The first 2 Harry Potter movies were the best imo.

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

Uh huh, sure. Snape, the child abuser, was a total good guy. All those years of vindictive abuse we're because he's evil, it was only because he didn't get enough Harry Potter MILF poon.
So its totally legit. Harry was the son of another man, and Snape abused him for years, but it was all above board because Snape said sorry at the end.
Or I'm sorry, he 'secretly loved Harry' so that's why he was abusive and sided with the man who murdered his mom. Because he's Alpha Legion and he takes the long view.

If it walks like a duck, slays the citizens of the Imperium like a duck and takes part in ritual worship of the dark gods like a duck, its probably a Chaos Marine.

 

[oRevanchisto]

SNIP

Uh huh, sure. Snape, the child abuser, was a total good guy. All those years of vindictive abuse we're because he's evil, it was only because he didn't get enough Harry Potter MILF poon.
So its totally legit. Harry was the son of another man, and Snape abused him for years, but it was all above board because Snape said sorry at the end.
Or I'm sorry, he 'secretly loved Harry' so that's why he was abusive and sided with the man who murdered his mom. Because he's Alpha Legion and he takes the long view.

If it walks like a duck, slays the citizens of the Imperium like a duck and takes part in ritual worship of the dark gods like a duck, its probably a Chaos Marine.

I didn't say he was a good guy, I said he wasn't "evil," he was still a dick though as I outline in my edit above. Snape may have saved Harry's life on more than one occasion but that doesn't change his attitude towards him and everyone else nor his actions before working for Dumbledore. Dude basically only turned on Voldemort because he refused to let him keep his crush as his plaything after he finished murdering her husband and child. He never cared for Harry, he cared for Lily, and saw saving Harry as a way to atone for her.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

Uh huh, sure. Snape, the child abuser, was a total good guy. All those years of vindictive abuse we're because he's evil, it was only because he didn't get enough Harry Potter MILF poon.
So its totally legit. Harry was the son of another man, and Snape abused him for years, but it was all above board because Snape said sorry at the end.
Or I'm sorry, he 'secretly loved Harry' so that's why he was abusive and sided with the man who murdered his mom. Because he's Alpha Legion and he takes the long view.

If it walks like a duck, slays the citizens of the Imperium like a duck and takes part in ritual worship of the dark gods like a duck, its probably a Chaos Marine.

I didn't say he was a good guy, I said he wasn't "evil," he was still a dick though as I outline in my edit above. Snape may have saved Harry's life on more than one occasion but that doesn't change his attitude towards him and everyone else nor his actions before working for Dumbledore. Dude basically only turned on Voldemort because he refused to let him keep his crush as his plaything after he finished murdering her husband and child. He never cared for Harry, he cared for Lily, and saw saving Harry as a way to atone for her.

Isn't that kinda' a poor distinction to make? He wasn't 'evil' he was just 'bad' and sided with actual evil until the very end when he just gave up.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I enjoy the books, and as a fan of the books I have a hard time understanding how anyone can support those first two films. For my money they are resoundingly the worst of the lot. Slavish adaptations that capture the outline of the books but completely fail to infuse them with any of the whimsy or "school days" charm that made the books indispensable. Rowling as an author had an uncommon grasp of whimsy, and it infused her books (especially her earlier books) with a unique appeal. She struggled a bit with her broader dramatic strokes, and as the series grew darker and more dramatic the writing felt less assured. The films tend to improve as they get darker, as they no longer have to chase the more ephemeral qualities of the books and can focus in on paint by numbers dramatic beats.

The third film stands out because Cuaron is an uncommonly gifted filmmaker, and his work stands out among the crap that surrounds it.

 

[oRevanchisto]

Isn't that kinda' a poor distinction to make? He wasn't 'evil' he was just 'bad' and sided with actual evil until the very end when he just gave up.

Well, he didn't side with the "good guys" at the end. He did it after Voldemort killed Lily, afterwards he worked with Dumbledore for near two decades to bring him down and protect Harry. That's better than becoming a Nazi and staying one. Snape, at the end of the day, did what was right, he just wasn't very nice about it and his motivations weren't exactly pure. He came to to the good side because his crush was murdered not exactly because he suddenly realized the Death Eaters were a bunch of Nazis promoting racism, eugenics, and genocide. What does that make him? I don't know. He's certainly not some hero, but he's not some evil bad guy like say Voldemort. He's a gray character which is why people tend to be drawn to him so much.

