Best Harry Potter movie?

Not sure why there are only 5 poll options allowed D:

My favorite is the 1st one, it has the most magic and it didn't butcher the original source material like 3-6 have. I'm sad that after #2 they decided to cut so much out when it wasn't needed, they could have kept more in and still would have got the same amount of people coming to see them.

The most annoying was Half Blood Prince when they concentrated on the least important aspect of the book- the relationships, and the missed battle at the end.

Don't get me started D:

the most recent one. they have just gotten better and better imo

I used to be so annoyed when Rowling demanded that all the Harry Potter movies have a British/All European cast and no American director, and making the movies 3 and up suck so much.

Though quite frankly, it's better this way. Reading the novels is always so much better than watching the movies, even though the 1st and 2nd were pretty cool.

But my gosh that dance scene in part 4 :? absolutely nightmare inducing.

I am going to do the right thing and just agree with whatever binpink thinks.

So far, i have yet to see what i would judge as the "best" Harry Potter film. I never read the books so could someone tell me if he ever grows balls? Because so far he's a total wuss. All i've seen him do is cry and cast powerful spells on accident.meteo_ryte

i didnt like any of them. but theprisoner of azkaban was pretty cool

[QUOTE="meteo_ryte"]So far, i have yet to see what i would judge as the "best" Harry Potter film. I never read the books so could someone tell me if he ever grows balls? Because so far he's a total wuss. All i've seen him do is cry and cast powerful spells on accident.Memberino

Being testy =/= having spherical objects.

It just makes him a bit of a short tempered jerk, whether or not he deserved to feel that way.

Azkaban.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Askaban is my most favorite, was really hoping it would have been replaced by now.

Probably the first two - I'm yet to see the 6th installment.

I liked Order of the Pheonix near the end.

chamber of secrets.

i think all of them excluding the third are good.auron_16

^This. The third book was sweet but the movie was terrible. I loved the fourth book but the movie only half captured it. So far I'd say six but its a good seris over all.

The 2nd one.

[QUOTE="meteo_ryte"]So far, i have yet to see what i would judge as the "best" Harry Potter film. I never read the books so could someone tell me if he ever grows balls? Because so far he's a total wuss. All i've seen him do is cry and cast powerful spells on accident.Memberino

But my gosh that dance scene in part 4 absolutely nightmare inducingthattotally

[QUOTE="thattotally"]But my gosh that dance scene in part 4 absolutely nightmare inducingGmasterRED

Sorry, but the directors are well within their rights to get creative and put their own stamp on it. An adaption that is too faithful is boring.

They are paid to make a good movie out of Rowling's work. Not to "direct the book!"

The first 2 by far. They are hyper true to the book without being boring, there is actual magic, the music is good. All the other one's a crap, to be frank. Too much drama and darkness. Too fast moving, too short. Too many special effects.GmasterRED

Why in the world is being "hyper true to the book" important? The movies/=/books.

And many critics would argue that the first two were by far the most boring. Compared to 3-6. they have generic art direction, they are adaptations of arguably the two most generic HP books, and they are directed by a guy who is known for being generic.

[QUOTE="GmasterRED"][QUOTE="thattotally"]But my gosh that dance scene in part 4 absolutely nightmare inducingGreySeal9

Sorry, but the directors are well within their rights to get creative and put their own stamp on it. An adaption that is too faithful is boring.

[QUOTE="GmasterRED"]The first 2 by far. They are hyper true to the book without being boring, there is actual magic, the music is good. All the other one's a crap, to be frank. Too much drama and darkness. Too fast moving, too short. Too many special effects.GreySeal9

Why in the world is being "hyper true to the book" important? The movies/=/books.

And many critics would argue that the first two were by far the most boring. Compared to 3-6. they have generic art direction, they are adaptations of arguably the two most generic HP books, and they are directed by a guy who is known for being generic.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="GmasterRED"] Yes. My god. These dumb directors trying to be creative, they don't pay you to do that, just direct the book!GmasterRED

Sorry, but the directors are well within their rights to get creative and put their own stamp on it. An adaption that is too faithful is boring.

But like I said, movie critics tend to agree that the first two movies are the most generic and the most boring. It's not until movie 3 that the HP movie series started to really impress critics.

And JK Rowling has said on several occasions that she digs all the movies. She doesn't complain about the changes because she knows that books are different than movies.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="GmasterRED"]The first 2 by far. They are hyper true to the book without being boring, there is actual magic, the music is good. All the other one's a crap, to be frank. Too much drama and darkness. Too fast moving, too short. Too many special effects.GmasterRED

Why in the world is being "hyper true to the book" important? The movies/=/books.

And many critics would argue that the first two were by far the most boring. Compared to 3-6. they have generic art direction, they are adaptations of arguably the two most generic HP books, and they are directed by a guy who is known for being generic.

You/=/the movie going audience. There's no reason for them to cater to your demands, especially given that JK Rowling herself loves what they do with the movies.

I am a huge book fan and a pretty big HP fan. I just understand that the movies/=/books. Why would I want to see the story play out exactly the same way if I all ready read and enjoyed the book?

Prisoner of Azkaban was the best imo..It hit all the right notes and made you feel like you were in the harry potter universe more than any other imo..Goblet of fire was the worst one by far imo.. It felt so rushed.

Anyway, I like the last two movies the best. They were more sophisticated and had more mature plots. Azkaban is the third best, Goblet is the fourth best, Stone was the fifth best and Chamber was the worst. Too damn long, got really boring in spots.

Not sure why there are only 5 poll options allowed D:

My favorite is the 1st one, it has the most magic and it didn't butcher the original source material like 3-6 have. I'm sad that after #2 they decided to cut so much out when it wasn't needed, they could have kept more in and still would have got the same amount of people coming to see them.

The most annoying was Half Blood Prince when they concentrated on the least important aspect of the book- the relationships, and the missed battle at the end.

Don't get me started D:

Memberino

The 6th movie didn't have any more romance in it than the book it was based on.

I understand why some people missed the battle scene, but I think they thought it'd be redundant considering that there was a battle scene in OoTP and there will be the most epic battle scene of the series in DH.

strange...the prisoner of azkaban was the worst for me...and according to critics HBP is the best so farlightleggy

Well, why didn't you like PoA?

Is it just me or is Emma Watson a WAY better actress in Azkaban than she was in all the others. I was shocked by how much she declined in GoF. She's gotten better since, but still...