My Studios

cRAzY wrote:

Let's not forget about the middle aged nerds that still cream over harry potter. I've had plenty of those freaks up at our theater. Sad Really. Pushin forty and more excited about harry effin potter than their own kids. Litterally.

hey hey there, Harry Potter are excellent films, except for the first 2 which bordered on being cures for insomnia.

I know many old 40-year olds who love the series. Hey, Shryke's one too.

tuan69 wrote:

hey hey there, Harry Potter are excellent films, except for the first 2 which bordered on being cures for insomnia.

I know many old 40-year olds who love the series. Hey, Shryke's one too.

Christopher Columbus would be melancholy to hear that feedback.

I know many old 40-year olds who love the series. Hey, Shryke's one too.

I am not! I am insulted! No one has ever had the nerve to dare call me a 40-year-old! (Wink.)

"I'm 37! I'm not old! You're automatically treating me as an inferior!"

Seriously, though. You're right. I am a big fan of the series. I've never read the books, but they are all great fun.

Don't rag on Chris Columbus, he got the series rolling in a big way. I mean, consider that the first Harry Potter movie still stands at #4 on the all-time list of world-wide grossing films, ahead of all the Shrek movies, the Spider-Man movies, and even every single one of the Star Wars movies.

The only film of the series that really let me down was the third one. I know it was supposed to be a lot more dark, but I blame the director for making it too dark. All of the child-like whimsy that was present in the first two movies was just absent. Plus, a new Dumbledore, virtually no Maggie Smith, and a gray hue on everything. It's the only part I wouldn't feel like watching again.

As I've maintained, the trailer for Part 5 is outstanding. I am wating with bells on.

Shryke42 wrote:

The only film of the series that really let me down was the third one.

I can see where you're coming from, although I thought Cuaron made a fantastic movie, it's not a lot fun compared to the others, especially Goblet.

hehe Shryke, sorry about the 40-year-old thing. I could have sworn I remember someone mentioning your age at 42 on this board in the past. It might have been Nico.

I liked the last 2 Harry Potters. Never read a book outside the 1st one. This one looks pretty good, but I swear to cripes, if the bad guy is the Defense against the Dark Arts teacher again, I going to shoot someone.

kid_icarus wrote:

I liked the last 2 Harry Potters. Never read a book outside the 1st one. This one looks pretty good, but I swear to cripes, if the bad guy is the Defense against the Dark Arts teacher again, I going to shoot someone.

Blame J.K. Rowling. She's the one that wrote it.

kid_icarus wrote:

I liked the last 2 Harry Potters. Never read a book outside the 1st one. This one looks pretty good, but I swear to cripes, if the bad guy is the Defense against the Dark Arts teacher again, I going to shoot someone.

Rest assured. I think the bad guy here would be Voldemort, no?

dranscht wrote:

Rest assured. I think the bad guy here would be Voldemort, no?

Voldemort is Ralph Fiennes A.K.A. Dude who screwed an airline hostess in the plane's toilet.

Shryke42, I would agree with you that despite the critical raves, the third one is the weakest of all of them for the reason you mentioned- it isn't as much fun. Also, info I recieved from a third party (my wife, who is impatiently waiting for the postman to deliver book seven) says that it is the least accurate to the spirit of the series.

I have a an absolute love/have relationship with Chris Columbus's films (1492 films, one of the more playful company names). He has directed some of the highest grossing kid/family films of all time (2 Home Alones, 2 Harry Potters), films that are generation marking movies. He has also directed some of the most obnoxious chick flicks and unfunny romantic comedies (Stepmom, Nine Months). I also think from the backstage chatter that leaks out that he is the kind of guy in hollywood I would actually enjoy meeting, considering he let Culkin call it quits after the second Home Alone and only produced the third Harry because he was missing his kids grow up. Definitely atypical hollywood blather.

In my opinion, the fourth one was able to recapture the part of the series I liked most- all the mundane stuff kids go through growing up.

jameydunne wrote:

In my opinion, the fourth one was able to recapture the part of the series I liked most- all the mundane stuff kids go through growing up.

Yeah the pacing of the 4th one was pitch-perfect.

And the only Harry Potter to make me 'almost' shed some tears.

When that dude died in the maze, that was pretty sad.

Cant wait for Die Hard 4

I really don't care how much money this poor excuse for a really good film is making. It will never ever never ever have the strong fan base that Star Wars has. I didn't see too many people dressing up and waiting in line for days before harry came out. Yeah you might get a few theaters in one state where people are waiting but nothing like star wars.
I'd rather look like a kick ass sith like darth maul than some gaybait in a wizards robe anyday. No offense to any homosexuals that might be out there getting upset. Im sorry and I'm still not used to there being so many nowadays.

Crazy, do you read Buns & Ammo?

As many others have said.

Being a Halloween fanatic technically it isn't a sequel. It is a remake (it is the ninth movie made in the Halloween series though I only consider 8 because the third one doesn't count) starting where the first one starts but then delving into Micheal Myers childhood more and then having the same storyline with Laurie Strode.

I still voted for it.

dementor dementor!

My Studios

ADVICE & ANALYSIS: