I R R E F U T A B L E

...

3>2>4>1> franchise garbage

1 > 3 > 2 > All the rest are shit

I can't believe they made that many. I stopped after the first one.

Who > the > fuck > cares

Implying I remember each is which

>Still posts because super autistic

"No!"

6>1=2>4>6>7>3>5

if you disagree with this you're literally just a contrarian
6 was best because they ADAPTED it into movie instead of trying to force all the details from the books into it (like they did with 5)
1 and 2 are comfy af

7 was fucking terrible. The first two were pretty comfy.

Everything from David Yates is catastrophy.

Maybe 5 could have been decent movie if WB didn't force him cut 40 minutes. But 6-8 are horrible.

just waiting for the pasta

You just outed yourself as a retard with no taste, congrats faggot. You put 3 top because nerdwriter says so the rest is basically random because your tiny brain can't comprehend competent filmmaking. Probably best if you just go back now.

WHEN I LEAVE SCHOOL, FUCK IT, I WANT TO GO TO AZKABAN
CUZ IMMA PIECE OF SHIT AND HOGWARTS ONLY BLACK MAN
IT DON'T MAKE SENSE WORKING AT THE MINISTRY WITH THE GOODIE GOODIES
I LIKE DARK ARTS, AND FAKE MOODIES
FUDGE WOULD PROLLY HAVE ME ON SUM REELY STRICK SHIT
NO MAGIC ON MINORS, NO ENGORGIO ON GIRLS TITS
HANGING WITH THE AURORS, CHASING DEATH EATERS
FUCK THAT SHIT, I WANT TO THROW SNITCHES AND FUCK BEATERS
ALL MY LIFE IVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS A GRYFFINDOR
LYING TO MCGONAGLE, SNAPE, AND EVEN DUMBLEDORE
CLASS AFTER CLASS, FROM QUIDDITCH TO POTIONS
I KNOW HERMIONES GONNA GET A FUCKING ABORTION
SHE DONT EVEN LOVE ME LIKE SHE DID WHEN WE WERE YOUNGER
SUKING ON HER TITS, JUST TO STOP MY FUCKING HUNGER
I WONDER IF I DIED
WOULD TEARS COME TO HER EYES
FORGIVE ME FOR NIGGERING
FORGIVE ME FOR MY LIES
MY LITTLE TOAD IS 8 MOTNHS
MY LITTLE OWL IS TWO
WHOS TO BLAME FOR BOTH OF THEM
(nah bem not you)
I SWEAR TO GOD I WANT TO JUST SLIT MY WRISTS AND END THIS BULLSHIT
THROW MY WAND TO MY HEAD THREATEN TO SAY SHIT
AND AVADA KEDAVRA, UNTIL THE BEDS, COMPLETELY RED
THEY'RE GLAD IM DEAD
A WORTHLESS FUCKING BERTIE BOTTS HEAD

Excellent

how can you put the movies with best dumbledore that far in the back, you fucking cretin?

...

It's irrefutable is that this is 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.

What's "irrefutable" is that this 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

Star Wars for girls.

As much as I'd like to attempt to, I can't prove you wrong with regard to one of the dullest franchise 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
"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.

Beaten by 2 seconds
Darn

This is an excellent ranking OP! It shows which of these films will kill the least brain cells! But really folks, this is 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.

>prisoner of plebkaban
>half filler prince
>lets become a generic action series pt 1 and 2
>literally who of the pheonix
>above kino of fire

>

they're making like 6 movies out of their spin off series too