answer: the books created by J.K. Rowling and the whimsy and fantasy of those tales must remain no matter the cost
paragraph_question: question: How is the book?, context: After much hype and anticipation, the whimsical world of Harry Potter is finally brought to life on the big screen in its first feature film. When Warner Brothers bought the rights to the famous children's book series, millions waited in utter anticipation for the adaptation of the first book and executives at the studio were just biting at the bit to accept the money of Mr. Potter's legion of loyal fans. But this was far from an easy task for the movie studio. Why? In order to produce a magnificent achievement for the paying customers, the movie must remain true (to an extent) to the books created by J.K. Rowling and the whimsy and fantasy of those tales must remain no matter the cost. For if this does not happen, Warner Brothers executives can kiss those potential profits on sequels good-bye.The story focuses on the adventures of a young boy in England who discovers he is actually a wizard in training and that he is to be taken to a school, far from the world of the muggles (or non-magical folk) that he has grown up with all his life. After losing his parents when he was a baby, Harry Potter now resides with his terrible adopted family that consists of his boorish uncle, his snippy aunt, and spoiled, brutish cousin. But one day, he learns that he has been accepted to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. When he arrives in the magic world of wizards and witches, he is overwhelmed to find out that he is one of the most famous sorcerers of all time m due to his confrontation, and evidential defeat of, the evil Lord Voldemort as a baby. But he no sooner puts he foot through the door then the trouble starts, whether it be the up-tight Professor Snape or the spoiled Draco Malfroy. After many strange events around the school, it is up to Harry and his new friends to stop an evil creature from stealing the Sorcerer's Stone which could bring about the re-generation of Lord Valdemort. The story for Harry Potter &amp; the Sorcerer's Stone is done marvelously well but not based on material from the book. When going to see this film, don't go into it basing it on the book. You'll only be left with disappointment.Though most of the performances were played out by young actors and actresses, those performances were done in such a way that they were sophisticated for the age of the performers and therefore surprising. Daniel Radcliffe fits perfectly into the lead role of Harry Potter but the real determining factor will be if Radcliffe can keep that outstanding persona in this role as he matures through the sequels. Overall the performers seem well suited to their roles but that is not fully realized in the beginning. Only over a period of time in the film do the actors feel fully comfortable in their roles. The only disappointment has to be with John Cleese's Sir Nicholas, which was shown as nearly as much as he probably should have been.Overall, the mystical and extraordinary world of Harry Potter is brought to life in a way that many wouldn't have thought possible years ago and, though the film may differ from the book from time to time, even the most hardcore of Potter followers will be happy with this first film adaptation. Not to say it is absolutely perfect, there are some minor things to complain about. The time length, which stood at two hours and thirty minutes, seemed way too long for a feature at younger children. Granted they probably won't care too much since their eyes will be glued to the screen but that can problem based on potty breaks or something to that effect. Another problem deals with the editing of the movie. As an example, the burnt roof of Hogwarts that was not present in one scene was shown in the next with no explanation to what happened. But outside of those small problems, Harry Potter &amp; the Sorcerer's Stone is a delightful treat during the holiday season but not near the same level as Disney/Pixar's Monsters Inc. but a great film none the less. 
sentence: In order to produce a magnificent achievement for the paying customers, the movie must remain true (to an extent) to the books created by J.K. Rowling and the whimsy and fantasy of those tales must remain no matter the cost .
