"AAAAAAHAHAAAAAA!"

>"AAAAAAHAHAAAAAA!"

How people can think this was not one of but the best movie in the series is beyond me.

It was a cold ending, that prettyboy wizard had only just died

...

dullest

which movie is this from

remember how they butchered this book?

i remember quidditch being a larger thing in this one, some things are out of order too

But how is Harry's credit?

Why didn't the bad guys use avada kedavra everytime they came across an enemy? its an instant kill goddammit

>people unironically think this is the best Potter movie

what the fuck

dullkino

I've only ever heard people say this improved upon the book.

Perhaps he's realizing that he is in the dullest franchises 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 r-right
"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.

Prisoner of Azkaban for all the delicious one-shots and really good pacing. Half-blood prince for the cinematography

They fucked it entirely. There are massive plot scenes that are changed and a lot of vital information is left out.

Never fails to make me smile

...

Who is this guy again?

ITT: Shots that made you literally turn 360 degrees and walk out of the theater.

It uses too much mana to cast over and over

Why don't people murder each other in real life over every dispute? Because people don't inherently want to kill each other

>There are massive plot scenes that are changed and a lot of vital information is left out.
That's the entire Harry Potter film series.

Stop consuming poison, Zachariah.

i like this movie a lot. very fast paced and exciting, but i miss the comfiness of the book. there were some subplots i like, like the firebolt being taken away for inspection, and the rat getting eaten by the cat (which they only mentioned in the film in a couple of lines).

Cedric Niggory

literally all of the movies are improvements on the books, because rowling is a hack. the only difference is the books have more things in them