Dcasey98

I think your and your ugly, bitch ass brown eye should be shipped to China you dick sucking cactus fucker

Also, you're making an extraordinarily big deal about this and you're sort of pretzelling the logic here. The action scenes work effectively and the end when Voldemort is beating Harry around the astronomy tower and his face merges with Voldemort in that one hectic midair sequence is really jarring and nicely done. I love the priori incantation at the end, and it doesn't look like they "exploded into confetti". It looked like dead skin. I think they did that to make Voldemort's end more operatic and less human (an ironic, wrong decision.) But seeing the bodies lying about the courtyard and the emotion in both their faces as they battle each other at the end is human, gritty, and very well done, and when they battle on that staircase at the beginning...great work.

While I agree with some of that, the "silly Micky mousing action music" is another odd, over exaggerated attempt to patronize. Alexandre desplat would never and nothing about the above scene is offending other than the fact that Bellatrix didn't die like she was supposed to. theyre dark films, but Rowling's books were darker.

Public service announcement: EVERY ONE OF YOU CAN FUCK A CACTUS.

I'd say you need to do read my former statement

You all have your noses sniffing your assholes ready to plunge them miles into your rectums Jesus suck a dick

Ooh! But you state your opinion like fact and get upset if someone challenges it. You were stating "this is what Harry Potter is like," not "I know nothing about it, but this is what i think it might be like" or even "this is what I thought about her series."

Well that makes you sound even more unintelligent and idiotic. Bye. I have no time for people who "don't care" about everything.

Also, has anyone seen this stuff?

New JNH track: Porpentina takes Newt in / MACUSA Headquarters

They literally had to omit it with the torture scene that was heavily edited the first cut they submitted received an R rating. He discussed that at the press conference. Light and fluffy, Jesus Christ.

This sounds like it comes from someone who hasn't a clue what the Wizarding world is about, and I doubt you know a lot about it. JK Rowling, in the first book alone, included an 11 year old boy burning a man to death with his bare hands, a double murder, tales of war and torture, a man being possessed by another, his head grafted onto the back of his head, the consumption of animals for power...the books are dark. The source material is certainly darker than any entertainment brand today. Star Wars and Marvel are both "fluffy and light" in comparison to Potter. Again, I really can't lay a finger on what exactly you mean by "how little was actually there" when they turned dark. They were dark from the beginning, and it was apparent she was building up to something. You keep on inventing your own weird names and mentioning organizations of Quidditch leagues, except...since when has that been the limits of Rowling's political relevancy when she's literally written about war crimes, geonocide, mass murder, mudblood death camps, kangaroo courts, torture, assassinations, human trafficking, prohibition, the murder of children...like, at least try to care. Your justification for calling it "light and fluffy" seems like a mindless attempt to trivialize the series. This woman wrote an 8 installment series about a boy coming to terms with the increasingly violent world around him and the losses he had to go through to mirror her own experience with the death of her mother, suicidal thoughts, and depression and it's told really quite excellently. The fact that an entire generation clung to it more voraciously than any generation has before to a story, and have come to Rowling to tell her how her books got them out of depression, gave them the strength to confront abusers, accompany their child as they died from cancer...to say it has no substance and is light and fluffy is an insulting, patronizing, bald faced lie, and it flies in the face of everything the books stood for. The books never attempted to be "light and fluffy" outside of a few irrelevant world building details. They were dark books. No ones claiming it's the greatest piece of literature ever, but for highly commercial fantasy, it's really quite mature, and lying about its tone and patronizing it to disclude it from the creative conscious is really disrespectful. This is the forum that will praise Star Wars and Jurrassic Park, both of which are much lighter and fluffier than JK Rowling's Wizarding World, (particularly the former: Ewoks, Jar Jar Binks, farting aliens, come on people,) so I don't really understand the voracious hatred and dismissal of her work. Basically, the Potter stories are dark and tragic. They're not light and fluffy in any significant way, and you're not going to find many people who will agree. The "heart of the story" as Jo claims, is the scene where Harry walks into the forest and uses the resurrection stone to confront the murdered loved ones he's lost, and use them to comfort him will he died for the community that took him in and gave him a family. Cursed Child sees him bonding tearfully with his son at the gravesites of everyone he lost. And at the end, he built a family. Something that was ripped away from him at age 1. For something so commercial, that really is quite mature and tragic. Cultural elitism doesn't get people anywhere. Sorry.

Wow, another desperate attempt to take it down using the same tired arguments...I can't count the colors in that trailer, they're so plentiful a lot of vagueries, no actual complaints. Just relentless JKWW discrimination and bashing I guess the fantastic beasts trailer was a little to good to be trashed, so you attempted to rattle off a really irrelevant "color" argument again and then just dropped it and turned your focus back to DHP1 also, JNH's score sounds loud, obnoxious, cartoonish, lacking in subtlety and beauty...a lot like John Williams. Horrible score.

