Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

[ardweden]

Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. 1997.

The original title (I'm sure all of you know) is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which makes a lot of sense, since the sorcerer's stone does in the novel is what the philosopher's stone was always said to do. (Just check wikipedia!) But I read the American version, and that'

Comments

[bluejaybird]

The book with the goblet would be Goblet of Fire ;) .. book #4. Don't worry, the movies are a whole different animal. Movies #3 and later are really quite condensed. A lot is left out. Book #4 isn't the longest in the series, but it was longer than the three before it by far. Andra tells me that book #5 is the longest, and book #4 is possibly her favorite book.

[ardweden]

Ah, that's what it is! Thanks.

My problem with Goblet of Fire - the movie, anyway - wasn't that stuff was left out. I know that it's pretty much impossible to make a movie out of a book and leave everything in. And how would I know if things are left out, anyway?

What's important, I think, when making a movie out of a novel is making the movie work as its own self-contained beastie while keeping the spirit of the novel. I really don't think the fourth movie did that. A lot of the stuff left out was probably the stuff that made it make sense, so I was left lost and confused, dangling on plot threads that came out of nowhere. (The fifth movie, on the other hand - the one with Umbridge, I think? I thought that one was fine.)

Anyway, I'm glad Andra's favorite is 4. That recommends it pretty well. :) I was mostly looking forward to reading 3 because Dre loves it so much.

[rdmgryphon]

The Canadian version uses the same language as the Brit version, and as I recall Amazon delivers. Or at least I'm fairly sure that's how my mom got her hands on them.