So Sup Forums, can any of you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this isn't the best film of the series?

So Sup Forums, can any of you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this isn't the best film of the series?
>Protip: you can't.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sPVCPoe-DgE
twitter.com/AnonBabble

no doubt about it, third film was the peak.
>that quidditch scene

Where's the pasta?
Somebody please.

Watched it in the theaters, thought it was the worst one of the bunch, haven't watched it since.
Should I give it another go?

I don't think you can fix retardation over time

I remember it feeling like a letdown after the first two.

Wasn't that the one where they started using that ugly blue filter and traded in cloaks for boring normie clothes?

the werewolf looked shit tho

fucking doctor who of all things had a better looking werewolf around the same time

Yes, and stay focused on the absolute kino shots.

youtube.com/watch?v=sPVCPoe-DgE

here you go

This one came out during a tough time in my life, and I just can't enjoy it. Try to change that, please.

everyone sucks PoA's dick because it was directed by the Mexican dude that directed children of men. if it weren't for that nobody would hold this one above any of the others. anyway, i like the first two films the best. CoS is my favorite book in the series and they both have a whimsical tone that seemed to get lost after mr cuaron took the third movie in a "darker, grittier" tone. fucking why? theyre harry potter movies for fucks sake. come to think of it, i really dislike PoA.

I think goblet if fire is the most fun despite being objectively an overdramatic piece of shit

However, the fact that they get the blackest extra they could possibly find to say the "black could be anywhere" line still makes me kek to this day

Ah yes. I noticed that exact phrase reoccurring multiple times while reading the stories behind one of 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.

Goblet of Fire was always my favorite
reminder that Fleur Delacour is best girl

it's really well shot but it actually tells the story pretty badly. a lot of the details they miss out are pretty essential to understanding James' story and it's stuff that is then referred to in the later films (padfoot etc)

the whole explanation of sirius & pettigrew is rushed, abridged. i just remember finding it really jarring. it was the first one where you needed to read the book to really understand what's going on

I have no idea who the director you're talking about is, and I still liked it the best (Though I never watched the last two or three movies).
Prisoner of Azkaban is one of the few movies I might even suggest is arguably better than the book.

he also says "Taking the form of a giant spectral dog, it's among the darkest omens in our world. It's an omen...of death."

you might want to edit your pasta
it should be
>the books were terrible
you also forgot the /lit/ tier of books pic

Somehow I'm sure that book she's holding is just as dull as one 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.

>"DEH!"

I remember the Sirius and Pettigrew drama being well explained. There was that scene in Hogsmeade with Harry wearing the cloak and hearing Dumbledore's conversation.

Why did PoA transition into a darker edgier tone? Oh I don't know ever heard of puberty? Also that lighter tone would not have allowed anyone to take voldemort seriously.

I was like 12

Why do you fags feel the need to talk about a movie you haven't seen in 10 years and give your opinion like you even know what you're talking about? Watch the movie again and THEN make a thread you fucking simpleton.

>traded in cloaks for boring normie clothes
I hated this shit

Reminder that this kid was a Gryffindor that shared a bedroom with Harry for 6 years. The Black could be anywhere.

check'd

I was asking if I should see it again. Time is money my dear newfriend

>"time is money"
>a typical wageslave normie expression
>calling others newfags
>not being a neet
quit projecting you complete retard. how about actually watching the fucking film before posting about it?

>they both have a whimsical tone that seemed to get lost after mr cuaron took the third movie in a "darker, grittier" tone. fucking why?
The third book is darker than the first 2, we have creatures that suck your hapiness to feed themselves, themes like betrayal, revenge, etc, not to mention they´re teens now, things change. Don´t blame Cuarón, blame the screenwriter and the director of photography (which did a very good job IMO, if you watch the first 2 Potter movies, the shots are very simple, sure, PoA has edgy shots like the final take, but the majority are diverse instead of the majority of simple still shots. By the way, if you want shit quality you should rewatch Yates work in the franchize, made the image way more darker, the simple shots returned, and the story has a lot of plotholes, proving to be the worst adaptation of all

I actually watched the Potter films for the first time recently, as all the films got shown on TV over the Christmas period and there was fuck all else on.

I have to say PoA did stand out amongst them. The first two felt a bit Scooby Doo in that there were creepy goings on in Hogwarts, and they were both because of Voldemort and he got defeated at the end. The fact that PoA didn't feature Voldemort (directly) helped it a lot I think. Also Harry's friendship with Remus was done pretty well. It's a bit of a shame that he and Sirius Black get criminally underused for the rest of the series, and then get bumped off unceremoniously.

yeah i noticed that too
too funny

I wholeheartedly agree. It was nice seeing Harry have to solve an issue/mystery that wasn't (directly) caused by Voldemort. And as you said, I really enjoyed the friendship that formed between Harry and Remus. And yes, both Sirius and Remus were horribly underused after this film, it's a shame really.

It was the best book so stands to reason it makes the best film.
Still, being mediocre in an awful series isn't exactly an esteemed accomplishment.

BASED deh! poster

2nd one is the definitive best on of the series

6 is the best one