Reviews

i checked out the show, to be honest, for the reason you might expect. and for that purpose i was pretty disappointed. but i'm not entirely crass and i continued watching. now i'm a cinephile who doesn't make a lot of time for TV shows, but this was a truly terrific achievement.

this is a top shelf, highbrow, a-class, quality show for intelligent people almost exclusively. the characters are well-developed, and backed by nuanced performances. the dialogue rings true, never TV-like at all. and the story arcs are present without that pesky soap-opera feeling.

on top of that, the shot selection and cinematography are freewheeling and experimental(sometimes to a fault-as in the rotating camera in the Chinese restaurant-but no matter). the show is more than worth an hour out of my week.

that damn theme song however is the worst. so ham-handed and silly, ugh. it practically undoes all the subtlety of the show when it wails "this is the way that we live!!" not to mention that awful list of verbs in the middle. and such a long song too! that and the sometimes equally obtuse selection of music for the soundtrack is the worst bit.

There are two things weighing this movie down for most everyone (everyone snobby anyway). there is a) the fact that it's based on a comic book to which it is disloyal, and b) the fact that keanu reeves is in it.

to address a: i'm sure the comic "hellblazer" is terrific and don't let me be the one to tell you not to bother with comics, it's just that i'm a movie-oriented person, and the movie constantine was pretty good regardless of what might have been different, or even better in this comic i never read.

to address b: ho ho he sounds like a surfer. ho ho he's an airhead. that was funny to say back in 1992, but he's had a long tenure acting and he's not bad at it. just lay off the man and enjoy the movies.

the rest is all just a fairly good action movie. there are several real eye catchers like a guy getting hit by a car in the beginning, with unexpected results. the exorcism. some other stuff later.

there's an appearance at the end by a character and actor you probably won't expect(unless you check the cast in advance). i was delighted by both.

the action isn't all-out guns blaring brainless junk. it's more subdued and there's a lot of time between these scenes. sometimes there was a feeling of void where more action might go, just to balance out the deliberately slow pace. one more scene would have probably done it.

and sometimes it does feel kind of silly, but hey that's what you're paying for.

i rated this a 4. i don't normally watch anything of this caliber, so it's not every day i dish out a 4/10 rating. but oh what a pile this was.

first of all i had trouble finding it because i had no idea what it was called and the year threw me off. the look of the film seems to date it around 1990, but it's ten years newer than that. for a 2000 film it looks awful.

moving on, what a stupid idea. a couple meets the older versions of themselves. shmaltz ensues. the goal of the movie seems to be to provide smooth transitions from one cliché to another, then another, repeat ad nauseum.

despite my contempt for it however, it held my attention fast. i felt stupid for that and still do. i suppose though that that's the idea of lowbrow garbage like this (yes lowbrow; it's not crude, but it still appeals to the lowest common denomenator), you just watch with your mouth open while your brain falls out unnoticed.

if you're fond of the status quo and don't like challenging yourself, this padding should keep your senses occupied for long enough to be bombarded with 20 tampon commercials.

enjoy.

i have to say i didn't care for this, and it's not because i get off on seeking out supposedly great movies and complaining about them. usually i agree with critical acclaim. in this case i think the films is hugely overrated. the screenplay, while intelligent, is nothing but a string of well-written angry monologues. i have only so much patience for this in a linear movie.

the story is not meant to be realistic. the satire is cartoonish and absurd if you think too hard about it, and i'm guessing my qualms with the style of storytelling weren't helped along by the fact that i didn't believe the story (satire or not).

so what it ends up being is a scathing look at the way they made TV shows back before i was born, and could not yet have made the decision to not watch TV shows anyway.

to the 20 and under crowd, i don't think this movie has anything to offer you, despite the critical BJs it receives in this and so many other forums.

it wasn't what i expect and i guess that was the problem. i guess it seemed compelling because of the really serious, and polished-looking cover art.

well it's not serious, and it's not polished; it's shot on video. it's a lot of killing zombies, and i think there might have been characters in there, but i might be wrong. yes i can be, and am wrong. it was just zombie-killing.

and there's a place for movies like that. so i'm not complaining i suppose.

uh, enjoy.

