The Harry Potter Series.

I caught a bit of AZKABAN today and I was reminded how butthurt all the nerds got over Cuaron fucking with the geography of places like the Whomping Willow and Hagrid's hut. Memory serves, those two locations in Columbus' movies were hilariously bland looking. They were basically a plane of green grass, some woods behind it, and then a blue sky. Compare that to Hagrid's hut in AZKABAN and it's way more visually interesting. Plus Harry and the gang doing all their temporal spying on the hut would have been way less engaging or well-staged in a flat field of grass.

So yeah, fuck nerds and their continuity. AZKABAN's third act was good stuff (aside from the Marauder's Map stuff which isn't as bad as people make it).

Chamber of Secrets is a much better film than Sorcerer's Stone, which I think is still the worst entry.

Azkaban is by far the best, and it's mostly due to Alfonso Cuaron. The Buckbeak sideplot draws the ending out for far too long, but that's my only complaint with it.

Yates does quality work, but his films are mostly devoid of the vision and atmosphere that Cuaron created in Azkaban. Yates, in my opinion, is very middle-road.

How I would rank them:
Azkaban
Chamber of Secrets
Goblet of Fire
Half Blood Prince
Order of the Phoenix
Sorcerer's Stone

They all have their issues, but I'll go with Azkaban as my favorite Potter movie so far. The best balance of plot, character, and general execution. In terms of character, Half-Blood Prince was probably my favorite, but by then, the generally plotless book had been stripped down so bare that the movie's story lost a lot of its drive. Other than several really strong moments, I find Order of the Phoenix to be a bit of a non-movie. Goblet of Fire also has several moment where it really delivers, but I find that movie's attempts to really step up its game really off-putting. As for the first two movies... they sure do stick to the books!

Order of the Phoenix
Azkaban
Sorcerer's Stone
Goblet of Fire
Half-Blood Prince
Chamber of Secrets

I catch so much shit for my rankings, but Goblet of Fire bores me to tears until Voldemort shows up. I just do not give a fuck about the Tri-Wizard Tournament. Half-Blood Prince is neither here nor there. I don't hate it, but I just didn't care about any of the goings-on until the finale. Sorcerer's Stone has shit CG but the characters are charming as hell, the set-up of the wizarding world is beautifully done, and Neville gets 10 points goddammit.

My biggest problem with AZKABAN is how all the expositional dialogue is basically shouted at breakneck pace. The scene with Harry under the cloak in the Three Broomsticks is basically Robert Hardy and Julie Christie speedtalking their lines to get it out as quick as possible. Ditto the Shrieking Shack stuff. It's all so rushed.

And HALF-BLOOD PRINCE is so far ahead of the other movies as an actual piece of cinema it's crazy.

You reference Azkaban feeling rushed, I felt that way about Order of the Phoenix. I'm amazed it's the shortest film. There are parts of that that just scream by, Snapes memory being one of them.

My Ranking would be

Prisoner of Azkaban
HalfBlood Prince
Order of the Phoenix
Goblet of Fire
Chamber of Secrets
Sorcerers Stone

Half Blood Prince
Order of the Phoenix
Goblet of Fire
Azkaban
Chamber of Secrets
Sorcerer's Stone

Bless you guys for supporting Cuaron, but every viewing since has exposed Azkaban as being a mess, structurally. A well directed mess, but the script brakes for no one, and it hurts the film, arguably the series given what that film glosses over.

Goblet of Fire's not holding up that great either, but it gets way too much right to rank under Azkaban for any reason.

Phoenix and Half Blood Prince, however, get better every time. And, a few niggling fanboy gripes aside, actually improve on their source. None of the films prior can make that claim.

Half Blood Prince
Order of the Phoenix
Azkaban
Chamber of Secrets
Goblet of Fire
Sorcerer's Stone

I don't know what it is about Goblet of Fire, but I know I want to avoid it.

Azkabam for me is by far the best of the series so far and mentiond before the changes made to Hogwarts geography are for the better. As for the others, for me its.

Goblet of Fire
Half Blood Prince
Chamber of Secrets
Sorcerer's Stone.

Like thier respective books I find the first two films far to Enid Bligton for my taste.