paragraph: After much hype and anticipation, the whimsical world of Harry Potter is finally brought to life on the big screen in its first feature film. When Warner Brothers bought the rights to the famous children's book series, millions waited in utter anticipation for the adaptation of the first book and executives at the studio were just biting at the bit to accept the money of Mr. Potter's legion of loyal fans. But this was far from an easy task for the movie studio. Why? In order to produce a magnificent achievement for the paying customers, the movie must remain true (to an extent) to the books created by J.K. Rowling and the whimsy and fantasy of those tales must remain no matter the cost. For if this does not happen, Warner Brothers executives can kiss those potential profits on sequels good-bye.The story focuses on the adventures of a young boy in England who discovers he is actually a wizard in training and that he is to be taken to a school, far from the world of the muggles (or non-magical folk) that he has grown up with all his life. After losing his parents when he was a baby, Harry Potter now resides with his terrible adopted family that consists of his boorish uncle, his snippy aunt, and spoiled, brutish cousin. But one day, he learns that he has been accepted to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. When he arrives in the magic world of wizards and witches, he is overwhelmed to find out that he is one of the most famous sorcerers of all time m due to his confrontation, and evidential defeat of, the evil Lord Voldemort as a baby. But he no sooner puts he foot through the door then the trouble starts, whether it be the up-tight Professor Snape or the spoiled Draco Malfroy. After many strange events around the school, it is up to Harry and his new friends to stop an evil creature from stealing the Sorcerer's Stone which could bring about the re-generation of Lord Valdemort. The story for Harry Potter &amp; the Sorcerer's Stone is done marvelously well but not based on material from the book. When going to see this film, don't go into it basing it on the book. You'll only be left with disappointment.Though most of the performances were played out by young actors and actresses, those performances were done in such a way that they were sophisticated for the age of the performers and therefore surprising. Daniel Radcliffe fits perfectly into the lead role of Harry Potter but the real determining factor will be if Radcliffe can keep that outstanding persona in this role as he matures through the sequels. Overall the performers seem well suited to their roles but that is not fully realized in the beginning. Only over a period of time in the film do the actors feel fully comfortable in their roles. The only disappointment has to be with John Cleese's Sir Nicholas, which was shown as nearly as much as he probably should have been.Overall, the mystical and extraordinary world of Harry Potter is brought to life in a way that many wouldn't have thought possible years ago and, though the film may differ from the book from time to time, even the most hardcore of Potter followers will be happy with this first film adaptation. Not to say it is absolutely perfect, there are some minor things to complain about. The time length, which stood at two hours and thirty minutes, seemed way too long for a feature at younger children. Granted they probably won't care too much since their eyes will be glued to the screen but that can problem based on potty breaks or something to that effect. Another problem deals with the editing of the movie. As an example, the burnt roof of Hogwarts that was not present in one scene was shown in the next with no explanation to what happened. But outside of those small problems, Harry Potter &amp; the Sorcerer's Stone is a delightful treat during the holiday season but not near the same level as Disney/Pixar's Monsters Inc. but a great film none the less. 
sentence_answer: In order to produce a magnificent achievement for the paying customers, the movie must remain true (to an extent) to <hl> the books created by J.K. Rowling and the whimsy and fantasy of those tales must remain no matter the cost <hl> .
paragraph_answer: After much hype and anticipation, the whimsical world of Harry Potter is finally brought to life on the big screen in its first feature film. When Warner Brothers bought the rights to the famous children's book series, millions waited in utter anticipation for the adaptation of the first book and executives at the studio were just biting at the bit to accept the money of Mr. Potter's legion of loyal fans. But this was far from an easy task for the movie studio. Why? In order to produce a magnificent achievement for the paying customers, the movie must remain true (to an extent) to <hl> the books created by J.K. Rowling and the whimsy and fantasy of those tales must remain no matter the cost <hl>. For if this does not happen, Warner Brothers executives can kiss those potential profits on sequels good-bye.The story focuses on the adventures of a young boy in England who discovers he is actually a wizard in training and that he is to be taken to a school, far from the world of the muggles (or non-magical folk) that he has grown up with all his life. After losing his parents when he was a baby, Harry Potter now resides with his terrible adopted family that consists of his boorish uncle, his snippy aunt, and spoiled, brutish cousin. But one day, he learns that he has been accepted to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. When he arrives in the magic world of wizards and witches, he is overwhelmed to find out that he is one of the most famous sorcerers of all time m due to his confrontation, and evidential defeat of, the evil Lord Voldemort as a baby. But he no sooner puts he foot through the door then the trouble starts, whether it be the up-tight Professor Snape or the spoiled Draco Malfroy. After many strange events around the school, it is up to Harry and his new friends to stop an evil creature from stealing the Sorcerer's Stone which could bring about the re-generation of Lord Valdemort. The story for Harry Potter &amp; the Sorcerer's Stone is done marvelously well but not based on material from the book. When going to see this film, don't go into it basing it on the book. You'll only be left with disappointment.Though most of the performances were played out by young actors and actresses, those performances were done in such a way that they were sophisticated for the age of the performers and therefore surprising. Daniel Radcliffe fits perfectly into the lead role of Harry Potter but the real determining factor will be if Radcliffe can keep that outstanding persona in this role as he matures through the sequels. Overall the performers seem well suited to their roles but that is not fully realized in the beginning. Only over a period of time in the film do the actors feel fully comfortable in their roles. The only disappointment has to be with John Cleese's Sir Nicholas, which was shown as nearly as much as he probably should have been.Overall, the mystical and extraordinary world of Harry Potter is brought to life in a way that many wouldn't have thought possible years ago and, though the film may differ from the book from time to time, even the most hardcore of Potter followers will be happy with this first film adaptation. Not to say it is absolutely perfect, there are some minor things to complain about. The time length, which stood at two hours and thirty minutes, seemed way too long for a feature at younger children. Granted they probably won't care too much since their eyes will be glued to the screen but that can problem based on potty breaks or something to that effect. Another problem deals with the editing of the movie. As an example, the burnt roof of Hogwarts that was not present in one scene was shown in the next with no explanation to what happened. But outside of those small problems, Harry Potter &amp; the Sorcerer's Stone is a delightful treat during the holiday season but not near the same level as Disney/Pixar's Monsters Inc. but a great film none the less. 