Super Troopers has little going for it. It's got a cast of amateurs with no comic timing plus genius, Brian Cox in a role of which, frankly, he should be ashamed. Cox can play comedy, in the subdued "Rushmore" he gets some of the biggest laughs. His role is strictly by the numbers and makes way for the aimless comic flailing and groping of Broken Lizard.

they stick mainly to the obvious. drug references: funny. loud voices: funny. occasionally they land on something worth a laugh. when the cop peeks his head around the car to fit in one final compulsory "meow," i laughed. i also laughed at the entire bar of soap in the guy's coffee. i also had to contain my anger as the remaining hour and ten minutes didn't have a single laugh.

willfilly being shot in the crotch isn't funny, but the concept yields itself to any number of approaches that would have been. as a method of interrogation it might have been funny... something like that.

but most offensive to comedy everywhere is the group of stoners making the worst possible pot jokes on the planet. "the snozberries taste like snozberries" has to go down as the worst, most unnecessary reference to another movie in history.

in conclusion i hate it. and i hate you.

The trouble with The Village, as I suspected would be the case is that it's being sold as a horror movie starring Joaquin Phoenix. Didn't the bro population realize when tiffany didn't jump terrified onto their crotches during Signs that the sixth sense guy doesn't really make horror movies? He makes M. Night Shyamalan movies, which are a different thing.

Now… the movie was good. That said, I think you're all going to hate it.

Yes it's centered around a huge plot twist AGAIN, like you're hoping. And yes, I like the twist. What I like about it is that it prompts discussion afterward, and because it makes you go back and reprocess everything, and because the buildup to it is thrilling, it works.

Again an important note is there's a brief maybe ten minutes of the film where you think the twist has happened and there seems to be no point in watching the movie. In order to survive this part I'll tell you in advance (no spoilers) that the movie flounders (At the point where Michael Pitt chickens out), but sort of recovers when it explains what the deal is.

But the problem around this point is it really feels like it's being explained. And not only that but the plot doubles back in time and has totally unnecessary voice-over bits that really give the feeling of a drunk guy telling a story, leaving an important part out and then going `before I tell this next part, I forgot to tell you that…' Then the developments unfold in such a way that the writer's hand is clearly visible, thumping a few really clunky plot devices together and they don't quite fit (for later reference I mean Adrien Brody and what's under the floorboards, for one thing) but when it's over I smile I grin and I walk out of the theater because the twist got me, kind of.

So what you know about the plot is that people in the village are afraid of some kind of creatures in the woods. Now, knowing what you know you'll probably almost start to guess the plot twist correctly… that's why I said it got me kind of.

Of course the other reason it works is because Night is so well-versed in the tricks of the trade. His moves all give the sense that you're being manipulated in every way imaginable and having a good time at it. He takes all the tricks, the frustrating camera angles, slow reveals and explosive rack focuses and throws them all together so that rather than feel cheated you come to enjoy being tricked. That's the fun of his style.

And once again great casting fills in the space left by some of the plot holes. After this you'll be saying `Joaquin who?' yeah he's kind of forgettable in the movie but there's this actress, Bryce Dallas Howard (seeming WAY too old to be Ron Howard's daughter) who absolutely knocks it out the park as his blind love interest. A stellar blind performance: convincing without being cloying and begging for sympathy, yet strong without being a joke.

Adrien Brody is in it (who knew?) as the village idiot. He'll knock your socks off until the plot is in more way more control of the character than the actor is.

This is not the best example of what Shyamalan can do, in fact it's his worst so far, but it's valuable because since the plot is so transparent this time around, you can really study how his mind works.

the humor in this movie is like mixing "curb your enthusiasm" with "mr. show." that's probably a bad idea. and since those are a half hour show and a sketch show it's fairly clear that feature films are not the right format for it. even run ronnie run, the mr. show movie, changed the style of its humor a little.

but i love that kind of humor. and i loved this movie. though, sure i'm weird. so since i liked it, and i'm weird, does that make it good? i guess not.

christopher walken delivers a showstopping performance as the j man. he may actually have more screentime than jack black.

the story doesn't make any sense, and isn't supposed to.

i apologize for liking this movie.

i'm not going to try and convince anyone this is the best movies get. it's not. it's a little awkward toward the end, but then it ends with a "bang" and totally redeems itself.

but not even a 7.0 rating? are you joking? this is a GOOD movie. at the very LEAST it's a cute adventure if a little dark. i gague the value of movies like this (sometimes). anything with a 7.0 or better on this site is probably worth seeing. anything below that probably requires special interest in the subject matter to be VITAL. this movie is VITAL. it's practically the quintessential wierdass movie. i'm surprised, considering people's recent tolerence for quirkiness that this isn't on the top 250.

tell your friends to log their high votes for this movie and put rank it where it belongs, at least among gilliam's best.

