Ebert & Roeper - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ต.ค. 2021
- Ebert and Roeper reviews a fantasy film "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", or in the UK, "The Philosopher's Stone" in November 16, 2001. Starring Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley, and Emma Watson as Hermione Granger.
It is based on J.K. Rowling's 1997 novel of the same name, and it is the first instalment of the Harry Potter film series, as I refer to it as the first chapter of the franchise. Both of them loved the film for the set pieces, visual effects, such as the Quidditch Stadium, music score, and great performances. Although, they pointed out that it might be a little scary for children.
I totally agree with Roger and Richard. I really loved this movie a whole lot when I had a amazing birthday as I turned 5 years old, after I did read a book as well. I praised Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson more. Though, I thought the action sequences was a incredible, in my opinion. Anyway, it was a terrific and fascinating film. A strongest recommendation for me on "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", and Happy 20th Anniversary!!!!
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) 4/4 👍👍👍👍
#siskelandebert #ebertandroeper #harrypotter #harrypotterandthesorcerersstone #20thanniversary
siskelebert.org/
I still remember going to see this movie when I was 7 having no idea what it was and leaving the theatre a lifelong fan
Love seeing contemporary reviews of these early 2000s films, crazy to think it's over 20 years old now!
one of my favourite classic fantasy adventure movies and great classic review by roeper and Ebert
Thank you for the upload! I have been trying to track down Ebert and Roeper's reviews of Harry Potter 1-4 (Ebert became too ill after Goblet of Fire to review them on the show) but for years and years they just did not seem to exist anywhere online. If you have any of the others to upload that would be greatly appreciated as well.
Oh that's right! It is the 20th anniversary. Damn I feel old, still remember seeing this in theaters. I was 11 at the time (just like Harry, Ron and Hermione in the 1st film) and loved the books. I agree with your review as well as Ebert and Roeper's. The Socrerer's/Philosopher's Stone is a masterpiece which, despite being recognized as a classic, has become very underrated. The 1st two Potter films aren't quite my favorites of the series but I still love them and they are near perfect adaptions of their respective novels which NEVER happens in book to film adaptations. These first two films deserve more respect for the colossal undertaking they were to complete. So many things could have gone wrong, but nothing did. Bravo Chris Columbus for daring to follow the source material.
Have you watched the 20th anniversary special?
I can’t seem to find their chamber of secrets review anywhere
I wonder how gene would have felt
They forgot to mention that the score, was done by the legendary John Williams! The same guy that also did the score for Star Wars and Indiana Jones.
Awesome, been looking for this review forever
Should have mentioned the score!
Thanks for the upload!
the wizard of oz of its time
I see you’ve quoted the back of the DVD case
@@thegoodreylo4749 more like the tv spots but i see your point
As a creator, I find comparisons to things that came before so obnoxious.
@@anonymousnobody326 oh really
Nah that would be LOTR fellowship of the ring.
Which was released same year & was much superior cinema
Should’ve been nominated for Best Picture that year…
I agree, it's a delightful and, fittingly, magical movie.
lol no
Ebert was generally able to enjoy, appreciate films for children that yes entertained and told a story. Sorcerer's Stone gets slammed a lot, it's flawed and could have been better but it also could have been a lot worse and it laid really good foundations for the rest.
wow
Great review and truth!
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer Stone was a fantastic fantasy movie that I was a Harry Potter Movie Fan I watch the movie is amazing is one my favorite fantasy movie and is my number 1 best flim of the year 2001.
Harry Potter series did absolutely nothing for me at the time. Maybe I should go back and revisit the series
In the uk its called Phlosiphoer's stone
I like both versions of the title but even knowing PS was preexisting kind of prefer Sorcerer's Stone, sounds cooler and more mysterious and powerful (also weird for the kind of subtitle of both 1 and then soon 3 to start with P).
I really like Sorcerer’s Stone, but man, the transition scenes between the Hogwarts classes would’ve been executed WAY better if Terry Gilliam directed it. With Columbus at the helm, if feels like you’re on a slow moving ride at Epcot
"Wonderous special effects" where they really considered good at the time? Anyway love these reviews I NEED to see the Chamber of Secrets and Azkaban reviews ffs why must it be so hard
The troll effects are pretty bad but the dog still looks decent
I would say for the time yes. You have to remember a lot of this was never done before, showing what the quittich match would look like and translating it from the book was an incredible achievement in terms of how they made it work. The troll effects don’t hold up, but I would say the rest does, and for the time
they were really solid.
Are you high?? YES. I'm not even a huge Potter fan but man did this really blow everything else out the water. This came out the same year as mummy returns and tomb raider. Both I saw in theaters sadly lol. But other than fellowship of the ring, which wasn't even out yet, nothing came close to visuals like these
@@mania4270 Star wars episode I blows this out of the water and obviously I'd expect it to also like you mentioned so does fellowship of the ring. Off the top of my head I can't think of live action movies with lots of CGI in this time period but other than the mummy returns what is worse than the troll in this movie.
director christopher columbus???????????????????
I thought the movie started off with great wonder, awe, and movie (sorry for the pun) magic . . . then it becomes an overblown action film, not worthy of the first part. Too bad. Perfectly cast.