the movie a 3. I loved it when it first came out, but it's aged very badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Score: 5. Up there with Williams' best. And among his most sophisticated leitmotif scores.

Movie: 4. Although 3.5 or perhaps even 3 would be more appropriate. But as the first Potter movie, it's still somewhat special to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 stars for the score. I wish there was a complete score release as this music, while the album is decent, really needs to be heard in its full form to do it justice in all respects. So much magical music in this score which was left off the album. But what we have on the album presents most of thr highlights.

4 stars for the movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A complete release would be nice. At least most of the unreleased material rips pretty cleanly from the DVD. The material for the entry into the Great Hall (and tracked for Diagon Alley) is a particularly sad omission from the OST...I specifically hoped it would be on there and I was pretty disappointed when it wasn't. And the Forbidden Forest music is so incredible. Anyone who thinks Doyle and Hooper moved the franchise in a "darker" direction should seriously take a listen to the stuff Williams was already coming up with!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes. The statement of the first part of Voldemort's theme (or the you know-who-theme) in that scene is absolutely chilling.

Anyway, 5 stars for the score and 3 stars for the movie which I agree, hasn't aged very well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four stars for the score (which is strong, but not really fresh) and 3 for the movie (adequate, but completely bland).

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now really, we are all adults here. Could we stop using the ugly and incorrect title 'Sorcerer's Stone'?

I mean Philosopher's Stone is the rightful and original title. And it is American english too (there are not 'British' Words).

Why do people complain about films changing names (SW OT, Raiders), despising dubbing, new film cuts and all the things that change an original work and live so happily with an Americanised name of the harry potter book, and not feel insulted in some way since it was just dumbed down in order to american childs having a more appealing name than one of the Old World Legends*.

*And sorry, but killing a child's opportunity to pick an enciclopedia and satiate his/her curiosity searching what the Philosopher stone was is just wrong.

I just dont know why i write this, :blink: must be european pride or something...

4 for the score, 1 for the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Score: 4

Movie: 2

I've never been a big fan of the movie, and I maintain to this day that Columbus was the completely wrong choice for director. He can work with children, but I don't think he's got the imagination for a big fantasy movie.

The score has a very special place, and it was one of the first I heard in my first days of film score interest. Strangely though, as much as I clamour for a complete release, all the good unreleased stuff can be extracted from the DVD, and there's even some reused on the CoS OST.

I don't think either has aged well though. I'm not a fan of the action music outside the quidditch match and there's a lot of sappy stuff that doesn't really work for me. Actually, I sometimes wonder why I clamour for a complete release, especially with all the tracking in the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the darker material was left of the CD too, it gives the score much more of a balance. It wasn't until I heard it complete that I really appreciated how great it is. As Datameister said, most of the unreleased material rips pretty cleanly. In fact I'd say it's the best DVD rip I've heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this might be Chris Columbus's best movie to date...

I'd go for HOME ALONE, although writing wise, GREMLINS.

I don't really like HP&TPS at all. The best thing about seeing it was that it was preceded by the awesome final FOTR trailer. 1.5 for the film, score has some nice bits but I haven't listened to it on its own enough to be able to rate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these days people tend to be too harsh with movies if they don't offer some new and spectacular gimmick...

HP & PP is just a visually compelling, wonderfully acted, very faithful adaption of the novel. Old-fashioned story-telling. Oh, and magnificently scored, too. I loved every minute of it--it's an adventure that takes you back to your childhood.

(I certainly enjoy this more than, say, HOOK.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these days people tend to be too harsh with movies if they don't offer some new and spectacular gimmick...

HP & PP is just a visually compelling, wonderfully acted, very faithful adaption of the novel. Old-fashioned story-telling. Oh, and magnificently scored, too. I loved every minute of it--it's an adventure that takes you back to your childhood.

(I certainly enjoy this more than, say, HOOK.)