I am a Cinephile and I do think "Kill Bill vol 1" is a fine movie. Like "The Dreamers" however, I can't see why become such rabid fans when most of them clearly don't get the references.

There is nothing wrong with not being an obsessed movie nerd like myself, in fact it's probably a healthier choice in most respects, but some movies are made for people who have seen a number of films past the 3,000 mark and this seems like one of them. But like "the dreamers" with it's overwhelming sexuality, it's got edginess on it's side: tons, and tons and tonsandtonsandtons of violence.

Every shot, character, line, theme and musical cue seems stolen from another movie. sometimes you can pinpoint the exact one, sometimes you can't, but it tends to keep you smiling and planning to tear into imdb when it's over. It's over-the-top (not an "epic" by any means as some have described it) and more importantly, doesn't take itself seriously, which would have been a tragic mistake. And certainly it is fun to watch... again especially if you think it's funny the way fragments of other movies are being subtly pieced together for comic value.

but plenty of people casually call this their favorite movie, but i submit that by combining a bunch of fragments of movies for the sake of doing so one cannot produce a whole greater than the sum of its parts.

a WORTHY 7/10

a concert pianist performs his piece by stepping on the piano-like lines of a crosswalk near royal albert hall. the street becomes his stage and the world, his audience. it's short, sweet, and worth a laugh or two.

p.s. i've always wanted to comment on one of these all-but-unknown shorts, and now i have. i can die happy.

First I should say that I saw an Oscar screener of this film, the unrated version, and I was glad I had the opportunity to consider it.

"The Cooler" is a delight. Pure and simple. It tells the story of the quintessential lovable loser falling in love with the proverbial hooker with a heart of gold, and even though you see everything coming a mile away you root for the good guys all the way through.

Macy is Bernie, "the cooler," a man with a knack for losing who's stuck in a rut. He's working off a debt by cooling tables, sitting next to people, or betting on their roulette games and radiating his bad luck onto them, insuring the house will make a profit. in short, Bernie is the ultimate loser.

He works for Shelly, played by a brilliant Alec Baldwin, a hardass casino tycoon who wants to keep his casino, the shangri-la, forerver in the days of vegas yore. Shelly is at first a sympathetic, albeit tough, boss. overtime his true colors shine through the vegas glitter he casts. and of course, in time, shelly gets what's coming to him.

Maria Bello breaks through as the love interest, the movie's lady luck. She's the gal who grabs Bernie by the heart and turns him from winner to loser. An Oscar nomination might be overdoing it a little for this role, but on the other hand it might usher a new actress into the spotlight.

Ron Livingston, Paul Sorvino, and Joey Fatone have memorable roles as well.

I watched "The Cooler" just minutes after seeing the devastating "21 Grams," and the stark contrast in ideologies may have contributed to its hokey, sentimental appeal. So check it out on a bad day when you need something to smile about.

the only good kind of melodrama is the kind that's just pretentious enough to be self-aware without turning into farce. here is a melodrama so unpretentious it fails to realize it is melodrama and actually expects me to take all this boo-hooing seriously, without rolling my eyes.

but i've started badly. the girl who plays the lead in this movie is excellent. she takes the material, however flawed i might think it is, and works wonders with it. for what it's worth, she makes the movie worth watching if anything does.

the teacher played by the guy i remember being the father in "the river wild" also proves he can act. so there, the performances were good.

now the story. in theory it's an interesting one, but played out i feel like telling these people to smile once in a while, and i'm no ray of sunshine myself. it can be argued this is necessary for the message of the movie... whatever that might be.

and now that i mention it the message is oddly feminist. this mysterious, semi-attractive teacher slowly builds a relationship with this girl, all the while resisting his own lechery, then at the end he becomes the sex-hungry beast all men apparently are at their cores. i found myself feeling more sorry for him, who gets humiliated, then for her, who can only seem to cry, ever, when all is said and done.

after the overrated "thirteen" and this masterpiece of after-school-special sentiment, i'm about fed up with teen-girl message movies for a while. why doesn't somebody make a movie centering around a previously virtuous high school teacher trying to resist and overpowering lust involuntarily seduced by a generation of britney-inspired teenage sex objects, instead of this sobbing feminist fluff?

