[blackharted]

Well I thought it was a thousand times better than the Half Blood Prince and The Order of the Phoenix. Of course its also better than the awful Prisoner of Azkaban movie *shudder* but still not on par with the first two and the Goblet of Fire film.

[Yatta]

I liked it, but it was slow at times (but so was the seventh book). Cool ending too.

[LeoD]

I was bored. Bad storytelling. Bad and uninspired CGI stuff. Mediocre acting.

[Hank]

I'm a Harry Potter fan. My biased opinion. The movie tries to capture the book. And one theme in the book is that in real life, pursuits can be a drawn out event with ups and downs. If you are into a realistic story, go watch the movie. The acting is very good and so is the directing. The catch? We are dealing with super evil wizards, spells, wands, horcuxes, funny scars, legilimency and what not. What reality needs to be filmed? Realism in a pure imaginary world? And we got to go again to see the rest?

For my collection, we'll get the DVDs and watch the whole thing with beer and maybe a steak in one session, or pause perhaps to go to the bathroom, or stretch our legs.

[Jimmy]

Harry Potter is bollocks. A tired old story highly derivative of Ursula K. Le Guin's classic 1968 book, 'A Wizard of Earthsea,' which is vastly superior.

[Hank]

to Captain Awesome
Are you referring to the book or movie? If the latter, I never heard of it. If the former, why not post a new thread, it would be interesting to know where Rowling borrowed from Le Guin.

[blackharted]

LeoD, on Nov 22 2010, 10:46 AM, said:

I was bored. Bad storytelling. Bad and uninspired CGI stuff. Mediocre acting.

Thats the first film. I thought the CGI was quite good, I also thought the Dementors were spooky.

[Spirrwell]

LeoD, on Nov 22 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

I was bored. Bad storytelling. Bad and uninspired CGI stuff. Mediocre acting.

Haven't seen it yet, but yeah, you're probably right, because that goes for every Harry Potter movie. They're low-ranking movies. The reason that they sustain is because of the fans. The only two books I read were books five and seven. (didn't feel like writing out names) If you compare the fifth movie to the fifth book, the movie looks like dog shit. Although it's awesome because I'm a Harry Potter fan.

[blackharted]

Spirrwell, on Nov 24 2010, 08:29 AM, said:

They're low-ranking movies.

No they are not. Look at Rotten Tomatoes.

[Micky C]

Rated 8.2/10 on the Internet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0926084/ so I'm going to see it next week.

My english teacher (and we're talking a BRILLIANT senior english teacher at the best private school in the state) says that J.K Rowling is a terrible writer, and that's why so many publishers rejected the Philosopher's Stone in the first place. The reason why the series did so well is because she just so happens to be a good story teller. As for her writing, she has no style, no flair; the most individual sentence out of all the books was "Mr and Mrs Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much."

But that's more about the books than the movies.

[blackharted]

Micky C, on Nov 25 2010, 04:37 AM, said:

Rated 8.2/10 on the Internet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0926084/ so I'm going to see it next week.

My english teacher (and we're talking a BRILLIANT senior english teacher at the best private school in the state) says that J.K Rowling is a terrible writer, and that's why so many publishers rejected the Philosopher's Stone in the first place. The reason why the series did so well is because she just so happens to be a good story teller. As for her writing, she has no style, no flair; the most individual sentence out of all the books was "Mr and Mrs Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much."

But that's more about the books than the movies.

English teachers are often so stubborn and jealous. The don't like Harry Potter because they weren't good enough to get a book published themselves. Believe me I know. The books are great and she has A SHITLOAD of style, look at her humor even Stephen King loves her sense of humor as he said in an interview. I love the way the book are writen, and most lines are very individual.

The only bad book was the last one, well when I say bad I mean not as good as the previous books.

[Micky C]

When you become fluent in 3 languages, read a few thousand books here and there and get a highly paid and sought after job on the other side of the planet from where you were born and raised then maybe your comments on the literary analysis of her novels will carry some weight. Look I'm not saying her books are bad, I think that's pretty common knowledge given the movie deals and so forth.