Honestly, the only Potter film I've willingly watched more than once is Goblet of Fire. It feels like the only film that got the pacing and adaptation right, not rushing, not plodding, not too much left out, not too much put it. And Patrick Doyle's score may be my favorite in the whole series; "Harry in Winter" is an absolutely beautiful piece of music.

Azkaban is the only one I that legitimately love, as I still cannot work up much enthusiasm for the Harry Potter phenomenon as a whole. Cuaron delivered a beautiful, breathtaking, and graceful film that just works on nearly every level for me. The only other one I enjoy is The Goblet of Fire, which never quite reaches the emotional highs of Azkaban, but manages to be a thrilling and exciting film in its own right. The first two films are just plodding and dull, and the last two just didn't engage me at all. Like I said, though, I've just not been able to get into the Harry Potter thing beyond a slight curiosity.

Order of the Phoenix
Half Blood Prince
Azkaban
Goblet of Fire
Chamber of Secrets
Sorcerer's Stone

Granted, aside from Azakaban these are based off of one viewing, but I always felt that whilst Cuaron's effort was beautiful to look at he didn't seem to get the kids. Mick Newell's piece is probably the most inconsistent of the films, and as Harley points out it's built in service of its climax, but I felt that Newell really got how teens acted and thought.

I honestly think Yates has done amazing work in balancing the fantastical elements of the film whilst keeping the focus primarily on his young stars. There are a few issues with what was discarded from both Order and Half Blood, but I think Yates nailed every major scene. I'm genuinely excited to see what Yates does next, because he's already proven himself to be extremely versatile.

Seconded wholeheartedly.


Goblet of Fire
Half-Blood Prince
Prisoner of Askaban
Order of the Phoenix
Chamber of Secrets
Sorcerer's Stone

Yates is the shit, in my opinion (as someone who hasn't read the books). I got on board when Goblet was coming out and caught up with the first 3 before seeing it, but that was the first I saw in the cinema. For my money, quality and entertainment wise, the ranking is:

Order of the Phoenix (most exciting and emotional in the series to date)
Prisoner of Azkaban (best opening sequence by far, great structure, well-paced)
Half-Blood Prince (best looking film in the series, the great Jim Broadbent)
Goblet of Fire (largely pointless, but good-looking and VOLDEMORT!)
Philosopher's Stone (pretty bland, nice opening sequence)
Chamber of Secrets (boring, boring, boring - and forgettable)

#1 Azkaban, the leads are really given room to grow, and they hold thier own in a scnene with Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Alank Rickman, and Timothy Spall. Alfonso also realizes Columbus hired one of the best production designers living, but did use his talent at all. Also contains my fav Potter Score and one of John Williams late triumphs.

#2 Half Blood Prince - Yates took what he synthesized best is Order and upped it a notch. The Cinematography recalls Curoan camera even more and supersedes it in points. Radcliffe here really ups his game, bringing th comedy, making the angst more authentic, and just owning. Needed more Rickman.

#3 Phoenix - Imelda Staunton owns this movie, and right behind her is Luna, so this is ever so slightly behind HBP. Wish more of the action in the Ministry was shown, but what we get is equally bad ass and beautiful.

#4 Chamber - BIg leap in acting and production value from the first, and Brannagh is pretty damn great, so wanted to see him at mungo's, just a damn bit too faithful to the book in pace.

#5 Goblet - Bad Hair, Bad Scripting, great intro, has some a few moments of good character work, and then an awesome dragon sequence, then the maze is completely butchered, only saved by the intro of Volde, but I cant stand the death eaters hat or acting in the return.

#6 Stone - Good set up, but so bloody American feeling in construction and excution, but much like the book paved the way.

Half-Blood Prince is easily my favorite. Yates, to me, did the perfect job of including what was needed, getting rid of what wasn't and absolutely nailed the emotions necessary to make it work.

I love Cuaron, but I too feel that Azkaban, structurally speaking, is a bit of a mess.

And something about Chamber of Secrets just pisses me off. (It's the only one I didn't see on the big screen - maybe that's it?)

If I had to list them:

Half-Blood Prince
Order of the Phoenix
Goblet of Fire
Prisoner of Azkaban
Sorcerer's Stone
Chamber of Secrets

The film version of The Goblet of Fire feels so contained and episodic, which is odd because its the book that bridges the first three with the last. However, I do really enjoy the movie, as it is properly paced, and visually appealing.