"Le Pacte des loups" wasn't a bad movie i guess, but notice i say movie instead of the more dignified sounding "film". I work at a video store, and i regard the recommendations of some customers, highly, and most not at all. one of the more highbrow moviegoers who frequents, told me this was a great one and that she'd had to watch it five times when she rented it; it was that good.

so after months of glancing at it indecisively i took it home, gave it a fair chance, and to say the least i was underwhelmed. it tells a convoluted, probably fascinating tale that i probably would have focused on if i wasn't so involved in ridiculing the effects, which weren't bad, just jarringly misused.

it opens with a shot that travels through a closed window. why? because "look how cool! we can make a camera appear to travel through a closed window." this caused me to scoff after i'd been watching the movie for five seconds. this was followed by some weighty dialogue that will obviously pay off at the end. then almost immediately, another fancy effects shot of the sam raimi variety. it would have fit right into one of raimi's films because they aren't so serious (except the clumsily-titled - and scripted - "for love of the game").

what follows is a monster slash scene so goofy myself and my friend were completely distanced from the rest of the movie.

admittedly we sometimes used the "x2" feature on my dvd player which speeds up the action and sort of keeps playing the sound, to make time pass faster.

it's a sort of action-horror with costumes from amadeus, with martial arts fights thrown in because the director likes them, and hell. so do i.

we enjoyed realizing how many french films we'd seen because against all odds we recognized actors. phillipe nahom from gaspar noe's films. along with the lady from "insert french words i forgot here"("i stand alone") who gets punched in the stomach while she's pregnant and goes "mon bebe! mon bebe!" (not in "le pacte des lupes" in "i stand alone").

the best part of the movie is the cool scene in the brothel that has good performances and dialogue, and it quieted us down because there was sex going on.

at one point my friend said "this movie would like to be 'from hell'." and i contrasted by saying, "but it delivers 'the scorpion king'." neither of those movies are great or anything, but both know what they're trying to accomplish. this one just makes me wish i'd gotten "the grey zone" instead.

It was my friend's birthday. This DVD was her present, and her TV was HUGE, and the sound system was GREAT, so i said what the hell?

I'm not a fan of B horror movies, although I understand the novelty. I get why they appeal to some people, but they're just not what I look for in my escapist entertainment.

I expected shoddy camera work, bad acting (not that any awards should be given, far from it.), and a terrible script from a movie with such a title, but at least a guy got dragged by his intestines. At least there were four or five really cool, dynamic camera angles. At least I got to show off how much I know about movies when they talk about John Carpenter and Sam Raimi et al...

At times I felt sorry for them. They obviously were working with a very tight budget and some effects and things just didn't work out. In one scene there was fire, and the scene was obviously shot with no fire in the room. So I'm sure that during the shoot, the director told them "don't worry. I'll add the fire later. It'll look great." But he had no way of knowing it would look so terrible. It's not like he could re-shoot.

In the end, I was satisfied.

oh, but if you really want fun, check out Monkey Shines.

Mister Zombie has proven that he can run a film crew by directing his last I-don't-know-how-many videos, and now he has simply proven that he can make something longer.

Clearly, Rob Zombie is a born artist. A songwriter who designs his own album covers, directs his own videos, and now makes a film that is not only watchable, it's a blast. "House of 1000 corpses" is not an attempt to sell soundtracks, or jumpstart a pathetic second career; it's a bona fide film oozing with gleeful self-parody and affection for it's own material.

The plot follows a basic kids'-car-breaks-down, kids-get-stuck-and-end-up-getting-ripped- apart-by-psychos formula. The performances, especially Sid Haig's, are mostly over-the-top and fill the screen with all the energy needed to handle the disturbing material. Zombie's direction is like that of his videos: abrupt, colorful (sort of), and clearly a bit self-indulgent.

I question the casting by Zombie of his wife as one of the villians. the part was clearly written for her, and she plays it correctly. But her acting is (intentionally) annoying, and in movies like this, characters like hers should be repaid, usually by being killed, for annoying me. She isn't. Sure, this probably doesn't bother most people.

But generally you get what you want, a spectacle. Lot's of people getting killed, and lot's of screwy camera techniques.

And the very last second before the credits (the punctuation) made me laugh uncontrollably.

