The Harry Potter costed $200,000,000.00 (200 million) dollaars to film (I think). So naturally the expectations are high. It is always difficult to live up to high expectaions. Over all the movie was good probably four stars: * * * * otherwise a couple things were altered. I understand that ther movie had to change some things but here they are in case you are interested. Here are a couple things right off the bat to get you started.

1.)	In the Harry Potter Books Hagrid's hut is wooden but in the movie, it is stone.
2.)	According to the pictures at the begining of each chapter in the Harry Potter Books, Harry's scar is in the wong place.
3.)	In the Harry Potter Books the Invisibility Cloak is silvery, here it almost looked like a Victorian rug.
4.)	As you know Jim Dale does the Harry Potter audio casettes, well, in the movies the pronciations differnet. Which one is correct?
5.)	Any Harry Potter Fan can see this: Whole parts were skipped and events were changed. Of course in a movie that always happens--but the ending of Harry Potter and the Socerer's Stone was, well, changed completely.
6.)	Em4i4nem420 says: You left out the part about Nicholas Flamel, Harry found him on the trading card for the chocolate frog and in the movie hermione found him in a book

Otherwise than that Harrry Potter was an excellent movie, I have never in my life seen a better scene than Harry Potter's quidditch game. Also, hoe the pictures and staircases moved was amazing! This movie had lots of time and effort put into it, it is truly one for the whole familiy.

<div align="center"><script language="JavaScript" src="http://pub49.bravenet.com/minipoll/show.php?usernum=4165076510&cpv=1"> </script></div>