David Yates really tries with Order of the Phoenix, but the book is just too awful for any amount of editing to save it. The cast really gives it their all, though.

You... you don't read a lot, do you?

Yeah, but Order of the Phoenix wasn't that good. It was one the longest books turned into one of the shortest movies. It's one of the better adaptations made out of one of the weaker books. Good job, Yates!

Yeah, I have to admit I was a little surprised when I read Phoenix was Devin's favorite. It's a whole lot of wheel spinning.

My favorite remains AZKABAN of the films, although I was surprised by how well HALF-BLOOD PRINCE turned out, considering it's going over the same plot points as the first book, with the exception that Harry's distrust of Snape and Malfoy was actually correct. AZKABAN really leaves a lot out from the book but manages to really nail the spirit of the story more than any of the films.

My least favorite of the films is GOBLET OF FIRE because the book's so epic in scale and the movie feels so small in comparison. As the books go, it's THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK of the series and the movie just doesn't feel as big as that in the scope of it. Plus they left the part out about Neville's parents, which at the time pissed me off.

1. PHOENIX
2. AZKABAN
3. GOBLET
4. PRINCE
5. CHAMBER
6. STONE

HALF-BLOOD PRINCE was one of the weaker books, and Yates didn't do himself any favors by cutting out some of the more interesting stuff (i.e. most of the flashbacks).

I still adore ORDER OF THE PHOENIX but really wish they could have fit in St. Mungo's and all the Neville stuff (including his place in the prophecy).

CHAMBER OF SECRETS is indeed a huge step up from SORCERER'S STONE. I can't really sit through the latter, but I'll stop channel-flipping when the former is on.

GOBLET is fine. Pacing's a little wonky ... but, honestly, that was not the easiest book to adapt.

Honestly, if PRINCE improves with a second viewing (initial slight disappointment out of the way), I might very well bump it up past GOBLET into the three spot. It's sitting on my DVR right now.

I didn't rank!

AZKABAN
ORDER OF THE PHOENIX
HALF-BLOOD PRINCE
CHAMBER OF SECRETS
SORCERER'S STONE
GOBLET OF FIRE

And yeah, I do like the first film better than the fourth. I think the kids are really terrific in it for their age and they win me over. Columbus is nervous as hell directing it - you can tell just watching the suuplementals on the box set - but I just felt GOBLET left too much out that was important. Cuaron left a lot out too, but you didn't feel it.

It's nice hearing peoples' thoughts on the movies in relation to the books as something more articulated than "they left a lot out". Well of course they left a lot out. It's a movie. That's more of a statement than it is a criticism. It's like people don't understand that books and movies are two different mediums.

Yeah, but there's some stuff that's pretty important that's barely been touched on in the films. Neville Longbottom's story has been pretty much stripped from the films and it's pretty important, especially to the ending. That's my biggest regret of the movies. Events don't concern me so much - it's the character stuff that I have issues with when they take it out.

I completely agree about the St. Mungo's stuff being left out. Sure there's a payoff at the end of the series, but there would have been a self-contained payoff too. It would have added some much-needed weight to movie's Final Act of Greenscreens.

I think #5 had the strongest story to tell; Harry actually had an emotional arc (none of the other films really feature this). #3 is right next to it with some of the best cinematography and atmosphere. #4 is worth it if only for the Voldemort scenes and the Yule Ball.

I will never understand the love for #6; I despised that film. They chopped out nearly everything that made the book interesting, and even put in pointless sequences like the burning of the Weasley house and the bridge-destruction scene. It smelt of studio tampering, they weren't confident that a movie made up of mostly back-story and exposition could stand on its own, so they sexed it up with extraneous action beats. I will say that I loved Draco's development in this movie, but that's about it.

Wasn't the bridge destruction mentioned at the beginning of the book in a conversation between the muggle prime-minister and the wizard prime-minister? Or am I getting my books mixed up?

It was casually mentioned in the book. I just hold a grudge against the scene because the time could have been spent giving Voldemort's backstory more than a passing glimpse.

I don't enjoy a bloated, unfocused novel, so you conclude that I haven't read many books? What a weird assumption to make.

