|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:17 pm
...Was absolutely AMAZING, coming from someone who went to the midnight viewing. That is all.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:22 pm
Wow, is it really that good?
I guess I should see it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:42 pm
Is it that good? I mean the book sucked a**. Worst of the Harry Potter series. But i guess you could cut out the boring parts of the book in the movie. But the end had to be great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:29 am
The fight in the Ministry was most definitely the best part. The special effects used were really cool! The fifth was one of my favorite books, but I like the sixth a little more. Then again, I'm a Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort fan. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:39 pm
I thought it was awesome too xd I love Luna Lovegood..she's my favorite xd and Snape too blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:11 pm
They picked the perfect person for Umbridge. What a b***h! xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:00 pm
It was ... okay. xp
They totally missed all the good parts of the book. And I thought Umbridge didn't look fat enough, or enough like a toad. Plus, it was the worst of the movies for me, and the books are always better than the movies. It just bugged me on parts like when Cho Chang told ... she wasn't the one to tell. >.< Oh well. And I didn't even cry. I thought I would. It wasn't dramatic enough. And for someone who never read the books, you would have no idea what was going on.
But if I couldn't compare it to the book ... it was pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:32 pm
They pretty much covered most of the book. neutral We also have to remember that the movies are all based off the books. They're not really a substitute for the books. Although I wish they would cover every single little detail, since I'd have no problem sitting through a 3-4 hour long movie. xd
Honestly, I think the first movie was way better than the first book. That was a dull book to get through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:41 pm
T i f a They pretty much covered most of the book. neutral We also have to remember that the movies are all based off the books. They're not really a substitute for the books. Although I wish they would cover every single little detail, since I'd have no problem sitting through a 3-4 hour long movie. xd
Honestly, I think the first movie was way better than the first book. That was a dull book to get through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:34 pm
The books will always be better as a whole. I feel sorry for those who just watch the movies but have never read the books. They're missing out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
