Doktor Kosmos Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I think the ending to Unbreakable destroys the end of the Sixth Sense I'm not sure I understand what you mean... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I'm not sure I understand what you mean... He thinks the ending of Unbreakable is better then the ending of The Sixth Sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I heard Zodiac is overlong but very good? I wouldn't mind seeing it since the director is awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quebecois Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Saw Zodiac, i dont know if id call it too long but the ending could have been done much better. Kinda like Fincher realized that the movie was coming up on 3 hours and wanted it to end right then and there. Still a solid movie though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAK Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Saw Zodiac, i dont know if id call it too long but the ending could have been done much better. Kinda like Fincher realized that the movie was coming up on 3 hours and wanted it to end right then and there. Still a solid movie though. good you just saved me 10 $$ I,ll rent it instead. I can't stand being in a thetaer for too long..I need my couch !! I never saw borat so tomorrow( it's my day off) I'll rent it have a few pops and hipefully laugh my ass off!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_faerie87 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 The Faerieland Theatres are proud to present Natalie Portman in Revue. Tonight's showing was none other than her silverscreen debut at the tender age of thirteen as she starred alongside Jean Reno in Léon. Arguably her best performance to date, the critics at Faerieland can do little but agree with that statement. If you're looking for an action movie with actual acting, then look no further than Léon, we guarantee you won't be disappointed. Tune in tomorrow night as Faerieland will cover her second feature film: Heat. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 wait, faerieland is saying that ms. portman peaked at 13 movie wise? So everything has been downhill since. mmmm I think your membership to the Portman fan club needs to be revoked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_faerie87 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 wait, faerieland is saying that ms. portman peaked at 13 movie wise? So everything has been downhill since. mmmm I think your membership to the Portman fan club needs to be revoked. 1) Have you seen Léon? 2) She's been great in her more recent films (Closer, Garden State, V for Vendetta), but Léon is simply amazing, especially considering her age. Although I've yet to see Goya's Ghosts and Paris Je T'aime, as neither have been released in North America yet, which are both supposed to be great performances by Natalie. 3) My membership revoked? I've been a fan ever since I found out she was cast as the Queen in the Star Wars prequels (which stunk by the way). Also, I think she's the best young actress out in Hollywood today. Knightley and Johansson eat your hearts out. Another thing to keep in mind that is that only until recently has she been pursuing acting as more than a hobby. She set a high standard in Léon and has yet to match it, but I have no doubt that she will surpass it one day soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Let me channel Natalie here...................mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........ *shrinks 5 ft* I find it funny that you say my best work was done when I was little when I've won awards for my Closer role as a stripper. ....................mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......... *goes back to normal* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_faerie87 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Let me channel Natalie here...................mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........ *shrinks 5 ft* I find it funny that you say my best work was done when I was little when I've won awards for my Closer role as a stripper. ....................mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......... *goes back to normal* Right, I completely forgot that awards won are the sole measuring stick of how good a film is... Look, before you make a fool of yourself, actually watch the film and then compare it to Closer. You say I'm not a true fan for believing that her best performance was in Léon, well whatever, your opinion doesn't matter much to me. But go onto any forum about Natalie and I almost guarantee you that nearly everyone will cite Léon as Natalie's best work to date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Kosmos Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Personally I thought Leon was very overrated. And I'm not sure I'd consider her performance in the movie was so great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_faerie87 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Personally I thought Leon was very overrated. And I'm not sure I'd consider her performance in the movie was so great. Not a fan of Luc Besson? Or just that particular film? Personally I found it to be refreshing compared to most action films where the audience's attention is kept mainly via explosions and fast-paced action. Léon on the other hand is a combination of style and substance. As for her performance, I think she pulled it off convincingly. Another thing I've noticed, at least in the films I've seen so far (I'll be watching all of them except Star Wars :puke: , Mars Attacks, Cold Mountain and Domino One) is that her characters seem to always mirror Mathilda in one way or another. I'd really like to see her break out of that pre-defined shell and do something completely different. I think that's one of the reasons I really enjoyed her in Garden State, as she had a quirky personality and wasn't exactly a "victim" per se. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Star Wars prequels (which stunk by the way) Only reason so many people say that is because they expected them to be as good as the originals. It was just silly of people to expect so much. I mean, when thousands of people love a movie so much that they dress up as people from it on days other than Halloween, then it's pretty obvious the expectations are not going to be met. And don't give me the crappy acting line, Mark Hamill and Carrie Fischer were hardly good actors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_faerie87 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Only reason so many people say that is because they expected them to be as good as the originals. It was just silly of people to expect so much. I mean, when thousands of people love a movie so much that they dress up as people from it on days other than Halloween, then it's pretty obvious the expectations are not going to be met. And don't give me the crappy acting line, Mark Hamill and Carrie Fischer were hardly good actors. Not so much the acting, but rather the storyline was atrocious (and full of plotholes). Also, I think Lucas relied too much on CGI and special effects. Then you can also argue that it was more kid-ish than the OT, although apparently RotS was darker, but I haven't seen it yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Kosmos Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 (edited) Not a fan of Luc Besson? Or just that particular film? Personally I found it to be refreshing compared to most action films where the audience's attention is kept mainly via explosions and fast-paced action. Léon on the other hand is a combination of style and substance. As for her performance, I think she pulled it off convincingly. Another thing I've noticed, at least in the films I've seen so far (I'll be watching all of them except Star Wars :puke: , Mars Attacks, Cold Mountain and Domino One) is that her characters seem to always mirror Mathilda in one way or another. I'd really like to see her break out of that pre-defined shell and do something completely different. I think that's one of the reasons I really enjoyed her in Garden State, as she had a quirky personality and wasn't exactly a "victim" per se. I don't know. First of all I feel the need to point out that I don't think highly of the average contemporary action flick. I'm not saying I don't like watching action films (I certainly do like some of them), I just think that substance is not something you'd normally look for in an action flick. Action movies are basically there to put people in the seats in the movie theatres. For example, where some people seemed overwhelmed by The Matrix trilogy and the deep philosophy they found in the movies, all I found was a flashy exterior with a few bumper stickers on them with references to different ancient cultures and slogan-like phrases from philosophy etc. My putting a sign above the door to my kitchen that says Chez Kosmos - five-star restaurant doesn't make my kitchen a five-star restaurant. Know what I mean? As for Leon, where you see of substance I see a plot that seems not the least bit realistic, not the least bit believable. I think that's the main reason why I don't like it. I can't buy the story, and if you can't buy it, how can you like it, how can you believe in it? Don't get me wrong though. I certainly am not a fan of Luc Besson, no. I managed to sit through The Fifth Element and about half of The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc, and aside from Leon I think those are the only works of Besson that I have seen. But, that said, I suspect that perhaps the character Matilda might be a memorable one not because of Portman's acting but rather because of Besson's writing/directing. So my conslusion would be that it's more likely that Besson is good at his job and I just happen not to like his films, not that Portman's performance is great. Whether you like someone or not is subjective, but I do think there are a lot of actors, directors, writers etc that can objectively be considered to be good at what they do. My question to you about Portman is this: Do you think that her parts after Leon mirror her part in that movie? Or could it be that it mirrors something in Portman? Edited March 14, 2007 by Doktor Kosmos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Kosmos Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Not so much the acting, but rather the storyline was atrocious (and full of plotholes). Also, I think Lucas relied too much on CGI and special effects. Then you can also argue that it was more kid-ish than the OT, although apparently RotS was darker, but I haven't seen it yet. I agree with most of that. Most of all I agree on the over use of CGI. That's my Star Wars pet peeve. The more I think about the whole series of films though I suspect that perhaps it is not the new trilogy that is bad but the original one that isn't as great as it's hyped up to be. I was very young when I saw the original three movies, and much older when I saw the new trilogy. I watched the new trilogy with different eyes. When I saw A New Hope I was like 7. When I saw Revenge of the Sith I was like 29-30. Of course I will not watch the new trilogy with the same eyes as I saw the first trilogy. But like I said, he more I think about it, themore I realize that not only doesn't the new trilogy appeal to me, but the original one doesn't appeal to me either anymore, at least not as much as it once did. Perhaps I'm getting old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_faerie87 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I don't know. First of all I feel the need to point out that I don't think highly of the average contemporary action flick. I'm not saying I don't like watching action films (I certainly do like some of them), I just think that substance is not something you'd normally look for in an action flick. Action movies are basically there to put people in the seats in the movie theatres. For example, where some people seemed overwhelmed by The Matrix trilogy and the deep philosophy they found in the movies, all I found was a flashy exterior with a few bumper stickers on them with references to different ancient cultures and slogan-like phrases from philosophy etc. My putting a sign above the door to