I absolutely loved "The Good Girl." I thought it was one of the best of the year. But I get this added bonus:

See, I work in a video store, and I love renting it to unsuspecting "chick flick" enthusiasts, expecting a mindless nights drivel, and then I get the delight of having them come back shocked and upset because "oh it was nothing like i expected. she's not a good girl, and it wasn't anything like 'picture perfect' starring her and kevin bacon."

no, no one expects for one second that it will be a human story, with characters, and genuine wit and insight, but it's great to see the confusion in their eyes.

"Rushmore" is a prime example of a movie about which you cannot answer the question "what is it about?" without boring someone to tears. This is because it's not what, but whom it's about that is important.

"Rushmore" is about Max Fischer, an impossibly ambitious high school student attending "one of the best schools in the country," according to his friend, steel tycoon herman blume. Max is involved in the greatest possible amount of extracurricular activities and athletics he can be in and still survive, let alone maintain decent grades. He does fall in love, but love is just yet another driving ambition for Max. Ultimately he comes to terms with his own limitations without succumbing to mediocrity. Max is my hero in the truest sense of the word.

You may not laugh at Rushmore, even though you'll find it in the comedy section. You especially won't laugh if you watch it alone. although you'll probably acknowledge that it's a comedy you may not be able to pick out one individual joke. I can't explain why I still love it so much, so this is meant as a warning: if you expect madcap laugh-out-loud funny, you may be sorely disappointed. I myself do laugh at Rushmore because I share that kind of sense of humor with the writers. It's not for everyone though. I judge people's personalities on whether or not they enjoy "Rushmore." If they don't, no big deal, but it's a girl I wouldn't marry her.

I intentionally didn't start by saying that "Rushmore" is my favorite film, because it often discredits a reviewer immediately. If you find that you enjoy it you may also find, as i did, that it is entertaining after numerous viewings, or in my case, viewing ad nauseum. I watch it at least once a week, and have for, i'd say, six months. although i've been watching it fairly regularly for three years this makes me crazy. i know.

A friend of mine watched the film for the first time not long ago. She told me that when she looked at Max, she saw me. I wouldn't intentionally pattern my life after a movie, but apparently it can happen.

See "Rushmore" whomever you are. If you hate it, you'll enjoy hating it. I know, because I've sat many people through it, and the discussions afterwards were at least worth their time. More likely though, if you bothered to read this entire review which was more about myself than the movie, you'll love it. "You'll love it," is not how I want to end this review so I'll lie in the next paragraph in case someone only reads the last line.

"Rushmore" features extended scenes of full frontal female nudity. There is a talking apple pie, and the word "schwing" is said more times than in any other movie.

Spider-Man is a movie that watches like the start of a franchise rather than a film of its own. We sit, watch, laugh a little, and leave happy, if a little less than satisfied.

I'll skip the plot synopsis, you already know.

Tobey McGuire makes great use of his famous face in creating the Peter Parker character. We love the fact that he is a dork in any role, and this is no exception. He is believable as a nerd, and his unmasked scenes are effective, and genuinely enjoyable. When he gets swept in to action is when we lose interest a little.

Kirsten Dunst gets the job done as Mary Jane, or M.J., her terrible androginous nickname in the movie. She can act, but doesn't need to try very hard to fill the role.

Willem Dafoe is surprisingly endearing when he needs to be, as the Green Goblin. He could have used a better mask though. Perhaps one that won't so obviously turn into a Halloween mask this fall.

The scenes with interaction between the main characters are nice, sweet, sometimes a little touching... blah blah blah.

When it comes to the action scenes, once the novelty wears off you almost forget you're watching anything. The fact that that you know you're mostly looking at a CGI Spider-Man shooting through New-New York (Post 9-11) doesn't help the movie keep your attention. But oh well that doesn't really repel audiences does it?

In the end you find that more than just the Twin Towers got changed. The people of New York emerge as the real heroes, awwww. And I didn't think it was possible to end it with an American flag, but director, Raimi, manages.

Fellowship of the Ring was not a bad film. On the contrary, in my head I have my own criteria for a good film and it met all of them. Also, I have criteria for a good interpretation from a novel; it met most of those. However, it would take several extra credit points, and a perfect score on my novel-interpretation-o-meter to be a GREAT film, let alone THE GREATEST FILM OF ALL TIME, as it has been voted by members of the IMDB.

First, the length; It didn't bother me. I'm not one of those who rules out a film because it's long.

