okay, toward the beginning of the movie, when everyone is sitting at hogwarts, mr. crouch is about to explain a rule and the ceiling starts a thunderstorm so to say and mr. moody stops it.. why was that happening?\ni don't have the book so i don't understand that part
212279
The thunderstorm was a dramatic effect for the movie itself. It has nothing to do with the book itself, and the book mentions nothing about Mad-Eye Moody having any effect whatsoever on the weather. The director added this effect to create a mood.
581440
Did he even read the book or did he put it down after the peach went into the ocean?\n\nhttp://www.allscifi.com/topics/info_28461.asp\n\nIts not a review of the book, its about the movie. I haven't read the book, if there are some things different in the book than in the movie, if your son actually read the book this review should at least jog his memory.
628748
ahhhh   KING LEAR!!!  it's hard to explain actually because this isn't a soliloquy.  it's what he says to kent and the "fool" after leaving the company of his two daughters (regan and goneral) during an arguement they had.  he's telling the other two to go into this "shelter" if you can call it that, to sheild themselves from the storm (the tempest, "tempest" in shakespears day meant storm).  of course it was violent storm that night.  the night the king lost his "glory" and in a manner of speaking the gods unleashed their fury!  it was so bad that it distracted his mind.  the storm represents what he felt in his heart.  the part where he tells the "boy" to go in first and calls him houseless poverty is just a juxtapose.  the will pray then he'll sleep which is pretty straight forward.  you really have to watch the play to understand.
491519
The film actually showed us that, as teenagers, we participate in the bystander effect. Each character was from a different "clique"...the rich (Ringwald), the jock (Estevez), the nerds (Hall), the outcast (Sheedy) and the rebel (Nelson). They all represented a different type of bystander group. When taken out of their group of bystanders and left alone, they are pushed to give aid to one another. And the movie also showed that individuals that were most likely to give aid first and so on. The jock (Estevez) was the first to break from the bystander effect. He consistently came to the aid of Ringwald and Hall. Ringwald and Hall, in turn, broke from the effect when helping Nelson. Sheedy was the last hesitant one to break from the effect. Why? Maybe because she suffered from a lack of trust and assurance from peers and loved ones so she was the most cautious one. \nEven in some of their stories, the bystander effect was used. Estevez told of the story where they taped some guy's hairy butt together. Everyone stood and watched as it was being done...bystander effect!\n\nHope I helped...from one psychology student to the next.
343758
I have no idea. But something interesting about the Santa Clause movies with Tim Allen. In the first film, Tim's character accidentally scares Santa, and he falls off the roof. Tim takes his suit and becomes the next Santa. In the sequel, the "Mrs." clause states Santa cannot be Santa without Mrs. Clause, so Tim has to get married. Well, hold up, wait a second. If the original Santa died in the first film, what happened to THAT Mrs. Clause?
416871
How he knew about the safety deposit box is not given because it's irrelevant. The title of the movie is to throw the viewers off.  The title just means that he did the job and he hid inside and came out later.  That's why the movie is so good.  The robbers are connected probably from a while back.  That isn't important.  Some things they don't show in the movie because it's already understood or for you to think about it later like you and your roommates were doing.  Good Movie.
252241
The name of the movie is "Intensity".  There is a book that the movie was made from written by Dean Koontz.  The book was even more Intense then the movie.  Forgive the pun.
331161
Just saw the movie today. I am a Christian and wanted to see it so I knew more to answer the questions that I have been asked by friends. The hardest thing I find to comprehend is why are people being so blown away with it, when it is clear that it is a work of fiction? It is a fiction book, that has just been made into a fiction movie. Dan Brown himself states that the book was fiction and is not based on fact.\n\nJust goes to show how cunning and conniving the devil can be.\n\nAs for the movie, didnt really enjoy it. A bit over the top.
265092
OK they defiantly explained it in the end of the third book... he had Hermione's cat take the order in for him. lol.
