Harry Potter II

Craig S. · 11-27-2002, 03:57 PM

Has anyone seen this yet?

I thought it was better than the first one, although that's pretty faint praise. Maybe it's easier to just say that it was a good movie. The pace is much better, the story more interesting and mature. It felt much less like a kid's movie than did the first two films.

I found it funny how the kids playing Ron and Harry have grown so much since the first film, especially compared to Emma Watson's Hermione. And Kenneth Branagh plays the role he was born to play - an egomaniac, self-centered jerk. Good movie.

rcartman28 · 11-27-2002, 03:58 PM

sorry, haven't seen either one, or read any of the books......

KCBOOMER · 11-27-2002, 04:57 PM

I loved all four books and enjoyed the first movie.

I'm hoping that this weekend I can catch the movie.

sweaver · 11-27-2002, 05:06 PM

Excellent movie, better than the first. Follows the book's plot very closely, only eliminates a couple of unneeded (though fun) scenes from the book, and eliminates a couple of the smaller character parts. Lengthens the action scenes a bit for film. Great fun!

gyb13 · 12-02-2002, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rcartman28
sorry, haven't seen either one, or read any of the books......

me either...tho i may watch the first one soon, as i got a free pay-per-view coupon to see it...

Craig S. · 12-02-2002, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gyb13
me either...tho i may watch the first one soon, as i got a free pay-per-view coupon to see it...

That surprises me a little that you haven't seen either of them, since you seem to see a lot of movies.

Skip · 12-02-2002, 03:23 PM

I liked both quite a bit, and agree that the second is better - at least from an adult perspective. My kids liked both too.

gyb13 · 12-02-2002, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Craig S.
That surprises me a little that you haven't seen either of them, since you seem to see a lot of movies.

guess i fall under the 'too old to be a kid, too young to have kids' category, and thus don't have much desire to see this, except for all the hoopla surrounding it

NCFella19 · 12-02-2002, 06:46 PM

I have not read the books, but I enjoyed the first one on HBO the other night just so I'm not COMPLETELY out of the loop. As far as the second movie, I will probably wait again for it to either come on PPV or HBO.

sweaver · 12-04-2002, 10:26 PM

It's really not just for kids, the books are quite well-written and the movies are enjoyable effects-filled fantasy entertainment. If you like Lord of the Rings, you would probably like this as well. There is violence, and it's scary for little ones, but more in the realm of suspense than bloody horror flicks. The story flows very well.

Skip · 12-05-2002, 07:21 AM

I see Lord of the Rings as adult movies (no ... not that kind) that kids can enjoy, while the Harry Potter movies are kids movies that adults can enjoy (as was Shrek). I prefer LOTR to Harry, but like Harry I and II at least as much as Spidey, and far more than Star Wars Episode 2.

TimmyB · 12-09-2002, 04:07 PM

I thought II was MUCH better than the first. Branagh nailed Gilderoy Lockhart.

I agree, too, the pacing was much better and it appealed to me as less a kids' movie. The books have always worked for me as "an adult who likes them and who can appreciate why kids like them" kind of way where the first movie missed that mark. Too much golly-gee-whiz special effects and not enough movie. In this second one they down-play (but, by no means eliminate) the FX and concentrate on the plot (amazing concept).

KCBOOMER · 12-09-2002, 04:13 PM

I really enjoyed HP II and would agree that it is slightly better than the first. The first was better at character development while the second had more action.

One point. HP II is not for young children (say 7 and under). There are some scenes that will really scare the hell out of a youngster.

Skip's analysis of the HP and LOTR is right on. I highly recommend both.

pwdennis · 12-13-2002, 12:13 AM

Well done film - tempo drags at times but worth watching

sweaver · 12-13-2002, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
One point. HP II is not for young children (say 7 and under). There are some scenes that will really scare the hell out of a youngster.

Definitely. I took the 13-year-old and the 8-year-old to see it, but not the 6-year-old and the 4-year-old. The two younger ones have seen the first one on DVD, but that's not as overwhelming as in the theater.

11-27-2002, 03:57 PM	#1
Craig S. Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 6,330	Harry Potter II Has anyone seen this yet? I thought it was better than the first one, although that's pretty faint praise. Maybe it's easier to just say that it was a good movie. The pace is much better, the story more interesting and mature. It felt much less like a kid's movie than did the first two films. I found it funny how the kids playing Ron and Harry have grown so much since the first film, especially compared to Emma Watson's Hermione. And Kenneth Branagh plays the role he was born to play - an egomaniac, self-centered jerk. Good movie.

11-27-2002, 03:58 PM	#2
rcartman28 NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Hudson, WI Posts: 1,408	sorry, haven't seen either one, or read any of the books...... __________________ I would have looked out for the water main. But that's just me..... Brett Favre

11-27-2002, 04:57 PM	#3
KCBOOMER NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Home of the T-Bones Posts: 11,116	I loved all four books and enjoyed the first movie. I'm hoping that this weekend I can catch the movie. __________________ KCBOOMER *Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball*

12-02-2002, 06:46 PM	#9
NCFella19 All-NetShrine Team Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 417	I have not read the books, but I enjoyed the first one on HBO the other night just so I'm not COMPLETELY out of the loop. As far as the second movie, I will probably wait again for it to either come on PPV or HBO. __________________ "It's not the high price of stardom that bothers me, it's the high price of mediocrity." -- Bill Veeck

12-09-2002, 04:13 PM	#13
KCBOOMER NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Home of the T-Bones Posts: 11,116	I really enjoyed HP II and would agree that it is slightly better than the first. The first was better at character development while the second had more action. One point. HP II is not for young children (say 7 and under). There are some scenes that will really scare the hell out of a youngster. Skip's analysis of the HP and LOTR is right on. I highly recommend both. __________________ KCBOOMER *Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball*

11-27-2002, 05:06 PM	#4
sweaver Netshrine Cleanup Hitter Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Mountain State Posts: 8,883	Excellent movie, better than the first. Follows the book's plot very closely, only eliminates a couple of unneeded (though fun) scenes from the book, and eliminates a couple of the smaller character parts. Lengthens the action scenes a bit for film. Great fun!

12-02-2002, 03:23 PM	#7
Skip NetShrine Vagabond Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Louisville Posts: 7,866	I liked both quite a bit, and agree that the second is better - at least from an adult perspective. My kids liked both too.

12-04-2002, 10:26 PM	#10
sweaver Netshrine Cleanup Hitter Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Mountain State Posts: 8,883	It's really not just for kids, the books are quite well-written and the movies are enjoyable effects-filled fantasy entertainment. If you like Lord of the Rings, you would probably like this as well. There is violence, and it's scary for little ones, but more in the realm of suspense than bloody horror flicks. The story flows very well.

12-05-2002, 07:21 AM	#11
Skip NetShrine Vagabond Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Louisville Posts: 7,866	I see Lord of the Rings as adult movies (no ... not that kind) that kids can enjoy, while the Harry Potter movies are kids movies that adults can enjoy (as was Shrek). I prefer LOTR to Harry, but like Harry I and II at least as much as Spidey, and far more than Star Wars Episode 2.

12-09-2002, 04:07 PM	#12
TimmyB NetShrine's Magic 8-Ball Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Where the cops speak slow and the air is nice Posts: 2,591	I thought II was MUCH better than the first. Branagh nailed Gilderoy Lockhart. I agree, too, the pacing was much better and it appealed to me as less a kids' movie. The books have always worked for me as "an adult who likes them and who can appreciate why kids like them" kind of way where the first movie missed that mark. Too much golly-gee-whiz special effects and not enough movie. In this second one they down-play (but, by no means eliminate) the FX and concentrate on the plot (amazing concept).

12-13-2002, 12:13 AM	#14
pwdennis NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Winter Springs, FL Posts: 2,503	Well done film - tempo drags at times but worth watching __________________ "I would submit that if the world survives for a million years, perhaps its finest hour may be that in the last half of the 20th century, when the power to blow up the world rested in the hands of a few men in two very unsophisticated and suspicious countries, we didn't do it, and one American, Richard Nixon, moved the cold war away from permanent confrontation toward victory. How could any wrong that he did compare with that?" - John Sears

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Harry Potter	pathogan	Entertainment	24	07-14-2003 04:01 PM
Offseason stat package--L	nyy26wc	Around The Majors Reports	5	12-25-2002 04:51 PM
The Curse of Harry Frazee	timconnelly	2001 Baseball History Archives	8	12-28-2001 12:30 PM
Offseason stat package--L	nyy26wc	Around The Majors Reports	10	12-23-2001 11:55 PM