Second, the interpretation; I love the book because I love hobbits. I like the idea of a journey this important being trusted to such simple creatures. And for the most part, this film gave me a hobbit fix, until toward the end, when the non-hobbit members of the fellowship were all the film seemed to care about. This didn't really take away from the storyline, but it took away from the emotion and hurt the theme a little. If you're not much of a reader, try this one for starters. It's pretty simple, although not Dr. Seuss, and it's got way deeper meaning than the film can hope for.

The direction; I really like the direction. The film is gorgeous, so much so that I, who am jaded by modern special effects, sometimes sat back in my chair and said "whoa." The shots that show all of Elron are breathtaking and the CGI used for the monsters in the cave gives me new hope in special effects. The creatures are more convincing, and what's more- cooler than any I've ever seen, And that's saying something.

All in all it's good. Just good. And I hope the people who proof read this will let me say that I wonder if the people at Warners distribution gave a little Christmas present to the IMDB webmaster that they hoped would help the site better interpret their ratings system if you get my drift.

Out of Sight is a brilliant little movie with big characters a nice plot to hold them, and though it's not a comedy, it has a couple jokes that are side-splitting.

Movies like this make me wish there was a broad acceptance of a little distinction of mine. I think people should view "films" differently from "movies". If you are like me you watch them in two states of mind; films tend to be driven by a theme and are a little bit of work to watch, but worth it. These are the really great works of cinema like Schindler's List and such. Movies are the ones where you relax and have fun, like The Rock, or Rush Hour or Big or something.

Well, anyways I wish other people thought like this because then i could give this a four star rating (out of four)on the scale for movies only. But there is none, so I can't give it a perfect rating because then it would be up there with Traffic and the like. But when it's Friday night after a long week and you just want to watch something to take your mind off it you don't want The Bridge on The River Kwai, you want Out of Sight.

imdb rating: 9/10

"Run Lola Run" is the embodiment of an action scene. It is essentially one action scene dissected and examined under a microscope, sounds terrible? It's not. The movie takes the first act to get used to and in that time you may be, as I was, a little put off by its quirks and its distinct foreign-ness, (American directors seldom put this much effort into an experiment.) but once I got settled into the rhythm I was able to sit back and enjoy the ride.

Lola has 20 minutes to get across town and save her boyfriend who is down 100,000 d-marks in dirty money and if she doesn't he'll be killed. That's the whole setup.

Mixed in are a whole lot of little touches by the writer/director that are the most fun parts, like when it tells the story of some insignificant person's life, as it is affected by the action in the movie, with 5 seconds of still pictures flashed in your face.

Hey, you ask, how can 20 minutes be the setup for an 85 minute movie? Well here's the films most interesting surprise; Don't read this if you don't want to be surprised. The film tries the action 3 times. It goes until it finds an outcome we're all happy with. I guess it's about how the smallest things can affect what happens, a good enough theme since only the action is important.

I saw this film at the first showing on opening day, not because it excited me THAT much but because my friend paid. I had read all the books not because I love that kind of book, but because I had a few long plane rides. My attitude toward this whole Harry Potter phenomenon is that it's a great way to get kids to read; the books are fun, but I don't think any of it reason for excitement. So the movie version, in my opinion, should bring something really special, after all it is a scapegoat from reading the books.

I was disappointed, however, to find that it was no more (nor less, mind) than it needed to be.

Director Chris Columbus, I am sure, was not an exciting choice for the producers. He has no style to speak of, which is appropriate, but boring. I don't expect the project to be handed to Darren Aronofsy, but it needed a little more "magic," if you will, behind the camera.

The effects were not disturbingly bad, but I for one am bored with computer effects. Animatronics are getting better just as are cgi effects, so maybe a few more of those could have replaced some of the more obvious cgi's.

The acting was fine, not great, except in the cases of Richard Harris as Dumbledore and the boy who played Draco Malfoy, the evil student. Those two are examples of exceptional acting.

The screenplay was generally loyal to the book. But as in Most instances of a book translation to film, the occasional interesting subplot must be sacrificed and some elements and characters that were truly vivid in the book are cut down to become vague plot catalysts such as Hagrid's character and the whole Sorcerer's (or Philosopher's) Stone wrap up.

Was I completely let down? No. It was a refresher course for the book since I read it a while ago. But by no means should it be an alternative to the book. I know kids are going to go ape poopy over it because there really isn't anything in it to let them down unless they are really snobby kids. I was just disappointed because I'm a snobby viewer.