I agree it was very faithful, but I don't think that was a good thing as the book is the weakest of those I've read of the series. It just bored me to tears and all seemed very "cute" with little to no substance to back it up. Kind of like a kid's version of a Guy Ritchie movie.

Frankly, my childhood had much better books and movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these days people tend to be too harsh with movies if they don't offer some new and spectacular gimmick...

HP & PP is just a visually compelling, wonderfully acted, very faithful adaption of the novel. Old-fashioned story-telling. Oh, and magnificently scored, too. I loved every minute of it--it's an adventure that takes you back to your childhood.

(I certainly enjoy this more than, say, HOOK.)

I agree it was very faithful, but I don't think that was a good thing as the book is the weakest of those I've read of the series. It just bored me to tears and all seemed very "cute" with little to no substance to back it up. Kind of like a kid's version of a Guy Ritchie movie.

Frankly, my childhood had much better books and movies.

Well, I remember Chris Columbus once said he made a conscious decision to make it as faithful to the source material as possible... because the novel was so much beloved. Afterwards, it's easy to say that novel was the weakest of them all. After all, if it weren't for the success of that original, it wouldn't have evolved into such a mega franchise.

It bored you to tears, OK. But millions of fans the world over were entranced with it. And I gotta admit, I was one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afterwards, it's easy to say that novel was the weakest of them all. After all, if it weren't for the success of that original, it wouldn't have evolved into such a mega franchise.

It's success was already guaranteed before a frame of film was shot because of the books. I don't think the quality of the film had that much to do with it. As long as it didn't suck and provided hope for the next movies. The same, to a degree, can be said for the first LOTR. Coupled with the great trailers, the fact that it was a big budget adaptation of a much loved novel guaranteed it was going to bring in megabucks, even if it was terrible (which it wasn't, thankfully). You can also apply the same logic to TPM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afterwards, it's easy to say that novel was the weakest of them all. After all, if it weren't for the success of that original, it wouldn't have evolved into such a mega franchise.

It's success was already guaranteed before a frame of film was shot because of the books. I don't think the quality of the film had that much to do with it. As long as it didn't suck and provided hope for the next movies. The same, to a degree, can be said for the first LOTR. Coupled with the great trailers, the fact that it was a big budget adaptation of a much loved novel guaranteed it was going to bring in megabucks, even if it was terrible (which it wasn't, thankfully). You can also apply the same logic to TPM.

Yes, I pretty much agree.

Still, if a lesser director had made the PS, the critics might have bashed it, and that could have hurt the sequels. But Chris Columbus delivered a product that pleased the fans and critics alike... granted, he didn't take many chances, but that's okay with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Chris Columbus delivered a product that pleased the fans and critics alike... granted, he didn't take many chances, but that's okay with me.

Yeah, that would have to wait until Alfonso Cuaron took over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four stars for the score (which is strong, but not really fresh) and 3 for the movie (adequate, but completely bland).

We should close the thread after this statement. Nothing needs to be added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Score: 4.5. One of the best.

Indeed. I'd almost start using indy4's silly quarters and give it a 4.75.

:)

I'll give the score a 5 and the film a 3.5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now really, we are all adults here. Could we stop using the ugly and incorrect title 'Sorcerer's Stone'?

I mean Philosopher's Stone is the rightful and original title. And it is American english too (there are not 'British' Words).

Why do people complain about films changing names (SW OT, Raiders), despising dubbing, new film cuts and all the things that change an original work and live so happily with an Americanised name of the harry potter book, and not feel insulted in some way since it was just dumbed down in order to american childs having a more appealing name than one of the Old World Legends*.

*And sorry, but killing a child's opportunity to pick an enciclopedia and satiate his/her curiosity searching what the Philosopher stone was is just wrong.

I have to agree there. It's like the title of the original German translation to The Hobbit. For some reason, they thought it good to change it to The Little Hobbit.

1 for the film.

It's still a better film than Jurassic Park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now really, we are all adults here. Could we stop using the ugly and incorrect title 'Sorcerer's Stone'?

