Chamber of Secrets

Why is it considered to be the worst Harry Potter film? Personally it's my favorite one

...

>Why is it considered to be the worst Harry Potter film?
Absolutely nobody says this. It's pretty universally acknowledged as one of the best.

Merlin's beard! Pipes in Hogwarts must be huge af

I thought it was Goblet that was considered the worst.

How the fuck does it not leave giant holes in the walls? It has to peek out somewhere when turning people to stone

How did ginny write that so high up the wall?

Basilisks can change size

>enemies of the her... beware
what did she mean by this?

>implying his performance wasn't perfect

And no girl or teacher noticed: "Hey, this looks like Ginny's writing."

Both of them are better than the Yates movies

a stepladder!

Nope, never mentioned in movies or books.

For one, I thought the book was the worst of the seven. It kind of did nothing regarding character development and the story seemed out of place back at the time. I also thought the story lines with Dobby and that Lockhart fellow were both kind of annoying.

DULLEST

...

I remember liking it as a kid but I haven't seen it since seeing it in theatres, the only things I can remember from it is the punching tree, flying car, the annoying ghost girl, the phoenix and the giant snake at the end. Is it worth re-watching?

You are correct. That ranking is indeed shit

>At Rowling's insistence, the ancient hall of University College Oxford was to be painted with the magical inscription in metallic paint. The Master of the college was unaware at the time, and it was only discovered post-production that the paint could not be removed without severely damaging the brickwork. The production team, at the behest of Rowling, had defaced a Grade-I listed building. Scholars of Oxford architecture described it as the worst incident since the fire of 1850 which destroyed much of Magdalen College
>even today, students of University College are forced to walk past the hideous inscription done by a low-grade author for a low-grade film, on their way to meals

JESUS CHRIST

>no copypasta yet

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

epic, simply epic!

>oxford

fuck em

those are occamies you dumb fuck

>3 is the lowest grossing Potter movie

take that into account you shits. PoA was fucking awful.

t. university of swansea alumni

I thought PoA took a way too hard turn from the more fantastical first two movies. On its own it was an okay movie (although ruined by bad CGI), but in the context of the franchise it was a horrible dent.

Nothing that happens in it has any impact on the rest of the series, but what can you expect from one of the dullest franchises in history?

what is this t. shit? ive been away attempting to be a normie too long and now i dont know what you people are saying most the time

>tf when poundland appears in the captcha

feminism

Perfect

1. Chamber of Secrets (great atmosphere, perfect story, quite similar to the first one but better)
2. Philosopher's Stone (atmosphere was perfect, classic, innocent + classic plot twist)

Decent

3. Goblet of Fire (nice plot twist, excellent unsettling atmosphere mixed with some charming moments)
4. Prisoner of Azkaban (empty plot twist/filler, charming setting)

Sucked

5. Half-Blood Prince (gloomy setting + forced fanfiction shipping)
6. Order of the Phoenix (empty filler)
7. Deathly Hallows I (WWII meets fantasy. Is this a Harry Potter film?)
8. Deathly Hallows II (fuck this, no Hogwarts charm anymore whatsoever, just some Twilight-look-a-like blockbuster)

This

I haven't seen 6 or 8 but for the ones I have seen this matches up pretty well with what I thought of them.

I remember reading that Chamber of Secrets shares a lot of parallels with another HP book and was originally going to be set later in the series but Rowling switched them.

In terms of character development, sure the book lacked it but it didn't really need more character development when the main characters themselves are pretty simple. It did a good job, however, expanding upon the wizarding world which I think one can appreciate. I think of it as a stopgap book because it's the only book of the series in which nothing major happens in the overarching storyline. It essentially reads as a standalone story and that's what I love about it most.

Who knows considering they're all terrible and part of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises. Seriously 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.

Worst is either 5 or 4

Goblet of Fire was the last "acceptable" Harry Potter film

every HP movie after that felt rushed and unfocused. it's like they knew they would be box office hits, so why put in the extra effort? Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince were particularly unmemorable.

terveisin or some finnish shit
short for with regards

>Call him Voldemort, Harry. Always use the proper name for things. Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself. Of course if we were being completely thorough we would use the TRUE proper name which is Tom Riddle but I won't be revealing that to you at this specific juncture because the plot of this film relies on you not being aware that Tom Riddle is Lord Voldemort and revealing that to you right now would make this story much less dramatic although obviously also much safer for you, not to mention the students being murdered at the school that I am the headmaster of.

Because it was the worst along with goblet of fire. I love it but the others are better

As someone who has never read the books and had only ever seen the first one up until last year. I thought that 6 was the worst one.

Yea but was he a good friend?

Chamber of Secrets is the best of the series, though.

Never understood why idiots on here praise PoA.

So like a penis?

2 has the most basic faults in columbus not steering from the book at all. It doest flow as well as the others. Its great because they all are but its considered the weakest irl

that makes actually sense, do you actually believe teachers care enough to read through all homeworks and essays, or would they just glance and assume that the text is good enough?
Heck, or they might have some magical assistants, or if feeling lazy, get those basement-kitchen slaves to read student homework. That would make them just any typical uni.

nigga he was head and shoulders the best part of the film

Why is Emma hotter as a 13 year old?

2>3>1 didnt even watch the rest because theyre shit and emma was already too old

Hebephilia

Yeah that's bullshit if so, it's definitely a top 3 HP movie

Unequivocal worst is Half Blood Prince.
3 > 4 > 1 > 5 > 2 > 7-2 > 7-1 > 6

Why do I find that hard to believe?

Why did they have a super dangerous secret chamber in thr middle of a school?

Better yet why do they have like 90% of all the dangerous shit they do around young kids there?

Nobody here offers any criticism of columbus ans overrated chamber. I love it but its not top 3.

7.1>6>3>2>5>7.2>1>4

Goblet of fire is the worst and putting it above anything is a red flag

I for one loved Dobby.

I watchd Deathly Hallows two days ago and his death always brings out tears.

Pre-feminist Emma

That's a reason I love deathly hallows part 1 his death is well done and sad and fits the theme of the film. Also is a great climax to end on and split up the book, the only one that could have been split. All the deaths I thought were sad besides cedric

She's 11 there and she wasn't. She had the same face after puberty and was hot in every single one of them.

British genes

Well, my teacher in school knew after one year writing of 30 people and that was just my class.
And Gryffindor girls from her grade and class would know how she writes. But all of this could be actually explained just by: "She was possessed, so it was Young Tom Riddle writting"