I especially love how people who The Wizarding World is a little too literary and academic for try and downplay it and bash it in this manner. Boring is such a lame excuse to not see a film, because the trailers they've showed us have been reviewed excellently. And the film is far more than that. Unlike Star Wars, JK Rowling writes stories with intelligence and thematic heft about her own dark experiences in life. "In 1926, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) arrives at the Magical Congress of the United States of America for a meeting with an important official. At this meeting is a magically expanded briefcase, which houses a number of dangerous creatures and their habitats. When the creatures escape from the briefcase, it sends the American wizarding authorities after Newt. The situation threatens to strain even further the state of magical and non-magical relations, which is already in a dangerous place, due to the threatening presence of the fanatical New Salem Philanthropic Society, an extremist organization dedicated to the eradication of wizard-kind. Newt battles to correct the mistake, and the horrors of the resultant increase in violence, fear, and tension felt between magical and non-magical peoples." Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander,[1] an eccentric, introverted wizard, the future author of the textbook Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and an employee at the British Ministry of Magic. Katherine Waterston as Porpentina "Tina" Goldstein,[2] a down-to-earth and grounded witch and former Auror working for the Magical Congress of the United States of America (MACUSA), who longs to fight for what's right but forced to work in an office well below her skill level. Dan Fogler as Jacob Kowalski, a newly single No-Maj factory worker and aspiring baker who is exposed to the New York City magical community after he meets Newt.[3] Alison Sudol as Queenie Goldstein,[4][5]Porpentina's younger sister and roommate, described as a bombshell, free-spirited and big-hearted, and an accomplished Legilimens. Colin Farrell as Percival Graves,[6] a high-ranking Auror and the Director of Magical Security for MACUSA, who is in charge of the protection of wizards and set with the task of tracking down Newt. Samantha Morton as Mary Lou,[7] a narrow-minded No-Maj and the sinister leader of the New Salem Philanthropic Society (the NSPS, or "The Second-Salemers"), an extremist group whose goals include exposing and killing wizards and witches. Ezra Miller as Credence,[8][9][10] Mary Lou's troubled and mysterious adopted son. Carmen Ejogo as President Seraphina Picquery, the President of MACUSA. Jon Voight[11] as Henry Shaw, Sr., US senator Henry Shaw Jr.'s father. Josh Cowdery as Henry Shaw Jr., a US senator who holds a rally picketed by the New Salem Philanthropic Society Ron Perlman[12] as Gnarlack, a goblin gangster who owns a speakeasy nightclub who comes across Newt. Faith Wood-Blagrove as Modesty,[13] a haunted young girl with the ability to see deep into people and has an inner strength and stillness. Jenn Murray as Chastity[8][14] Gemma Chan George Najsarek Zoë Kravitz[15] its funny how people seem to just hate JKWW brand. For no apparent reason.

No, they gave it 5 stars because the acting is good, the music is amazing, the thematics involving parenthood, traumas of war, and recovering from death relevant, the beautiful production design effective, the on stage effects truly amazing...all reason it's been highly regarded. What Hollywood Reporter said: This sometimes disturbing tale of murder, guilt and fear rethinks the core values of the franchise even via the recasting of familiar characters. Racist fans were horrified in the comments sections of many a website when it was revealed that Hermione would be played by Swaziland-born actor Dumezweni. (Rowling cheekily pointed out that the books never specify that she's Caucasian, just that she has curly brown hair.) A veteran of the London stage, recently seen in Carmen Disruption at the Almeida, Dumezweni exudes the intelligence we've come to expect from Hermione, as well as the sort of authority that makes it credible she'd have been appointed Minister of Magic at age 40. What the Telegraph said: At heart, The Cursed Child concerns itself precisely with the anxiety of having an illustrious forebear and the dangers of trying to go back over old ground; it persuasively argues the value of doing so, too. There’s a universal, relatable emotional core to the show. How do we grow up? How do we talk to our closest family members? How do we heal deep-rooted psychological damage? What Variety said: It’s the friendship of two bullied boys bound together, and it’s a beautiful, tender thing. The script by Jack Thorne (“Skins,” “Shameless”) recognizes that rejection breeds resentment, and outsiders stew into outcasts. No one’s born a villain, nor sees themselves as such, and where the books gave us stock baddies, “Cursed Child” fleshes them out. Albus and Scorpius only ever try to make good, but their efforts tend to lead to bad. This is, however, still Harry’s story as much as his son’s, and if, 20 years ago, Rowling shepherded a generation through their teenage years, now she provides parenting lessons. An orphan abused by his foster family, Jamie Parker’s Harry struggles with his son. Their conversations always come back to him; their relationship is stern and serious, never playful or affectionate. The Boy That Lived has become The Man That Frowns — his hero complex is a burden and his childhood a barrier to letting others in. Parker’s superb. When he folds his arms, he seems to hug himself. His own frustrations rebound on his son.