hotstar Watch Online Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 2001 Dubbed Movie

2020.11.26

hotstar Watch Online Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 2001 Dubbed Movie

Adventure.
actor Daniel Radcliffe.
152 m.
directed by Chris Columbus.
.
8 of 10

♦♦ ✹♠∞٭✵★⎈✸★×↓٭✸×✦⍟

♦♦ https://movchoice.blogspot.com/

♦♦ ٭⬆✲♣♢✧✪♥♧✱♣☼☼☼§♧

Any meaningful Ron scene. Steve Kloves- We can't have that now, can we.
The said thing voldemort is much more intimidating here. then what he was from the 4th movie and onwards.
What really gets to me is when Harry was like, I've got presents! and Ron goes. yeah! It's just kind of sad because Harry never had a real Christmas before.

Watching straight after 13 years.

Pros: Does justice to the book; excellent acting; good special effects.

Cons: Not suitable for very young children; confusing storyline for those who haven't read the book(s.

Need I write about the plot, when all four of the Harry Potter books have done so well and have been devoured by children and adults alike? To briefly enlighten those of you who, for some reason, weren't you at least curious. haven't even opened a Harry Potter book. br>

Harry Potter is an 11-year-old orphan who is admitted into the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, mostly because his parents, who were killed by an evil magician when he was a baby, graduated from there.

Each book of the series focuses on one academic year in the life of young Harry. The reader 'grows' with the character.

The first book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, is more of an introduction than a book on its own, a sketch, rather than a complete painting. That is why, in my opinion at least, it shouldn't have been made into a movie in the first place. You would think a 2 1/2 hour-long adaptation should be sufficient. But it's not. Although it does justice to the book, especially in the portrayal of the characters (they're exactly as you would picture them to be. it skips out many parts of the book. And since the book itself wasn't 'complete' how can you expect a movie adaptation to be completely fulfilling? I think the movie is almost incomprehensible to most of those who haven't read, not the book, but the entire series! The beginning must have puzzled them a great deal, and the ending was obviously rushed. The details revolving around the sorcerer's stone itself don't translate well from page to screen. Too many questions are left unanswered. And the satirical fun that made the books such an entertaining read was almost absent in the film.

I can't stress enough on how fine the children's performance was. Daniel Radcliffe IS Harry Potter, at least physically he is. His expressions are very convincing. Unfortunately, director Chris Columbus doesn't allow his 'inner' feelings to surface much, except in one scene when Harry discovers a magical mirror that reflects one's deepest desires. It is only then that we feel Harry's pain for the loss of his parents. Also, the director doesn't succeed much in portraying Harry's miserable life when he is staying with his aunt, uncle and his fat cousin Dudley. In the book, he is the main character because we are allowed into his confused, painful, and sometimes happy feelings, in the movie he is the main character mostly because the title says so. Rupert Grint, who plays Ron, Harry's first and closest friend at school (my favorite character, actually! was simply magnificent. His mimics when he is scared or confused are just adorable! Emma Watson (the slightly irritating but studious and audacious Hermione) was remarkable in her 'show-off' scenes. The adult characters were fine, but what is more important is that none of the kids were annoying or whiny.

I was very disappointed with He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named/Lord Voldemort though. The magician gave me the chills in the books, but was almost unnoticeable in the film. You would say: What. THAT killed Harry Potter's parents? THAT is terrorizing the entire community of magicians that they wouldn't even speak out his name? Puhleeeeeeze! Even a kid watching this wouldn't feel the 'threat' of the character."

The hair and makeup were very well done, especially on Hermione, the gatekeeper Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) Headmaster Albus Dumbledore (an almost unrecognizable Richard Harris, folks! and all of the female professors. The creatures however, especially the Centaur and the Goblin, looked very fake. Even the centaurs in Xena and Hercules looked more credible, for as much as a mythological character can look real anyway. br>
The effects involving the indoors of Hogwarts were surprisingly fantastic. I was impressed with the ghosts and the 'active' characters in the paintings.

The setting was great! Hogwarts is THE fantasy place to be; a medieval castle with almost limitless proportions, moving staircases, elegant dormitories with vivid mouthwatering, well presented dishes for meals, folks! In contrast, the Black Forest has a dark and terrifying ambience, with predominant black and dark blue colors, as well as the inevitable thick mist.

The soundtrack was fantastic; it provided a suitable background for the 'suspenseful' and 'witchy' parts of the movie. However, I could swear I heard an adaptation of the Wedding March in some scenes! Odd. br>
I'll lighten up now, and conclude by saying that the overall movie was quite enjoyable, entertaining, Suitable for both children (not too young though, some scenes might scare them! and adults. You will not get bored. But you might get confused. And it might leave you slightly unsatisfied.

Your answer to this would be: Hey, be thankful that the book had material for at least 8 hours of film, yet it had been compressed into a 2 hour-and-a-half flick." Well then, why make this into a movie at all? Why not make this into a mini-series? That would surely be a success. Every season will cover one of the books. And, as a series, it would seem perfectly normal if many questions were left unanswered during a few episodes.

Omg this movie was sooooo cool, snape was hilarious, i was cracking up every time i saw him. i seriously think that this is the greatest movie i've ever seen in my life. it is definately worth the 5.75 to get in to see it. everyone in the movie is soooooo good.(although, when i was reading the book, i pictured mcgonagall to be younger than she is in the 'S ALL GOOD) omg go see this movie if you haven't yet, it's sooooo good.

I havent gotten the letter yet Hmmm Im gonna have to speak to their manager

In turning 11 in a couple weeks! Hope I get my letter.
Come here, Potter. He actually did. I mean, I would run the other way instead of obeying.
Someone better report them to VAC, they're noclipping. :P.
The family fantasy adventure based on J.K. Rowling's popular novel sees the idea that books can be made into faithful adaptations.

The story is that Harry Potter(Daniel Radcliff) who lives with his nasty Uncle, Aunt and cousin finds that he is the son of a powerful witch and wizard. He is then taken to Hogwart's(a school to train in magical arts)and with the help of his friends, battles against the evil Professor Snape(played by the excellent Alan Rickman who is unfortunately under used greatly.

It's a family film that is enchanting, thrilling and shows a really good cast(Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, John Hurt)with the idea that there are more films to come along.

Dude. imagine u were at the cinemas watching a movie and then this trailer popped up for teh first time and the whole fandom screams...

When I bought it on DVD I thought this may be also for adults. I´m now 33 years old and i have to admit that this film is no (more) adapted for me and I would recommend it only for children. Okay the special effects were good but the story was too long and some times too boring. Perhaps the book is more interesting to read because you can imagine in an other dimension. I think the film is too overrated and I give only 5/10.

“There once was boy named Harry destined to be a star, his parents were killed by Voldemort,who gave him a nasty scar.”.