my kitchen that says Chez Kosmos - five-star restaurant doesn't make my kitchen a five-star restaurant. Know what I mean? As for Leon, where you see of substance I see a plot that seems not the least bit realistic, not the least bit believable. I think that's the main reason why I don't like it. I can't buy the story, and if you can't buy it, how can you like it, how can you believe in it? Don't get me wrong though. I certainly am not a fan of Luc Besson, no. I managed to sit through The Fifth Element and about half of The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc, and aside from Leon I think those are the only works of Besson that I have seen. But, that said, I suspect that perhaps the character Matilda might be a memorable one not because of Portman's acting but rather because of Besson's writing/directing. So my conslusion would be that it's more likely that Besson is good at his job and I just happen not to like his films, not that Portman's performance is great. Whether you like someone or not is subjective, but I do think there are a lot of actors, directors, writers etc that can objectively be considered to be good at what they do. My question to you about Portman is this: Do you think that her parts after Leon mirror her part in that movie? Or could it be that it mirrors something in Portman? You make some good points and perhaps I am overrating the film/Portman or perhaps I simply don't like conventional action movies with lots of explosions. I think it's probably a combination of the two. As for the movie being believable, I think at times it stretches the truth a bit, but at the same time, I can easily imagine a world where crooked DEA officers kill a man over drugs. I can also imagine a hitman who takes in a young girl and trains her as his protege. That's the basis of the story and in my opinion, a pretty good one. Perhaps the reason why it doesn't seem as realistic is because it simply isn't stereotypical at all. As for Besson, I've liked most of his films that I've seen, although I didn't think too highly of his Joan of Arc rendition. As for your question to me, I'm going to cop out and say that it's a bit of both. I think she agreed to do Léon because the character Mathilda mirrored qualities that she liked/admired. As a result, and probably also due to her success as Mathilda, she has chosen other similar roles. So in other words, she hasn't really shocked me in any of the movies I've seen because it's always the same old Natalie I know and can count on. What I would really enjoy (providing that it isn't a total bomb) is to see her do something completely different and shock me and my expectations. I agree with most of that. Most of all I agree on the over use of CGI. That's my Star Wars pet peeve. The more I think about the whole series of films though I suspect that perhaps it is not the new trilogy that is bad but the original one that isn't as great as it's hyped up to be. I was very young when I saw the original three movies, and much older when I saw the new trilogy. I watched the new trilogy with different eyes. When I saw A New Hope I was like 7. When I saw Revenge of the Sith I was like 29-30. Of course I will not watch the new trilogy with the same eyes as I saw the first trilogy. But like I said, he more I think about it, themore I realize that not only doesn't the new trilogy appeal to me, but the original one doesn't appeal to me either anymore, at least not as much as it once did. Perhaps I'm getting old. Again, some more good points. Personally speaking, when I was little®, my favourite was Return of the Jedi and I didn't really care for The Empire Strikes Back. Now that I've gotten older, I pretty much detest RotJ while TESB is easily my favourite. A New Hope remains in limbo between the two. But I think my true Star Wars love would have to be the Expanded Universe. So many great novels! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Kosmos Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I can easily imagine a world where crooked DEA officers kill a man over drugs.Oh absolutely! That is very believable IMO. I can also imagine a hitman who takes in a young girl and trains her as his protege. I think this is where we disagree. I'm not sure I think stereotypes necessarily have anything to do with it though:, just to name one example, I can't honestly say I find the Terminator series believeable either, and T2 is where lots of action movie stereotypes come from. To me, Leon taking on a 10-year-old as his protege is about as believable as the Schwarzenator going back in time. And like I said, since so much of the movie is based on that, it's hard to take it too seriously. As for your question to me, I'm going to cop out and say that it's a bit of both. I think she agreed to do Léon because the character Mathilda mirrored qualities that she liked/admired. As a result, and probably also due to her success as Mathilda, she has chosen other similar roles. So in other words, she hasn't really shocked me in any of the movies I've seen because it's always the same old Natalie I know and can count on. What I would really enjoy (providing that it isn't a total bomb) is to see her do something completely different and shock me and my expectations. Don't think of it as a cop-out. I like your answer. Then again, I have a black belt in compromising. Seriously, I think it's a good answer. The reason why I asked it was partly rhetorical though, I didn't only hope for an asnwer, I was also hoping that you would perhaps think about the whole thing from a different perspective. I have only really seen Portman in Leon and the Star Wars movies. She also has a small part in Heat, but it's not as memorable as the one in Leon. I share your hope that she will one day start picking different roles, and I hope Hollywood lets her do that. I wouldn't think highly or her artistic ambitions if she's fine with doing the same type of roles over and over again. At a certain point progression is necessary. If she keeps doing the same roles all the time, I would be disappionted and the risk is I would see that as only getting easy money. Which can be good from time to time, but not all the