Would you let him slug you?

Would you let him slug you?

Did he slug Harry?

HBP is best potter film

HOWEVER didn't take off and this sure as hell won't either.

It is fine cinema. Hard to pick my favorite but its easily top 3 or 2

However posting lives on on Cred Forums

this and goblet, for sure.

so what was liquid luck really? just vodka? water mixed with cocaine?

Because he was in one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises? Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

t. mike newell

'no'

He definitely got it up unlike one of the dullest shitposts in the history of movie shitposts. Each shitpost following /lit/ wizards and their pals from /r9k/ as they fight assorted kinographers has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the lack of film analysis the shitposts only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of images and pasta?all to make fantasy unfantastical to make witchcraft seem kiddie.

Perhaps the die was cast when Quentin vetoed the idea of shitposting on /lit/ directing the shitposts at Cred Forums, he made sure the shitposts would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-posting for his (You). The shitposts might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-atmospherical anaylsis in its refusal of critique and watching for the plot. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the shitposts are g-g-good though
"No!"

The writing is dreadful; the books were terrible and the films were much better. As I read, I noticed that everytime he shitposts, Quentin wrote instead that Brave New World "was a low tier form of art."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that shitpost was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. The shitposters mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that he has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of shitpost by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are shitposting at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you shitpost you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.