werent all the Potters rated PG? its a kids movie I am sure they could play off the violence as magical/fantasy type violence much like how the LOTR movies were pg-13 despite the massive battle scenes i havent read this book since it came out years ago, but I remember it was ok, it had a good set up for the last book. just seems weird that anyone (over the age of 25) would be thinking about emma watson in that way but she has grown up into a lovely girl
Harry Potter sucks and everyone who watches it is a big nerd. Seriously, I felt myself turning dumber for even watching the first one and the rules for "Quiddich."
I cant believe how many people in their 20's like this movie series, its horrible, childish, I admit the first one was okay, but after that it was all downhill - not that I've seen all of them, I don't even know how many movies have been released.
So basically you are saying that you don't know what the **** you are talking about. If you don't like it, great, don't click on the thread but if you can't help yourself, stfu.
Translation: I haven't seen 4 of the 5 movies. I liked the one I saw but know for a fact the rest of them sucked.
Mrs. rimrocker and I will go see this on our annual summer date night. Looking forward to it... though I thought the books ran out of steam towards the end, I thoroughly enjoy the movies.
Going tomorrow night! Believe it or not, this was my least favorite book. But the movie looks pretty good.
I've always thought that the books were MUCH better than the movies, and I'm sure everyone that actually read them beforehand would agree with that. However, I always end up watching the movies somehow anyways. Im not giddy with excitement for it, but I'll probably end up seeing it at some point. Books adapted for the screen almost always dissapoint (there are a few great exceptions). Its just difficult to appreciate a singular interpretation when you've visualized everything on your own, and they always have to cut stuff out in order to make the movie short enough.
I agree, however I thought the 5th movie was by far the best and was the best one adapted from the book. The worst book-movie one was the Goblet of fire. They left a lot out of that one. That may have been my favorite book, but I think it was the worst movie.
Jeez I touched off a nerve didn't I, relax I didn't mean to offend your religion. I have seen parts of the others, but I just can't seem to be able to sit through them. Just throwing my opinion out there, I'm just suprised how many older people like this movie. BTW I liked Lord of the Rings so its not that I don't like the genre.
I agree with you on this. I have seen all but one of the HP movies and although they are so so, I don't understand all of the hype. Is it because I have not read the books?
Really? 5 is prolly my least favorite, maybe cause i expected more from the duel between Dumble and V in the end...also, from people i talked to who had not read the books, 5 was a little hard to follow at times....thought 1 and 2 were the best adopted from the book.
That's because the first two books were the shortest compared to the rest of the series. The other volumes are too long to fit everything into a 2-hour movie. The Harry Potter movie series, imo, suffers the same downfall as most other book-to-movie adaptations. The books are fantastic with great stories, while the movies don't seem to do the books justice. That's how I feel watching each of the 5 Harry Potter movies, but that won't stop me from watching the 6th movie. The movies are very visually stunning, and I always read the books for the stories and plots.
I get excited for every movie, then I realize that they all blow. Such great novels, have now been trashed...Where is Peter Jackson when you need him?