time. Again, some more good points. Personally speaking, when I was little®, my favourite was Return of the Jedi and I didn't really care for The Empire Strikes Back. Now that I've gotten older, I pretty much detest RotJ while TESB is easily my favourite. A New Hope remains in limbo between the two. But I think my true Star Wars love would have to be the Expanded Universe. So many great novels! Actually, A New Hope is probably my favorite part. Much like The Fellowship of the Ring was my favorite in Peter Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien, and The Matrix was my favorite part of the Matrix trilogy. Wonder why that is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I really liked all 3 parts of the Old Trilogy. My favourite was A New Hope with episodes 5 and 6 locked up, only very slightly behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_faerie87 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Oh absolutely! That is very believable IMO. I think this is where we disagree. I'm not sure I think stereotypes necessarily have anything to do with it though:, just to name one example, I can't honestly say I find the Terminator series believeable either, and T2 is where lots of action movie stereotypes come from. To me, Leon taking on a 10-year-old as his protege is about as believable as the Schwarzenator going back in time. And like I said, since so much of the movie is based on that, it's hard to take it too seriously. I admit it may be stretching the truth a little, but it also has a lot in common with traditional children's literature where a young child is taught by an older master on how to achieve his/her goals. The Princess and the Goblin and Treasure Island are well-known examples of this. Don't think of it as a cop-out. I like your answer. Then again, I have a black belt in compromising. Seriously, I think it's a good answer. The reason why I asked it was partly rhetorical though, I didn't only hope for an asnwer, I was also hoping that you would perhaps think about the whole thing from a different perspective. Well thank you. I have only really seen Portman in Leon and the Star Wars movies. She also has a small part in Heat, but it's not as memorable as the one in Leon. I share your hope that she will one day start picking different roles, and I hope Hollywood lets her do that. I wouldn't think highly or her artistic ambitions if she's fine with doing the same type of roles over and over again. At a certain point progression is necessary. If she keeps doing the same roles all the time, I would be disappionted and the risk is I would see that as only getting easy money. Which can be good from time to time, but not all the time. I think part of it was because up until the last few years, she was only doing acting as a hobby (damn, I wish I could make millions of money off a hobby ) because as she put it, "I would rather be smart than be an actress." I think this led herself to limiting her roles to what she already knew. With that said, now that she's graduated from Harvard with a degree in Psychology, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see her start branching out in roles. Like I've already stated, her last three big movies have been really great and I expect things to get even better. *goes to start a petition to get a NA release for Goya's Ghosts* Actually, A New Hope is probably my favorite part. Much like The Fellowship of the Ring was my favorite in Peter Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien, and The Matrix was my favorite part of the Matrix trilogy. Wonder why that is... I agree with you on The Matrix and LotR, but I think the reason I like TESB is because it has a darker storyline and the "bad guys" actually "win." That and the Battle of Hoth is just plain cool, although the Battle of Yavin isn't too far behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Kosmos Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 (edited) I think the reason why I often like the first installment of a trilogy the most is because in the first movie, you always enter new territory, a new world. I don't know if I will be able, with my limited skills in the English language, to give a good description of my thoughts and feelings. It has a lot to do with anticipation and how the sequals can live up to the expectations set up by the first film. When I saw The Two Towers I was used to Jackson's realization of Tolkien's world, which was what I liked in The Fellowship of the Ring. When I saw Matrix Reloaded, I was used to the special effects that were so groundbreaking in The Matrix. That's thebest way I can put into (English) words, I'm afraid. Also I am a firm believer in the principle that states that some things are better if left to the imagination. In no way were the Wachoski brothers even close to being able to make real what I imagined would happen when Neo flew away from the phone booth in the closing scene of The Matrix. Not even close. And an open ending would have been much better IMO. As for the Star Wars saga... In A New Hope there was something innocent about Lucas's telling of the story. Lucas was embarking on an adventure. Artistiacally the new trilogy would have been better off if he hadn't filmed it. In the new trilogy, Lucas isn't as hungry. And frankly, the effort it took for him and the film crew to make all the CGI scenes weren't even close to the effort it took for them to film for example the scenes in the original movies when the rebels are attacking the Death Stars. In the original trilogy they worked their asses off to make it look real, to look better than previous science fiction movies. In the new trilogy al they did was fiddle with a couple of computers, and the results weren't nearly as realistic, not nearly as convincing. I admit it may be stretching the truth a little, but it also has a lot in common with traditional children's literature where a young child is taught by an older master on how to achieve his/her goals. The Princess and the Goblin and Treasure Island are well-known examples of this. I am not familiar with The Princess and the Goblin so I cannot comment on that. In Treasure Island though, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Jim is trained to become a pirate or an assasin, at least not in the same was as in Leon. I'm sorry but I just can't buy it. I'm not saying everything has to be completely realistic and believable, and I certainly think that everything is subjective. What seems believable and convincing to one person may seem unbelievable and far-fetched to another person. But if you can't buy the plot it will be hard to look beyond that and accept the movie. For example, I love the first Jaws, but for every Jaws sequal the behaviour of the shark becomes less and less believale and more and more absurd, finally to the point where you go "Oh for the love of humanity, come on! Enough already!" Know what I mean? Edited March 15, 2007 by Doktor Kosmos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_faerie87 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I think the reason why I often like the first installment of a trilogy the most is because in the first movie, you always enter new territory, a new world. I don't know if I will be able, with my limited skills in the English language, to give a good description of my thoughts and feelings. It has a lot to do with anticipation and how the sequals can live up to the expectations set up by the first film. When I saw The Two Towers I was used to Jackson's realization of Tolkien's world, which was what I liked in The Fellowship of the Ring. When I saw Matrix Reloaded, I was used to the special effects that were so groundbreaking in The Matrix. That's thebest way I can put into (English) words, I'm afraid. Mmhmm, I know what you mean. I think for myself it helped that I saw all three movies for the first time in the span of a few months at the theatre (didn't even know what Star Wars was prior to the 1997 re-release). So in a way, each movie for me was still "new territory." Also I am a firm believer in the principle that states that some things are better if left to the imagination. In no way were the Wachoski brothers even close to being able to make real what I imagined would happen when Neo flew away from the phone booth in the closing scene of The Matrix. Not even close. And an open ending would have been much better IMO. I agree, less is often more. As for the Star Wars saga... In A New Hope there was something innocent about Lucas's telling of the story. Lucas was embarking on an adventure. Artistiacally the new trilogy would have been better off if he hadn't filmed it. In the new trilogy, Lucas isn't as hungry. And frankly, the effort it took for him and the film crew to make all the CGI scenes weren't even close to the effort it took for them to film for example the scenes in the original movies when the rebels are attacking the Death Stars. In the original trilogy they worked their asses off to make it look real, to look better than previous science fiction movies. In the new trilogy al they did was fiddle with a couple of computers, and the results weren't nearly as realistic, not nearly as convincing. That pretty much sums up my beef with the prequels. They seemed more sterile and artificial than the original movies, as it seemed as if no one really poured out blood, sweat and tears over making it. I am not familiar with The Princess and the Goblin so I cannot comment on that. In Treasure Island though, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Jim is trained to become a pirate or an assasin, at least not in the same was as in Leon. I'm sorry but I just can't buy it. True, I didn't say it was the same, but there's a similar element of adults serving as rolemodels who help shape the young protagonist. This is apparent in almost all of children's classic literature, although I'm sure exceptions exist. That being said, I can't recall any ten year olds being trained as hitmen. I'm not saying everything has to be completely realistic and believable, and I certainly think that everything is subjective. What seems believable and convincing to one person may seem unbelievable and far-fetched to another person. But if you can't buy the plot it will be hard to look beyond that and accept the movie. For example, I love the first Jaws, but for every Jaws sequal the behaviour of the shark becomes less and less believale and more and more absurd, finally to the point where you go "Oh for the love of humanity, come on! Enough already!" Know what I mean? I know exactly what you mean. Realism is definitely subjective. For instance, many people on these boards rant and rave about Harry Potter, but for myself, I can't stand reading it because I find the characters to be painfully unrealistic. However, that's my opinion and I respect the opinions of others (but I still think I'm right ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Kosmos Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I'm not a fan of Harry Potter either. I read the first book and I saw the first movie, possibly also the second one (I honestly don't remember if Ive seen it or if I have it confused with the first one). But I didn't like it. I probably would have loved it if I had read it (and seen it) fifteen years ago. However, at 31 I am not in the target audience, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_faerie87 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I'm not a fan of Harry Potter either. I read the first book and I saw the first movie, possibly also the second one (I honestly don't remember if Ive seen it or if I have it confused with the first one). But I didn't like it. I probably would have loved it if I had read it (and seen it) fifteen years ago. However, at 31 I am not in the target audience, I suppose. I read the first book when I was 12. I will admit that at the time I thought it was pretty good. Then I read the next few, but by the time the first movie came out, I was already "beyond" Harry Potter's supposed target audience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Kosmos Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 And how old are you now, if I may be so bold to ask? I don't remember exactly when the first Potter book was published. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.