323726
Is this supposed to be a trick question?\n\nHarry TRICKED Ron and Hermione into THINKING he'd given him Felix Felicis in Chapter 12 ("Felix Felicis") of Half-Blood Prince.  He didn't actually put it in.\n\nHe did, however, give Ron, Hermione, and Ginny the potion in Chapter 25 ("The Seer Overheard").  I think the first answer is the one that you were looking for, though.  :)
318644
I understand your confusion, and to a ceratin extent, I agree with you.\n\nI read the book, and I plan to see the movie (as soon as the hype dies down).  I think that the reason this book is taken so seriously is for two reasons:\n\n1.  Dan Brown begins the book by stating that all of the groups, artwork, etc. are completely true.  People assume that if these things are true and accurate, then the whole book must be as well.\n\n2.  The whole premise, that Jesus was married and that the "holy grail" isn't a cup but is in fact the holy bloodline of Jesus, isn't a new theory and is one that some people have argued for many years.  Plus, it is plausible!  I'm not saying that it is likely, but it is possible.\n\nWhat I don't understand is why this film has to change poeple's faith.  Even if it was discovered with 100% certainty that Jesus was married, that doesn't change my faith in Christianity at all!  (It makes me wonder about the people who made the decision to cover it all up, but it doesn't change my faith in God.)  In fact, learning that Jesus was married might actually make me identify with Him more than I currently do.\n\nI wish that people would think about that more seriously... what has REALLY changed?
305976
*****SPOILER**** SPOILER****Remember when Professor Charles Xavier was giving the lecture to the students about their poweres and abilities and he had them watch the guy in the hospital bed? He talked about ability transferring if they had the power to do that and what benefits it could have and the ethics of it, etc etc?\n\n\nWEll in the very end after the credits...it shows a female Dr enter a hospital room, she checks in on the patient then we hear Prof Xavier's voice say,"Moira" and she replies "Charles?" so, this is Dr. Moira MacTaggart and Prof Xavier has transferred is mental being into this man. Leaves it open to sequal of course...especially with the fact that Magneto could start moving the chess piece even if it was slight..showing only temporary cure that does not last.
4633
This is explained in the books. Harry tells the Ministry of Magic the names of all the death eaters but the Ministry of Magic feels that he is simply reciting the names of all the people in the past to have been suspected of being Death Eaters. \n\nI do recommend reading the books for a more complete experience. Hope any previous answers haven't completely eradicated the joy of reading the remaining books.
252736
That is correct.. .it is one of the "little people" who were depressed throughout the making of the movie. It's during the part where they just meet the tinman in the forest. Right afterwards the witch appears on the top of the house and threaten them. Right after that, if you look in the background next to the house, you will see a leg flailing from a tree. It's tough to tell and the best part to see it is when they're singing, "We're off to the see the Wizard." Like I said before, it's right next to the house.... because if you look a little more to the right, there is a goose that is kind of wiggling around, but that's not him. Hope that helps! :)
399114
The book has so much more just like any book turned into a movie. The movie can never measure up. It is a time thing. If they tried to have it all in the movie they would be 5 hours long.
296249
aahhh!  tim o'brien... sorry, i dont have the answer because i never saw the movie.  i did read the book though.  tim o'brien is actually a teacher at my school (texas state university) and the chair of the english department.  he actually came to my class (close friends with my english teacher) last semester and the 17 of us got to talk to him one on one.  it was so interesting to hear all of the things he had to say about life, war, love, things that are going on now...it was also very interesting to hear that most of that book is not reliable information on what really happened to him at war.
121859
The Book's the best .\nThe Movie was like a synopsis and special effects showcase.\nThe movie has really good visual effects. \nBut one thing i have noticed about the movies is that , they seem to project a world far different from what i had imagined.\nRight from the first movie to the fourth , each one has differed in representation of the setting where the story takes place, from what i had imagined.\n\nAlso i dont like the way the story is being changed (a lot lot lot) from the original book version.\n\nThumbs Up for the Book and Thumbs down for the movie.