Harry Potter book vs. movie

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by:J.K. Rowling

Harry Potter: Book vs. Movie

With all the new movies based on books or comics that are out, people wonder why

Hollywood keeps doing it. Some say they're greedy people, just doing it for the money, and

others say that it helps bring the book to life. But I say, why ruin a good book, like Harry Potter

and the Sorcerer's Stone, with bad lighting and adequate actors? I say that we don't have to

because the comparison between the two forms of entertainment is a landslide victory for the

book.

You may ask why this bothers me so much. Well little things, like less character

involvement, can annoy me. For example, in the first year of Hogwarts, Harry was running away

from the caretaker, Mr. Filch. In the book, he was with Hermione Granger, Ron Weasley, and

Neville Longbottom. What got me rattled was that in the movie, he was with only Hermione and

Ron. True, Neville is a secondary character but no less important as the storyline continues.

Also, I feel the movie can't really grasp at how mean Harrys family is. Since his parents death, a

year after he was born, he had to live with his Aunt Petunia, Uncle Vernon, and Cousin Dudley.

They were truely cruel to him as he grew and always favored their son with tons of present and

candy. What they did to Harry through his life could have put them in jail.

Like most other movies, like To Kill A Mockingbird, it was less funny than the book. In

the fourth book of Harry Potter, the school nurse, of the "muggle" school, was worried about

Dudleys weight and told his parents that he was equivilant in weight to a baby whale. The

movie, as most would agree, did not portray Dudleys, nor his fathers, weight well enough. Harry

always comments that when either Dudley or Uncle Vernon gets mad, their face gets jiggly like

jelly and purple like a plum. Another example is when Harry first met Hermione. He described

her as a know-it-all with big, front teeth. Do you think the movie portrayed Hermione with huge

teeth? NO! Therefore, illustrating my point even better.

My last point to make is that the book is more descriptive. Two words describe Harry

well, impatient and angry. There are countless times when Harry is too frustrated to concentrate

on school work or Quidditch, which is like a wizard soccer game. The movie, however, seems it

fit that he is suppose to be a patient, kind-to-everyone person. Further more, Professor Snape,

Harrys potion teacher, is suppose to be really ugly in the book. Even though Alan Rickman, who

plays Snape, is no underwear model, I must dare to say that the movie didn't do a well enough

job. In the second book, Harry meets Gilderoy Lockhart, who is an extremely handsome author.

I think, yet again, that the movie could have done a better job for a cuter Lockhart, even though

Kenneth Branagh does have his moments.

In conclusion, the book was better because the less popular characters were more

involved, it was funnier, and more descriptive. I still love the movies, but I only wish that the

actors were chosen more carefully and the storyline was followed to the very last sentence.