Harry Potter: Not the best movie ever, but easily the best book-to movie adaption.

Rating: Null/10 (23 November 2001)

Let's go to the movie checklist: Does Harry Potter have a great cast of actors? Yes. Harry Potter has probably the best cast I have seen in a long time: Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid), Maggie Smith (Prof. McGonagall), Richard Harris (Albus Dumbledore), and John Cleese (Nearly headless Nick). Then there's the three main characters who, for how little acting experience two of them had, did a pretty good job. Emma Watson fit the role of Harmione, and my vision of what Hermione acted, and looked like very well, and Rupert Grint fit the part of Ron Weasley perfectly, and neither Rupert, or Emma have had any experience acting in movies. Daniel Radcliffe on the other hand, was merely 'ok'. He wasn't great, and came across to me as being very dull, and boring, and more 'mugglelike' than most muggles. To top it off, Daniel's voice cracked halfway through the movie, and they were forced to voice over the rest of it, that is why it seemed dubbed at the last part of the movie.
Back to the point, does Harry Potter have a good storyline that keeps the veiwer interested, and moves along quickly. This is a solid maybe. As for the moving along quickly, if consider a good butt-numbing 160 some minutes quickly, then this is perfect for you, but not all people consider that quickly (me being one of them). However, the storyline was good, not quite as good as the book becuase they cut out a lot of little details wich seem to add more depth to the story, but it was nonetheless very good, and it kept you interested enough that you didn't realize that your watch had stopped.
The musical score: unfortunetly for me, i can't quite give a good or bad score on this becuase i was interested enough in the story, that the slow, solemn music that was scattered throughout the movie didn't catch my attention. This isn't a bad thing, or a good thing. On the good hand, people might not be as critical of the music, becuase I know for a fact that it set a certain mood for me. On the bad side, however, some would argue that ther e isn't very many peices of music in the movie, or that you couldn't notice them very much. So this really depends on the taste of the veiwer.
Graphics, and animation sequence: I wan't to give this a good score so badly, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I liked the movie, but the animation sequences made Shrek look GREAT. Some of the worst animation sequences featured Neville falling from the stone gargoyle, and Harry's encounter with the Centuar in the forest.
Now, for the last, some things that I really didn't like about the movie: Neville, Neville, Neville. In my mind, Neville wasn't chubby, and he wasn't a total moron per se. I pictured him more as a short, skinny, geek/dork/screw up type of person. In my mind, the people who choose Neville for the movie, really screwed up.
So there you have it, in a nutshell with no spoilers, and i didn't write in any of my opinions until the last 2 paragraphcs. So you can decide for yourself whether Neville fits or not, and whether the animation is up to snuff or not.