Whats your favorite harry potter film?

Whats your favorite harry potter film?

The one where they beat the bad guys

Prisoner of Azhkaban. Best movie, second best book.

3 no contest

Azkaban.
"Movie Nights with Karli Kloss" is on right now and the movie is Chamber of Secrets. I expected her and sexy friends laughing and watching the movie, instead I got her attempting to be more famous.

I don't have a favorite flick from one of the dullest franchise 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.

meh, you can do better

Unironically Deathly Hallows Pt. 1

Weakest opening ever 1/10

1 or 5
2 and 3 are great but they needed more of Kenneth Branaugh/David Thewlis throughout the other movies

The one where Slytherin gets fucked at the end when Gandalf gives Gryfindor a trillion bonus points.

4 is the best

HP movies are like marvel shit abd nuwars film. No heart, no soul, just junk for the audience. Azkaban is the only good ine since it tried to be good.

Weak bait

>I don't have a favorite flick from one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises.

Awful.

For me, it's Deathly Hallows Part 2, because even as a terrible film it at least had the distinction of finally ending one of the dullest franchise 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.

Boring answer, but it's PoA for me. I just love the style and how it differs from the first two and the ones that follow. Cuaron made it his own, making it stand out in a series of 8 films.
Great direction, good plot, and it's the point where the main trio started to act slightly better. Not great acting, but much better than the first two films that still make me cringe because of the young trio's acting.

>Recognizing that fantastical tales of wizards, witches, mythical beasts, and epic battles between good and evil might not be enough anymore, tonight’s presentation of the franchise’s worst installment—Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets, where there’s a flying car, an origin story, a giant snake, and little else

I didn't know 2 was so unpopular

I could have sworn it was "the Sorcerer's stone".

That's only for burgers.

it's the most funny one :D

low quality bait

1 or 2. I liked Harris a lot and the generally brighter colours made the atmosphere feel a lot more endearing.

I think 1 and 4 were my favorite books too.

Should have been called The Magic Rock desu

The acting in the first one is pretty decent until the moment Hermione shows up, then it tanks hard

I know there wasn't much to work with, but that was still a pretty weak opening mate

GoF was the best book and the worst film. They openly stated they were seriously considering splitting it into two parts and they really should've done.

>B-but the actors would be too old if they did 9 films
"No!"

The main trio was 22-23 years old when filming the last film and nobody thought they looked way too old to play the role of a 17-year-old. Another film wouldn't have made a difference to the credibility but it would've been able to do GoF justice. Such a great story butchered by forcing it into one film where they cut over half of the plot.

I agree. I'm aware of how much 4's film got butchered, but I still love what little there was. I'd do anything to see how it would've turned out if there were two parts to it.

The first few movies put this big castle to scene while the last ones had it made completely CGI
This was a big change and not for the better

Deathly Hallows part 1, that shit was cash. Probably the most unique of the series.

It's nearly 3 fucking hours long and somehow manages to cover the least plot. Of course it's unpopular.

Booklet who has only watched the movies here. I thought goblet of fire was a fine movie in the franchise. Are you saying it's just a poorly made film or a decent film that had so much more potential than what was used?

Nothing wrong with the film in itself, just a terrible adaptation of the book. The book was full of side-plots and red herrings, and Barty Crouch Jr. has a great backstory that was cut almost entirely other than "I killed my father just like Voldemort did". They cut out two big characters who were under suspicion of orchestrating Harry's entry into the tournament for different reasons as well. The book keeps you guessing who put Harry's name in the goblet and why and the twist at the end is superb because there's hints thrown throughout the book that makes everyone a suspect.

CoS covered the plot almost page to page apart from the Deathday Party, what are you talking about? If anything it's OotP, the shortest movie adapting the longest book

The Force Awakens

>Dat opening