So, who's seen Harry Potter?

It's a possibility:

 

I thought it was kind of boring. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Boredom." And the plot too closely hewed to the first story---but I guess that would be Rowling's fault?

It was OK. Thankfully there's James Bond, "Treasure Planet," "Analyze That," "Gangs of New York," "Catch Me If You Can", and, especially, "The Two Towers" on the horizon.

 

Did anyone else feel the undeniable urge to scream "Stay on target!" to Harry Potter when he was chasing the golden snitch during the Quidich game?

 

A more recent picture. I think what gr8-1 meant is she's a cute little girl. Nothing more.

 

I think the FBI is tracking you guys now.

But she will be very cute when she's legal.



She's the real heroine of the movies so far, the boys are clueless compared to her, and her kung fu is strong.

The movie was OK. Haven't read the books. Very similar to first, even in interactions with the same characters.

 

That picture of Denise Richards is hot hot hot.

 

Second gr8-1's comment about Hermione and his qualifier. She's a cute kid. That's what I thought from the first movie, at any rate. Haven't seen the second yet.

Hermione is my favorite character from the series. She's got a nice dose of principle that Harry and Ron notably lack. Call me a prude, but Rowling irritates me the way she glorifies mindless rule-breaking. Minor rebellion is a standard theme in children's literature, and I generally identify with it, but rule-breaking for the sake of rule-breaking is not character-building. There's hope she can curb that in the later books as the children transition into young adulthood, but I think personally that's just a pet character trait she likes and will maintain as is.

goophers, if you found Moaning Myrtle extremely annoying, then the movie did a terrific job portraying her, because that's exactly how the characters respond to her in the book.

I second the nomination of Connery for Mad-Eye Moody. He's definitely got the gruffness for that role.

 

Without the "mindless rule-breaking" the books and the movie would be pretty darn boring.

Are they supposed to get a signed permission slip before battling the powers of evil?

 

Saw it last night (free tickets). Thought it was better than the first. Well produced, but I personally think the underlying stories are weak. Too many characters are 2-dimensional mock-ups. I'm not sure why the new narcissistic teacher is in the movie at all. I don't think his presence gets any work done at all. The elf was a good character despite his rather disturbing self-mutilation.

 

There is an elf in this movie?

That just goes too far. Let me guess. Short, quirky, likes to make cookies and talk in a funny voice.

 

I know next to nothing about Harry Potter, but I think the elf is that weird looking creature in the previews and on the movie poster.

 

Yeah, he looks more like how I would imagine a goblin would look than how I imagine an elf would look.

 

Speaking of elves and goblins, When does the Two Towers come out? The first LOTR was just awesome.

 

Elves are supposed to be tall, fair, immortal, and god-like in power compared to men.

 

It will be out on Dec 19. That movie is gonna kick butt.

 

Actually, I think elves are just supposed to be long-lived. Tolkien is the only writer who I have seen that describes them as immortal.

 

Different writers, different elves. Simple as that.

 

Well, it is not that they can't die, but that they just don't age. If nothing actively kills them, like stabbing them in the eye, for instance, then they will live forever (unless they marry a mortal, in which case they forfeit their immortality ala Arwen with Aragorn).

 

Raven, I just want to say I enjoy all your cult classic allusions.

Supermac, that post didn't come out the way I wanted it (really was prudish). What I meant to say was too often Harry and Ron do something stupid, break a rule for no apparent reason other than that they're kids. I'm not including the arguably meaningful "fighting evil" moments or "we have to find Hermione, so she doesn't get beaten to a pulp by the troll" moments. I have no problem with Harry and Ron being kids in a kid book, except that Rowling consistently sets up crises in which the solution is for the protagonists to act underhanded and deceptively. And Dumbledore consistently sanctions and encourages their lying to and stealing from professors and staff.

Sure it creates more suspense to have the three Musketeers getting around Snape and Filch (think that's his name), but it's hardly necessary in order to create a good story where kids do detective work and act independently. A good example of children's fantasy that accomplishes this without glorifying mindless rule-breaking is The Dark is Rising series by Susan Cooper. For parents with kids who enjoy the fantasy elements of Harry Potter, this is a well-known and enjoyable fantasy series. Rowling is superior at keeping the reader into the story, and the Harry Potter novels speak more to modern children, but Cooper's fantasy world is much richer and with more admirable themes, in my opinion.

If anyone ever wants a recommendation for children's fiction, I'll be happy to oblige. I've forgotten most of the stuff I read when I was younger, but I still remember some of the good ones.