Harry Potter

Oops,that's two of us that you've helped then :wink:
I'm new to this Forum stuff and am learning by my mistakes

I guess the latest Harry Potter, which I finally saw yesterday, is alright, but it left me vaguely dissatisfied. The effects were good, the dragon was nicely done, but the story was too obvious and went from nothing to nowhere if you know what I mean; like LOTR The Two Towers it felt like an in-between film, but without the great acting of the LOTR series.

Can't wait to see it...

You mean you think Daniel Radcliffe is a bad actor

Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter)

That is not what I wrote. I wrote that the acting in this installment of Harry Potter was not great in my opinion.

But Daniel cried when Cedric died. Not many teenage boys can just cry when they feel like it.

Can we put the tears down to acting/make-up :wink:

Well actors woulden't be 'actors' if they cannot act. Thats the whole point of their job... to act.

Harry Potter is for kids, not for adults,
the story is lousy, i don't like it.

Yes, well all have our opinions. Adults are into it to, maybe not as many on here, but you would be suprised of how many they are.

I meant that as a compliment to Danny's acting

I saw Harry Potter - Goblet ... yesterday but must say they could have made 2 movies out of it.

The film had literally summarized the book. Also since 2nd part, Harry Potter movies are not truly judging the books.

Books still stand a better buy than the Harry Potter movies, unlike LOTR where every movie version did a perfect judgment with the book.

Yes, they could have but I mean that would be alot of work and Daniel has his exams and everything and he working on another movie (not Harry Potter).

So they could have made 2 movies out of it but I still think it was awesome... and like vinsan said it did summarize the book and if anyone was that interested then they could just go and read the book.

in France yesterday...

I have two autographed photos from Daniel Radcliffe... I got one last year and the other this year when I was in London.

I haven't seen any of the Harry Potter movies, but I'm told they're good. Can anyone tell me in what order they were made'? I'd like to see them in sequence.

1. HP and the kidney stone (joke, it's philosopher stone)
2. HP and the chamber of secrets
3. HP and the prisoner from Askaban
3. HP and the goblet of fire

I've seen it few days ago. They could have made the film a little more longer, because it lacks the atmosphere. I meant that the main action started for the beginning, and half of the book was skipped. But it's not an easy job either. Looking forward to the next one. Momentarily, I'm reading the sixth part.

Make sure you see them in order too. Which I'm sure you will, but it will probably be confusing to you if you haven't read the books. In the 3rd one, they create suspense for the people who haven't read the books so if you had read the books; the scene where there in the Riddle House and Sirius is making it seem like Lupin and him are going to kill Harry, but they were just trying to build up suspense. Anyway that was confusing to me, so it might have helped? Who knows I didn't state it too clearly though.