Are the Harry Potter films worth watching or should I just read the books?

Are the Harry Potter films worth watching or should I just read the books?

How old are you? The answer is no

Read the books and then watch the movies.

What are you 12?

...

If you are a fan of high art and great filmcraft, then I would absolutely recommend the most galvanizing franchise in the history of movie franchises. Indeed, each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been wholly unique from the others in all aspects, yet seamlessly interlocking. Not to even mention the vibrant imagery, the series’ only low point has been its lack of rest between moment-to-moment excitement and breathtaking use of special effects, all to make magic seem attainable, to make action seem more alive than ever.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling made sure the series would never be Americanised; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant burgers to anybody - just a deservedly profitable cinematic extension of her novels. The Harry Potter series might be anti-capeshit (there is no denying), but it’s certainly not anti-SW prequels in its embracement of wonder, beauty and excitement. Everyone wants to acknowledge this. Now, thankfully, they can.

>b-but muh crap source material
"No!"

The writing is astonishing; the book was marvelous. As I read, I noticed that every time Rowling wrote of any event in the story at all, she strove to take after the great authors of epic poetry.

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time this approach was taken. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was astounded. Rowling's mind is so overflowing with literary invigoration and extended metaphors that no one can possibly write any better. Later I read a pithy, distasteful review of Harry Potter by Sup Forums. They wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are watching Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to watch 'reddit flicks'." How short-sighted they are! Certainly there were being ironic. When you watch "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to watch only the most essential of cinema.

Worth watching? maybe at 2x speed, to begin with, and perhaps also to make an end. Why watch it? Presumably, if you cannot be persuaded to watch anything better, the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises will have to do. 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.

The first one's a good kids film. Beyond that... no. Not really.

the books are worth it
movies are complete shit, only the first is worth if for its comfiness

>Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling made sure the series would never be Americanised
lol, >No!

For a young man in the 21st century, J.K. Rowling embodies just about everything that he hates about his own mother, but can't outright say to her. An aging neoliberal single mother with an inflated sense of self-importance using twitter to cope with her increasing irrelevance. The sort of woman who hasn't seriously thought about any of her opinions, but feels the need to push them on to others and condescend to anybody who might think differently.

She is an archetype. Neither insightful nor funny nor controversial. She is a consummate mediocrity basking in the praise of similar mediocrities the world over who have projected their own aspirations on to her, satisfied that somebody like them is a billionaire. Her Christianity is an accessory. She takes everything that she's been taught by public school and daytime television and fashions a god out of it.

The first three books and movies are legitimately entertaining and worth a read/watch.

i want to fug chari

Also, she conceives of public affairs in the nebulous terms of "love" and "hate". The fact that an action might fall outside of either of these two categories, or that something she deems "hateful" might in fact be the wiser choice has not occurred to her. Despite this, she is shockingly easy to bait into a bitter, spiteful rage. Furthermore, her generosity only extends as far as her personal comfort. At the end of the day, it's little more than virtue signalling and if social opinion undergoes some vast sweeping change then she'll fall in line.

In many ways, she's already missed the boat. Her brand of comfortable feminism has already fallen out of style. She just doesn't know it yet. The second wave man-hating sexual phobia that sees rape everywhere. Its frigidity is evident in her writing. Then the bizarre merger with proud slut queer positivity. The post-hoc declarations of characters' sexual proclivities. The rationalization of racial retconning. It's like she discovered a Harry Potter fan tumblr, followed a couple links, and incorporated whatever she saw, resulting in an incoherent schizophrenic worldview. That's probably exactly what happened.

Her name is fucking Joanne. Need I say more?

And one more thing. She has a surprisingly nice pair of tits that I'd really like to suck on.

She looks a lot like my own mother, but with nicer hair and way nicer tits. In fact, she's basically a more attractive version of my mother, which is great since the only thing that really held me back from fantasizing about my own mother is that she just wasn't good looking enough.

Rowling really seems like the kind of woman who'd suck her teenage son's dick. I mean it.

She gets back from le ebin GIRLS NIGHT OUT XD!!! Plastered out of her mind from sipping too much shiraz or perhaps pinot grigio. Maybe she and THE GIRLS even passed around a blunt at Samantha's house. I always find it funny when Gen X women think they're being SO BAD smoking weed. Mouth full of the most expensive cheese available at Tesco and whatever crackers Georgia had to get rid of. She's cackling with laughter and sobbing as she lurches in through the front door. She has zero self-awareness when it comes to her emotions, but defends them with religious fervor.

Clumsily, she makes her way toward the living room where her son is playing video games. She sits down on his lap, suffocating him with her embrace and exhaling the stinking fumes of cheap wine right into his face. For a couple minutes, she rants about what a BITCH Leslie at the office is, before muttering the he's the only on who understands her. Briefly, she looks into his eyes, trembling all over. Then she locks her mouth with his and begins to kiss him passionately. At first he is paralyzed, but his mom is kind of hot and he'll probably never have another chance like this. He's thought about it before. He kisses back and before long she's between his legs, pawing at his penis like the cats she collects. She takes it in her mouth and sucks it like she's back in college. She's STILL GOT IT.

The next morning, she pretends not to remember anything, but blames him for the incident, finding subtle ways to punish him.

I think the first 3 movies are genuinely good but I think after awhile they sort of ran out of good ideas and just ends the same every book with voldemort coming back and harry miraculously saving everyone. It's a kids story that got popular because it introduced a novel concept involving witchcraft schools which admittedly was a good concept but that doesn't make up for the writing.

i would marry charizard in a heartbeat

>I posted it again mom!

Unless you're 10 years old don't do either.

Only the first 3 books are good. She just rambles on in the rest. She could have cut out half of those books and they’d still be fun. Instead, she tries to make them long shit tier epics that ruin the whole Harry Potter universe.

As for the movies, only the first 2 are worth a watch. If you watch the 3rd you’ll have to watch them all.

...

Is a vagina worth fucking or should I just buy a fleshlight.

This is what you are asking right now.

they were amazing to watch as a kid. but i doubt an adult who has never seen them would get anything out of the series now

>Hating based anti-HP poster

replace atlas shrugged with grapes of wrath and ur gud

Now that the new Star Wars movie is confimed shit. Harry Potter is now the most consistent movie franchise.

Based "No!" poster