[blackharted]

Micky C, on Nov 25 2010, 05:24 AM, said:

When you become fluent in 3 languages, read a few thousand books here and there and get a highly paid and sought after job on the other side of the planet from where you were born and raised then maybe your comments on the literary analysis of her novels will carry some weight. Look I'm not saying her books are bad, I think that's pretty common knowledge given the movie deals and so forth.

I am fluent in two languages, I read books almost every night. Also in my old school it was common knowlage that our English teacher hated the HP books becuase he couldn't get his book published. Also based on what other people have said failed writers often become English teachers.

I admit my spelling may not be the best but I acually speak far better than I write you understand.

[Hank]

Since we talking books now ...

It's number two of the all time best selling list. Since I speakes no good any English, I love da books, and based on her wealth, I am not alone.

I can read something to a eight year old, she understands, can get into, fall asleep. It's a children's book, not for grown-ups, not designed to be a master piece to be hailed by the upper crust at Cambridge or Yale.

[blackharted]

Hank, on Nov 25 2010, 06:15 AM, said:

Since we talking books now ...

It's number two of the all time best selling list. Since I speakes no good any English, I love da books, and based on her wealth, I am not alone.

I can read something to a eight year old, she understands, can get into, fall asleep. It's a children's book, not for grown-ups, not designed to be a master piece to be hailed by the upper crust at Cambridge or Yale.

Your right your English isn't great. Back on topic I can't wait for part 2.

[Spirrwell]

blackharted, on Nov 25 2010, 08:41 AM, said:

Your right your English isn't great. Back on topic I can't wait for part 2.

O_O I can't believe YOU told people to get back on topic...

[blackharted]

Spirrwell, on Nov 25 2010, 06:53 AM, said:

O_O I can't believe YOU told people to get back on topic...

LOL
I was going to get back on topic anyway

[Jimmy]

Because the masses dictate what's actually great, y'know when popular drinks are triple the recommended amounts of caffeine and double the amount of alcohol needed to put a lightweight out for hours, or when the highest paid music artist is a 14 year old boy who sounds like a 17 year old girl.

[blackharted]

Captain Awesome, on Nov 25 2010, 07:51 PM, said:

Because the masses dictate what's actually great, y'know when popular drinks are triple the recommended amounts of caffeine and double the amount of alcohol needed to put a lightweight out for hours, or when the highest paid music artist is a 14 year old boy who sounds like a 17 year old girl.

That is a load of pointless spam.

[Spirrwell]

blackharted, on Nov 28 2010, 08:29 AM, said:

That is a load of pointless spam.

Then what does that make everything you post?

[blackharted]

Spirrwell, on Nov 28 2010, 11:28 AM, said:

Then what does that make everything you post?

Witty, useful and far less ovbious than your reply.

[LeoD]

blackharted, on Nov 28 2010, 09:39 PM, said:

Witty, useful ...

Anyone who remembers such a posting please step forward.

[Spirrwell]

blackharted, on Nov 28 2010, 03:39 PM, said:

Witty, useful and far less ovbious than your reply.

Less obvious, maybe. Witty and useful, I haven't been here long enough to say so, but from what I've seen, none of the stuff you post is really useful, but you are witty in trolling.

[Hank]

Looks like this thread is closed for good, by LeoD. No one can answer that one

... refering to post # 22

[Jimmy]

Spirrwell, on Nov 28 2010, 10:16 PM, said:

Less obvious, maybe. Witty and useful, I haven't been here long enough to say so, but from what I've seen, none of the stuff you post is really useful, but you are witty in trolling.

Not even.

[blackharted]

LeoD, on Nov 28 2010, 02:45 PM, said:

Anyone who remembers such a posting please step forward.

I step forward.

[Spirrwell]

Captain Awesome, on Nov 28 2010, 10:51 PM, said:

Not even.

I deserved that.

[blackharted]

Spirrwell, on Nov 29 2010, 04:08 PM, said:

I deserved that.

Glad to hear it