 

[Nazulu]

I liked the first 7 movies, though 6 and 7a I don't really want to see again (and 7b can go fuck itself), and I know the Prisoner of Afghanistan is the most popular on the Escapist for best writing or pacing or whatever.

Frankly none of them make any fucking sense to me and so I enjoyed Order of the Hippogriff the most for some reason and it had the best final battle in the series.

 

[hermes]

You have your own opinion, which I respect...

But, to me, the first two movies were the most middle of the road, the most straightforward. Nothing bad with them, but nothing particularly good. I haven't read the books, so I can't tell if that was also true of the source material, but I feel the others were more thematically interesting.

They also had the benefit of being the first ones, so they didn't have to navigate through the minefield of plot holes left behind by the previous ones.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Isn't that kinda' a poor distinction to make? He wasn't 'evil' he was just 'bad' and sided with actual evil until the very end when he just gave up.

Well, he didn't side with the "good guys" at the end. He did it after Voldemort killed Lily, afterwards he worked with Dumbledore for near two decades to bring him down and protect Harry. That's better than becoming a Nazi and staying one. Snape, at the end of the day, did what was right, he just wasn't very nice about it and his motivations weren't exactly pure. He came to to the good side because his crush was murdered not exactly because he suddenly realized the Death Eaters were a bunch of Nazis promoting racism, eugenics, and genocide. What does that make him? I don't know. He's certainly not some hero, but he's not some evil bad guy like say Voldemort. He's a gray character which is why people tend to be drawn to him so much.

I suppose that makes him an antivillain.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I haven't watched a Harry Potter film since I saw the last one in theaters, so my opinion is probably invalid. But here's how I see it:

The first two are the best family films. They're not too dark and have the whimsy, and most of the setpieces child readers would want to see from the book, like the Quidditch game, the chess battle and so on. Adults can appreciate the filmmaking craft and the British heavyweights giving some gravitas to the whole affair. Chamber of Secrets is a tad darker, and has some scary and even violent parts (Basilisk fight at the end), but the tone is still decidedly more childlike and whimsical. The series started out as stories for children, and it's completely expected that the first films would reflect that.

In the third film the whole tone changes, and moves more towards a teen audience. By the end the series is bordering on R-rated in terms of subject matter. But none of this was known during filming, and neither were plot specifics really. When the books are only an installment ahead, it's kind of expected to just make a straight adaptation, since the filmmakers couldn't really know which elements or themes would be central to the big picture. The tone changed as the books changed, and that's why comparing the first film to the last is like comparing Disney's Aladdin to Schindler's List.

Since I, and a lot of others on this site, grew up right alongside Harry in the books, I can't help but wonder what the series feels like now to a newcomer who can read the whole saga from start to finish without having to wait 2 years between books. I think I was in third grade when I read the first one, and I can't possibly imagine being able to read Deathly Hallows at that age. It's just chock full of straight up shock material, like when Ron teleports wrong and nearly bleeds out, or Hermione getting tortured, and the amount of characters and plotlines just splooges in the fourth book. Not to mention the tone and themes, which at that point are both dark enough to make the book not fun for third graders, and complex enough to fly completely over their heads.

 

[oRevanchisto]

I haven't watched a Harry Potter film since I saw the last one in theaters, so my opinion is probably invalid. But here's how I see it:

The first two are the best family films. They're not too dark and have the whimsy, and most of the setpieces child readers would want to see from the book, like the Quidditch game, the chess battle and so on. Adults can appreciate the filmmaking craft and the British heavyweights giving some gravitas to the whole affair. Chamber of Secrets is a tad darker, and has some scary and even violent parts (Basilisk fight at the end), but the tone is still decidedly more childlike and whimsical. The series started out as stories for children, and it's completely expected that the first films would reflect that.

In the third film the whole tone changes, and moves more towards a teen audience. By the end the series is bordering on R-rated in terms of subject matter. But none of this was known during filming, and neither were plot specifics really. When the books are only an installment ahead, it's kind of expected to just make a straight adaptation, since the filmmakers couldn't really know which elements or themes would be central to the big picture. The tone changed as the books changed, and that's why comparing the first film to the last is like comparing Disney's Aladdin to Schindler's List.

Since I, and a lot of others on this site, grew up right alongside Harry in the books, I can't help but wonder what the series feels like now to a newcomer who can read the whole saga from start to finish without having to wait 2 years between books. I think I was in third grade when I read the first one, and I can't possibly imagine being able to read Deathly Hallows at that age. It's just chock full of straight up shock material, like when Ron teleports wrong and nearly bleeds out, or Hermione getting tortured, and the amount of characters and plotlines just splooges in the fourth book. Not to mention the tone and themes, which at that point are both dark enough to make the book not fun for third graders, and complex enough to fly completely over their heads.