paragraph_sentence: After much hype and anticipation, the whimsical world of Harry Potter is finally brought to life on the big screen in its first feature film. When Warner Brothers bought the rights to the famous children's book series, millions waited in utter anticipation for the adaptation of the first book and executives at the studio were just biting at the bit to accept the money of Mr. Potter's legion of loyal fans. But this was far from an easy task for the movie studio. Why? <hl> In order to produce a magnificent achievement for the paying customers, the movie must remain true (to an extent) to the books created by J.K. Rowling and the whimsy and fantasy of those tales must remain no matter the cost . <hl> For if this does not happen, Warner Brothers executives can kiss those potential profits on sequels good-bye. The story focuses on the adventures of a young boy in England who discovers he is actually a wizard in training and that he is to be taken to a school, far from the world of the muggles (or non-magical folk) that he has grown up with all his life. After losing his parents when he was a baby, Harry Potter now resides with his terrible adopted family that consists of his boorish uncle, his snippy aunt, and spoiled, brutish cousin. But one day, he learns that he has been accepted to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. When he arrives in the magic world of wizards and witches, he is overwhelmed to find out that he is one of the most famous sorcerers of all time m due to his confrontation, and evidential defeat of, the evil Lord Voldemort as a baby. But he no sooner puts he foot through the door then the trouble starts, whether it be the up-tight Professor Snape or the spoiled Draco Malfroy. After many strange events around the school, it is up to Harry and his new friends to stop an evil creature from stealing the Sorcerer's Stone which could bring about the re-generation of Lord Valdemort. The story for Harry Potter &amp; the Sorcerer's Stone is done marvelously well but not based on material from the book. When going to see this film, don't go into it basing it on the book. You'll only be left with disappointment. Though most of the performances were played out by young actors and actresses, those performances were done in such a way that they were sophisticated for the age of the performers and therefore surprising. Daniel Radcliffe fits perfectly into the lead role of Harry Potter but the real determining factor will be if Radcliffe can keep that outstanding persona in this role as he matures through the sequels. Overall the performers seem well suited to their roles but that is not fully realized in the beginning. Only over a period of time in the film do the actors feel fully comfortable in their roles. The only disappointment has to be with John Cleese's Sir Nicholas, which was shown as nearly as much as he probably should have been. Overall, the mystical and extraordinary world of Harry Potter is brought to life in a way that many wouldn't have thought possible years ago and, though the film may differ from the book from time to time, even the most hardcore of Potter followers will be happy with this first film adaptation. Not to say it is absolutely perfect, there are some minor things to complain about. The time length, which stood at two hours and thirty minutes, seemed way too long for a feature at younger children. Granted they probably won't care too much since their eyes will be glued to the screen but that can problem based on potty breaks or something to that effect. Another problem deals with the editing of the movie. As an example, the burnt roof of Hogwarts that was not present in one scene was shown in the next with no explanation to what happened. But outside of those small problems, Harry Potter &amp; the Sorcerer's Stone is a delightful treat during the holiday season but not near the same level as Disney/Pixar's Monsters Inc. but a great film none the less.