How would you rank the 8 Harry Potter movies /tv/?
for me it goes
1>4>8>2>3>6>5>7
3>2>1>7.1>4>7.2>5>6
1>8>4>2>6>3>5>7
sorcerer's stone is undeniably comfy. I want to snuggle up in a blanket in the gryffindor commons on a cold winter night
>>63286780
Yeah it is, I think that Chamber of Secrets is more comfier tough since the creepy parts just make the comfy parts stand out even more
>>63286660
123 and the rest go into the trash
>7 books
>8 movies
Why does this always happen
>>63286886
Daily remember that Hugo is the ultimate fedora
Les misérables is overrated
The true masterpiece of french(thus of the world) literature is Voyage au bout de la nuit by Céline.
>>63286660
4>2>1>8>7>3>5>6
Rate my patrician taste guys
They're all shit and the third one is the only one that tried to be something more. Drones will tell you the first two are good, but its a tumblr meme by mongs trying to impress people on facebook.
>1
Despite clocking in at over two solid hours, the movie fails to properly set up and develop its characters and their back-stories, there is almost no build up and, even worse still, chemistry between the actors here. - 0/5
>2
Cramming in every "plot point" you can find in the book does not engaging storytelling make, and it's a wonder there ever was a third movie. - 0/5
>3
Splendid. An entirely enjoyable pop fantasy adventure that never for a moment insults the intelligence. By very very very very far the best of the Potter movies, the only one that manages to capture the funky mad energy of J.K. Rowling's hogwash. - 2/5
>4
Easy come, easy go. - 0/5
>5,6,7,8
Didn't see them
>>63286660
1>4>2>6>3>5>7>8
1
2
3
8
4
6
5
7
Imagine if hermione from Harry Potter had a big fat ass. Like it'd be the exact same story but hermione had a really big ass.
>>63287097
>>63287241
It would ruin her petit schoolgirl appearance
>>63287282
You first drone
>>63287036
Celine was second rate and only appeals to edgy kids. Flaubert is the real answer.
>>63286660
1 and 2 are nostalgic comfort zone.
3 shows the potential for something more but is ultimately underwhelming.
The rest are a tv movie blur of stuff happening, until Deathly Hallows pt 1, which has some moving imagery, but pt 2 is so disappointing that it's all for nought.
I can't believe there are eight of these.
The objective ranking is 3 > 1 = 2 >>> 7b. The rest are utter shite and don't deserve to be ranked.
3>1>2>>6>>7>>>5>>>>>>>>>>>>8=4
Prove me wrong. Also none of them are better than a solid 4/5 and all of them have ultra cringey headscratching bullshit moments.
Anyone who calls David Yates a competent director can promptly kill themselves
pic unrelated
0/10 for the lot. Harry Potter was easily 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.
>But at least the books are ggood though!
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
3 > 2 = 1 > 4 > 8 > 7 > 5
3 > 6 > 1 > 8 > 4 > 2 > 5 > 7
I liked all of them except for the bottom two.
>>63287508
>that ranking
pffft hahaha