I'm gonna have to disagree entirely, from start to finish the series is a children's book. That's not meant to denigrate the series as they are still great books, but they are children's books. Just because the later novels have things like murder and deal with topics like racism doesn't change that. While the last book certainly had its dark moments it was still a book where the gang went around doing kids stuff, like using Pollyjuice Potion to infiltrate Gringotts and all the associated gags with that. Just because a story has dark moments doesn't make it adult or mature, plenty of children's fairy tales have quite dark moments. For example, the Witch in Hazel and Gretel wanted to kill them and instead was burned alive. The Boy Who Cried Wold is eaten by a Wolf. Harry Potter as a series understands this, because despite its brief dark moments it is still a series where "love conquers all" and the main character never kills anyone and everyone mostly lives happily ever after.

Third graders can appreciate the Deathly Hallows just fine.

 

[McElroy]

I grew up with the books and the first two films adapted the books' feel really well. I haven't watched the movies thinking about them as separate from the books and I don't really want to. Adult fans of the series are seriously lame though, dude.

 

[Hawki]

Adult fans of the series are seriously lame though, dude.

But I'm an adult...

 

[McElroy]

Adult fans of the series are seriously lame though, dude.

But I'm an adult...

Without knowing anything else I'd bet you're not that much of a fan... How often do you say 'muggles' in real life situations? How big is your wand... collection?

Whatever it is, it's the lamest thing ever.

 

[Bobular]

When the movies first came out I had read the books that were out and was really looking forward to seeing books I had read turned into big screen adaptions and I think the first one delivered just that, the second one I don't think was as good but was still good.

The problems started with the third movie and they just kept getting worse as the movies went on, I didn't even bother watching the last few movies when they came out and I only recently saw Deathly Hollows 2 last year when it just happened to be on TV. I feel like the later movies lost the feel of the books, they became far too serious and whilst the books do get darker as they go on its not as much, not as fast and not as blatant as in the movies.

Overall I just think that the tone of the later movies was just wrong, I mean compare these two images:

They don't even look like they are from the same series if it wasn't for the name.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

When the movies first came out I had read the books that were out and was really looking forward to seeing books I had read turned into big screen adaptions and I think the first one delivered just that, the second one I don't think was as good but was still good.

The problems started with the third movie and they just kept getting worse as the movies went on, I didn't even bother watching the last few movies when they came out and I only recently saw Deathly Hollows 2 last year when it just happened to be on TV. I feel like the later movies lost the feel of the books, they became far too serious and whilst the books do get darker as they go on its not as much, not as fast and not as blatant as in the movies.

Overall I just think that the tone of the later movies was just wrong, I mean compare these two images:

They don't even look like they are from the same series if it wasn't for the name.

Regarding the images you posted.

You have to give it to the Americans though, they made the better movie poster of Sorcerer's Stone/Philospher's Stone than the Brits:

Heck this images captures that magic better than the British one.

 

[Bobular]

Regarding the images you posted.

You have to give it to the Americans though, they made the better movie poster of Sorcerer's Stone/Philospher's Stone than the Brits:

Heck this images captures that magic better than the British one.

Can't tell if you are being sarcastic or you seriously like that and we just have different tastes because to me that one looks terrible, its just giant freaky looking heads, an owl and a castle. And there is a weird cut out in the boarder on the top left for some reason that just draws the eye.

 

[RaikuFA]

I've only seen 1 and 2 so technically I'd have to agree. Never saw 3-7 and too expensive to buy.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I've only seen 1 and 2 so technically I'd have to agree. Never saw 3-7 and too expensive to buy.

They have been playing them on the Freeform (Formally ABC Family) channel for years now, and they play extended version of the first two films with restored deleted scenes, some of which were rather crucial.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Regarding the images you posted.

You have to give it to the Americans though, they made the better movie poster of Sorcerer's Stone/Philospher's Stone than the Brits:

Heck this images captures that magic better than the British one.

Can't tell if you are being sarcastic or you seriously like that and we just have different tastes because to me that one looks terrible, its just giant freaky looking heads, an owl and a castle. And there is a weird cut out in the boarder on the top left for some reason that just draws the eye.

The British poster makes the movie look like some low budget TV drama. As to the look of the American one, its a style used in many films, look at the movie posters for Hook 1990, Star Wars, The Black Hole, Casino with Robert De Niro, etc.

I like the color composition and the "hand-drawn paiting" look of the American poster.