I mean Philosopher's Stone is the rightful and original title. And it is American english too (there are not 'British' Words).

Why do people complain about films changing names (SW OT, Raiders), despising dubbing, new film cuts and all the things that change an original work and live so happily with an Americanised name of the harry potter book, and not feel insulted in some way since it was just dumbed down in order to american childs having a more appealing name than one of the Old World Legends*.

*And sorry, but killing a child's opportunity to pick an enciclopedia and satiate his/her curiosity searching what the Philosopher stone was is just wrong.

I just dont know why i write this, :lol: must be european pride or something...

This is why:

Why do people complain about films changing names (SW OT, Raiders), despising dubbing, new film cuts and all the things that change an original work and live so happily with an Americanised name of the harry potter book...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what's all the fuss about the title.

The title is the least important thing about the movie. Obviously, it was retitled for the US release because the editors thought it might sell more copies that way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what's all the fuss about the title.

The title is the least important thing about the movie. Obviously, it was retitled for the US release because the editors thought it might sell more copies that way...

Just like in the UK, Star Trek IV was known as THE VOYAGE HOME: STAR TREK IV. Like they were embarassed that it was a Trek flick and thought that it wouldn't sell as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer Chris Columbus' movies to the shrunken heads, muted/filtered colors and generally poor adaptations that followed.

So do I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah well, let's retitle Return of the Jedi to Return of the Ninjas, because Americans don't know what Jedis are.

:lol:

Or how 'bout the Presbyterian church?

sw12.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, if a lesser director had made the PS, the critics might have bashed it, and that could have hurt the sequels. But Chris Columbus delivered a product that pleased the fans and critics alike...

I don't think critics 'liked it'. They were just blasé about it because it's a movie which is generally critic-proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: The movie was praised by most critics, period.

In a warped reality where 'Hook' and 'Jurassic Park' reign supreme, that even might be true. Outside of a Williams fanboard, i doubt many people give that stuff much credence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: The movie was praised by most critics, period.

In a warped reality where 'Hook' and 'Jurassic Park' reign supreme, that even might be true. Outside of a Williams fanboard, i doubt many people give that stuff much credence.

You realize I'm not expressing my personal opinion, like you. The movie was praised by most critics, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: The movie was praised by most critics, period.

In a warped reality where 'Hook' and 'Jurassic Park' reign supreme, that even might be true. Outside of a Williams fanboard, i doubt many people give that stuff much credence.

You realize I'm not expressing my personal opinion, like you. The movie was praised by most critics, period.

No Josh, it wasn't. It was accepted for what it was. A quick IMDB survey will show you that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: The movie was praised by most critics, period.

In a warped reality where 'Hook' and 'Jurassic Park' reign supreme, that even might be true. Outside of a Williams fanboard, i doubt many people give that stuff much credence.

You realize I'm not expressing my personal opinion, like you. The movie was praised by most critics, period.

No Josh, it wasn't. It was accepted for what it was. A quick IMDB survey will show you that much.

Ahhh that's where you get all your info. That explains it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rotten Tomatoes's summary: "Being so faithful to the book is both the movie's strength and weakness. The movie unfolds exactly as written in the book, so there is little room for surprises or discoveries. For Potter fans, what more can you ask for?". It is rather lukewarm, if you ask me.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give the score 4.5, although in the past I think I went with a 4. Williams pulls out his Hook / Home Alone bag to craft a solid fun score.

With the exception of the music, I could care less about HP, but I'll give the film a 3. Solid acting by the adult stars carries adull film with weak visual effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rotten Tomatoes's summary: "Being so faithful to the book is both the movie's strength and weakness. The movie unfolds exactly as written in the book, so there is little room for surprises or discoveries. For Potter fans, what more can you ask for?". It is rather lukewarm, if you ask me.

Karol

According to RT, 78% of critics gave it a positive review. That's all you need to be said.

Now, if you personally had a lukewarm impression of the movie, fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.