Which should be seen firstest?

I would say go for Potter, people who have actually seen it so far (even guys who were dragged kicking and screaming by their girlfriends) say it's not even in the same league as the other movies. Apparently its got special effects that are better than LOTR. I would say go to see Cash if it wasn't for what i've seen them leak already (pathetic how can they pick that Phoenix guy?) The acting looks terrible and I can't see it getting more than 1 1/2 cookies (even though your apparently addicted to 2 1/2s (tis ok though nothing much has been out that deserves more than 2))

Give Potter another chance!

sorry to bring this up on a movie board but Todd do you watch hockey? and if you do which team (Rangers, Islanders, best in league, relative plays on team, who?!)

Hey Dood,

I'd go for Potter... I heard it was better than okish.

dd

are you serious mike? You actually think everyone who likes Harry Potter is goign to burn in hell. I Actually don't know what to say anymore but if your being sarcastic let it on a little stronger.

Try not to be so bitter about every little thing. I have yet to hear you say something cheerful or anything above cycnical observer. Do everyone a favour and lighten up.

Lets go Rangers!

I'd go with Cash this week, Potter the next. Potter raked in over 100mil this weekend, and I'm guessing you'd be stuck in a packed theater without a place to put your feet up and, gasp, potentially have to sit next to someone.

Seems like a lot less public in Cash.

After seeing "Walk the Line", I'd say your best, safest bet is to check out the Harry Potter flick. If you saw "Ray", walk the line pretty much follows in that key. It's definatly worth a netflix, or blockbuster rent. Harry is one that's meant for the big screen.

AFter seeing Potter, Todd, you're in for some nodding off.
It was way long and way forgettable like its predecessors. Its the best in the series so far but thats not saying much. For a movie based on childrens books these Potter flicks sure are unimaginitive. Theres no grounded story. In each film, Harry and his friends seem to go from one episode of their lives to the next so patchily that they might as well have just made this a tv series instead of a film. Every new event/scene/plotline seems more like a forced diversion rather than a natural unfolding of a story, every new "challenge" for Harry an excuse to put on an empty frivolous display of special effects, and every new character an excuse to let some "great veteran actor" shine.
And isnt Harry supposed to be the hero of these stories? Most of the time he just stands there like a limp noodle not revealing anything about his character to really like or dislike. The movies assume upon the audience that we should route for him but starves us of a reason as to why.

These are about the most tedious, overhyped boring "adventure" movies Ive seen. The only reason people flock to them is the books. I personally dont care how great or popular a book is. YOu could make a movie about the Bible but that alone wont make it a good movie. Once you make it into a movie you have to think in those terms otherwise the movie is nothing more than worhtless paper wrapping; paraphanelia and publicity for the book and nothing more.

Hey Movie board!

I saw Potter last night. I liked it. Being a Language Arts teachers, I've been way into the books for a while.

And Mike, I'm about to go to church, like I do nearly every Sunday.

I want to see Walk the Line next. A friend recently turned me on to Cash

I'm curious if you've even bothered to read any of Rowling's books? These movies are hyped because of the books, yes, but to thoroughly enjoy the movies you should read the books from cover to cover.

Look,
my problem with these flicks is the same one I had with the LOTR trilogy.
Why SHOULD I have to BOTHER to read the books to enjoy the movie?
I mean, if the books are really THAT great shouldn't the movie(if its properly based on the books) transliterate all that goodness onto the screen measure for measure through its application, incorporation and execution so that there would be no comprehensive distinction between the aesthetic and entertaining impressions of the book and those of the movie?

Do I have to journey all the way to the Himalayas to be able to appreciate a painting of them hanging in my room?

I mean isnt that the artists job? To capture the ESSENCE of that beautiful landscape so that the viewer doesn't HAVE to make that expensive trip?

And given the fact that since MOST of the time the rendition of something pales in comparison to the real thing, isnt someone who's actually SEEN the Himalayas in all its original glory, is he not more than a little bit biased towards any painting that might harken back to that experience? And woudnt that bias account for a good deal of his attachment to the painting as opposed to the power of the painting in of itself which might have less to show for it upon a viewer who never had that initial experience before viewing the painting and thus might lack the benefit of nostalgic recollection?

In other words, what good would that painting be to that viewer of objective predisposition who has NO point of reference? And wouldnt the response of that viewer be the perfect litmus test towards the true power and nature of the painting and proper assessment of its value? Meaning, doesnt the success or failure of the artist's vision depend upon whether the painting serves, for THIS viewer, as a revelation of a place he longs to visit thereafter, or as merely a pointless reminder of a place he's never been?

I have no doubt that LOTR and Harry Potter are excellent, inspiring books and had I read them, they might have increased my chances of finding reward in these movies. But even if (or especially if) thats true, as an objective cinephile I ask you, what does that say about these movies as MOVIES?....

Potter was great! I won't spoil anything, no worries. It's not the special effects or Potter-mania (all that "What, you never read the books?" stuff,) it's just a good story and likable characters and a well-done flick. Solid, right?

Potter wasn't bad. Much darker and creepier then the previous Potter's, so I enjoyed that. Go to either a very late show or a very early show. We tried for a 7:30 show at a mall theatre (I not only hate malls but now I hate AMC theatres) They over sold the show, claimed it was impossible to do that even though about 20 people with tickets to that show had no seats, John threatened to break some legs and we got our money back. Went to the 10am Sunday show near us and it was all adults and older kids.

pot--cash

ok that being said.

this was easily the best since the first one.

very smooth and straight forward. if you read the books it
followed (with many omissions) the book.

if you didn't read the books or see the other movies uhm what made you go?

since i have no idea what cash is about i would definently go see potter.

many cookies.

cash! take the cash!!