Monday, November 19, 2001

So I saw this movie called "Harry Potter and Philosopher's Stone" last night. If you're from the USA, you're probably wondering why it's not "Sorcerer's Stone". Well, wake up, idiot! The original book was called Philosopher's Stone, plus in real life alchemists tried to make a Philosopher's Stone to give them eternal life. So, the American title is not only untrue to the author, it's not historically accurate. What I'm wondering is if they refer to it as the philosopher's stone in the American version. If I was a kid, I'd be confused by that. I'd be like "mommy, why is the movie called Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone? There's no sorcerer's stone in the movie!" then I'd throw my popcorn at the screen and cry until they gave me free movie passes. So please, if anyone reading this is from the USA (which is unlikely...only my friends read this crap, and even they only come here like once a year) and has seen the movie, tell me if they actually edited the movie to make them refer to it as the sorcer's stone.

But enough about that, let me give you my little review of the movie. I was sooo excited to see it, because I'd just finished reading the book an hour before leaving to see the movie, and I wanted to see how they pulled off all the wonderful scenes in the book. I hadn't been so excited to see a movie in a long time, so in other words, I was setting myself up for huge disappointment. Fortunately, the movie kicked bum! It stayed true to the book, down to the tiniest details (well, except for leaving some scenes out, and smooshing some scenes together, but that's true of any movie adaption). Chris Columbus has directed some shitty movies (i.e. Stepmom, one of the only movies in the world that I don't like), but he did a nice job here. I hope Lord of the Rings can pull it off as wonderfully as Harry Potter did.

Uuuugh...my stomach hurts. I guess I shouldn't have eaten that bowl of cereal that was sitting here for a few hours. How long does milk take to go bad, anyway?

No comments: