Comments | misslupotter: Just for the fun of it.

misslupotter

Just for the fun of it.

Jul 17, 2009 19:46

I haven't really done much recently apart from draw, draw, draw and play Fable 2. However, I saw the new Harry Potter film yesterday, so now I'm going to inflict my opinions of it on you poor readers.

I thought it was rather good. As a whole, I felt the acting was very good; Jim Broadbent, of course, was fabulous as Professor Slughorn. The lad who ( Read more... )

Comments 15

tehprincessj July 17 2009, 19:56:50 UTC

I'll be honest. I've never seen a Harry Potter film in its entirety. >_< Probably because I'd never read the books or even heard of it until it was already huge. I wouldn't say that I'm avoiding it with the same fervor that I avoid the Twilight fandom, but it's close. :)

I'm completely clueless, I swear. XD

misslupotter July 17 2009, 21:18:14 UTC

That's cool, yo! Each to their own. I will say that people do take the whole Potter thing a wee bit too far; they're good, but not that great.

My surname happens to be Potter which really is a curse now; I'm always asked if my brother is called Harry. Har-de-har-har.

And Twilight is eugh. My mum bums it, bless her. She was trying to explain the plot to my brother and I the other day, and when she'd finished we both just said '... but Vampires don't sparkle! That's just retarded' If someone wants to read a decent vampire book, read Bram Stoker's Dracula; that's what I say!

tehprincessj July 20 2009, 02:48:28 UTC

Har-har. XD That's gotta be anoying (and suddenly your LJ username makes so much sense).

Yeah... sparkly vampires. That's not original or creative, that's just... wrong.

hysteriasponge July 18 2009, 12:02:41 UTC

I've only seen The Philosopher's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets.I thought The Philosopher's Stone was deplorable,but The Chamber of Secrets was quite good.

I tried reading a couple of the books too...I thought they were crap,to be honest.I don't know why though,everyone else seems to love Harry Potter. =/

Overpopular series like HP and Twilight piss me off quite a fair bit. xDDD

misslupotter July 18 2009, 22:34:31 UTC

I remember when the Potter books first came out; I read the first one and thought it was naff! XD I admit, I do really like the books; they're fairly imaginative and easy to read. The films are also good too. They have a nice feel to them; the sort of thing one would quite happily watch snuggled up under a duvet on a wet afternoon. But I really do think they are totally hyped up. All those girls that squeal at Daniel Radcliff and queue up to see him naked getting freaky with a horse on stage... That's creepy!

And don't me started on Twilight... Now that transcends naff and creepy!!!

hysteriasponge July 19 2009, 17:31:09 UTC

Daniel Radcliff is gross,quite frankly.He has an odd nose that I don't much care for. xDDDD

Twilight is a blight upon the world of literature.In my mind,Vampires are creepy blood-sucking creatures that enjoy scaring the living shite out of people.They don't sparkle.And they never will.

misslupotter July 19 2009, 18:30:53 UTC

Exactly! Vampires are, quite literally, the spawn of hell. They don't have human emotions; they don't hate being vampires, they don't make 'ethical' decisions about feasting on poor little beasties instead of people, they don't fall in love with humans and they certainly don't sparkle...

In essence, it's some weird girl who stalks a skinny anaemic guy who in turn stalks her. They get a bit huffy, puffy about one another, with a good deal of OTT angst thrown in. Oh, and when she's give birth to her own little hell-spawn/human hybrid, her spine breaks. THAT's JUST WRONG!

If someone wants to read a decent vampire book, read Bram Stoker's Dracula.

And LOL at the Radcliff dissage. XD

Thread 12