|
Post by SpookyGurlo on May 31, 2004 15:25:49 GMT -5
Yep. Long time since it has been published. so far 5 books. and. . . 3 movies. what made it just popular this past years when books had been published like. . . . wooo. . . lots of years ago. Harry Potter. . . Yeah. What do you guys think Of it? Just tell me yes you like it or no you don't thats all i want please. LOL don't make me go on my knees and beg you all to reply!
|
|
|
Post by PadmeAmidala on May 31, 2004 18:24:28 GMT -5
Do I like what, the book or the movie? I personally have never read any Harry Potter books but I've seen all the movies and I like them. Hehe. I would've read the books if I hadn't seen the movies before...oh well. I guess I won't be reading them any time soon!
|
|
|
Post by NOTINSERVICE on Jun 10, 2004 2:47:11 GMT -5
So the third movie had a new director. Many likes the new director better than the other two and the way the movie was. For me i thought i like the other two better. . . seem more like something harry potter you know? like the stones and at the place when he was almost going to get killed by the guy with two heads and the second was big snake and the book and bringng genie back to life in that cave. Throughout the third movie i was waiting several hours so that something exciting would happen. so far they gave me 15 minute excitement when they went back in time with the necklace. . . no complains and nothing against the third movie of harry potter , but letting some of my opinion goes how they made the third movie so simple though it was good in many scenes like when harry flew on that horse like eagle headed thing and the were wolves with many great effects. . . for the third the second and first for me i think they were better to be played in theatre.
|
|
Terri
Noobie Boobie
Posts: 18
|
Post by Terri on Jun 20, 2004 20:09:49 GMT -5
I liked both the books and the movies, but I like the books better. I have not seen the third one yet though. Even though Daniel is a good actor, it's kinda hard for me to believe that's Harry beacuse I've always though of Harry as a skinny, if not very skinny. I just started the fifth book yesterday (about time, i know, but I started it and I'm almost on page 300) In the very first page, here's how Harry was described in the book: "He was a skinny, black-haired, bespectacled boy." Even the illustrations in the book portrayed him as skinny. And it makes sense that he's skinny, it shows how the Dursleys are underfeeding him...it also create a nice contrast to Dudley: Harry, underfed and get leftovers being skinny. Dudley, OVERfed and eats the best stuff. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing agaisnt Daniel, it's just not physically Harry, he looks too healthy and well-fed. Casting Emma for Hermione's part was brillant, hoever, with her culrs and all.
|
|
|
Post by Jommy on Jun 21, 2004 6:52:16 GMT -5
Yeah I agree with you Terri. The book does tell differently how you seen him displayed in the movies , but i guess the first he was about right for it. Then i guess he just grows you know? LoL. That's great you're starting on the 5th book. I want to see the movies already though i just can't wait! I know it will take time , but i still want to see it. For me i agree with NOTINSERVICE as well i liked the first two better though the third wasn't that bad and lack of interest like NOTINSERVICE says , but... well. Good enough right?
|
|
|
Post by ....(R@ZY Tl-l@! FR3@k.... on Jun 21, 2004 15:59:24 GMT -5
yeah i love the books and the movie......eager to see the next movie out.....heard its gonna go to the seventh movie i dont know but yeah....
|
|