11/16   MOTD Movie Critic Says, "Harry Potter 2: whatever you thought of the
        first HP movie, ditto.  This one is exactly the same in all ways.
        This is only a bad thing if you didn't like the first one".
        \_ No...this one was geared much more for people that are fans
           of the book. The first one could have been watched (and was
           in fact watched) by people who are new to HP; this one relied
           a lot on having already read the story. This HP movie also
           had a lot of scenes that were excessively long. But I still
           liked it.            -huge HP fan
           liked it.            -huge HP fan (hHf)
           \_ I couldn't stand the Harry Potter books. I couldn't get past the
              gee-whiz kiddie feel. I can read the Narnia books or Tolkien as
              an adult and feel rewarded but for HP I would need a lobotomy.
              That said, I found the movie to be decent entertainment.
                \_ Talking about children's books that are worth rereading
                \_ 1) This movie wasn't such a literal translation as the
                   \_ well, to be honest I was just going on memory for that.
                      but compared to the H.P. I thought it was more original.
                   again, I recently reread the Earthsea trillogy (which
                   somehow grew to six books) for the first time since I was
                   12 or so, and damn if they aren't good books. -aspo
                \_ Narnia?  I couldn't read Narnia as a HSer.  Lord save you!
                \_ Did you read any of them other than the first? They
                   get progressively darker (and much better). And if
                   that has no significance for you...well then shit,
                      do not carry equal weight.  You're dismissed.
                   they really aren't meant to be profound literary
                   classics. They're just kids books that also appeal
                   to older people too. I can't say with certainty
                   that they won't be around in 50 years (like Tolkien,
                   or Shakespeare), but then again I don't know that they
                   won't, either. -hHf
                   \_ Just another passing fad.
           \_ If it was a literal translation of the book, why did it rely
              so much on having read it in the first place?
                \_ 1) This movie wasn't as much of a literal translation as the
                   first one, and 2) by making references to things that
                   weren't explicitly explained or brought up already (or
                   to things in the future, much like Star Wars). -hHf
           \_ Tsk.  The MMC is not a fan of the books and in fact knows nothing
              about them except what was in the first movie and enjoyed both
              the first and second movies about the same.  As a self proclaimed
              "huge HP fan" you're in no position to judge how much a non-fan
              such as the MMC would.  Shame on your for questioning an MMC
              review with your ignorant pap. --MMC
                \_ Just the same way that you're in no position to judge how
                   much you think everyone else will like it ("whatever you
                   thought of the first HP movie, ditto").      -huge HP fan
                   \_ Silly child.  I am the MMC.  You are nothing.  Our views
                      do not carry equal weight.  You're dismissed. --MMC
                      \_ Too bad. -hHf