You called it "awful". I can only conclude that you either (a) only read classics of literature, or (b) have read a fairly small number of books that also happened to be excellent. Otherwise, you're chock full of hyperbole.

That being said/posted, you're obviously entitled to your opinion.

Having got tired of reading the books, I felt the films had the same problem, stalling till the end. Once it was mentioned that if Dumbledore was around, Harry was safe and not truly at risk.

That said, the journey the kids take during these films are amazing, and thats why later films get a watch. So lets get with the shakeups.

HP1: I actually like this one. You need to see the setup and introduction of the world. It gets better for me because with each passing film and the stakes getting more and more, its nice to see there was a time of innocence.
HP2: To me the worst of the franchise. To me its just pandering and getting stale with the whole magic world. I have the first film for that. I admit I haven't seen this one in a while.
HP3: My favorite and what a breath of fresh air. The direction steps up a lot and the charisma of the cast really starts to shine here.
HP4: Oddly I really like this one as well. The pacing and length just felt about right. The puberty kicks in, and the choices of the cast start to have a lot more personal impact. Voldermort's return caught me off surprise and the stakes were through the roof.
HP5: I don't like David Yate's point and shoot style of filming. Also we return back to stalling again for the confrontation between Harry and Voldermort. Just felt like a bunch of people whining if he was existing or not.
HP6: Waaay to much cut out, but stalling again. While the character's emotions are hurt, I only feel bad for them due to the amount of good will previously built up. With the death of a certain character at the end, things look suddenly scary again for...
HP7: Now this I'm looking forward to. The end, the final battle, the resolution.

So ranking: HP3, HP4, HP1, HP5/HP6, HP2

You seem to be operating under the assumption that only someone with bad taste could possibly dislike the Harry Potter books. I like them, but I see them for what they are - fast food literature. I doubt they'll be nearly as beloved 50 years from now.

Azkaban's still my favorite by a pretty wide margin. It's a wonderful adaptation, and perhaps the only movie to really decide to put the book aside and be its own thing. I appreciate what Yates did with Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince -- there are moments in both that I just love -- but there are also bits where there's an odd disconnect, like the editing just didn't come together quite right. Snape's worst memory, the death of Sirius, and Harry's final confrontation with Snape in HBP jump to mind.

Goblet's fun, but it feels very workmanlike. The only time it feels as alive as Azkaban did is during the Yule Ball scenes.

That's not correct. I fully appreciate that someone could not like Harry Potter and Rowling's novels. Hence, I mentioned that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Having read a hell of a lot of books, however, I have to question a person who refers to one of the Potter books as "awful". In my humble opinion, someone who says something like that is either Captain Hyperbole (which is entirely possible given that this is the internet) or has no idea what "awful" literature really is (which bless 'em if Mac has managed to avoid truly bad prose throughout his life). "Awful" is a Dragonlance novel. "Awful" is a "Friday the 13th" expanded universe novel.

Whn I think of Harry Potter's music, the first thing that pops in my head is the score when Sirius flies away on Buckbeak. Absolutely gorgeous music.

Is that the same cue as the one that scores Harry's first flight on Buckbeak over the water? Because that is indeed glorious. And that's on top of a Williams score that is so much more varied and playful when it came to different types of music.

Dropping the topic of scores...

One of the many things I've never liked about Goblet (the movie) was the way it ended. Voldemort is back, but the movie ends on a whimper with people waving goodbye to goooood friends. And then there's Emma Watson's cringe-inducing delivery of "Everything is going to change, isn't it?" So much of that movie rubs me the wrong way.

It's the very end of this track. It gives me goosebumps every single time.

And Emma's eyebrows were more cringe-inducing in Goblet than her delivery.

Well... now I have goosebumps.

To be fair, the only one of these films that truly ends on a perfect note is Sorcerer's Stone. Azkaban's blurry face of joy has come to work thematically (it's pretty much the last time Harry Potter is ever a child), but it's still weird. Half Blood Prince comes close but, no cigar, especially since Dumbledore's funeral never happens.

I don't mind the freeze-frame ending of Azkaban. In fact, with each new ending, I mind it less and less and actually really like it.

I liked it quite a bit at the time. It perfectly fits the tone of that film.

I think every film after Azkaban has had an ending in which characters look upon the distant horizon ("Viene la tormenta!") with gooooood friendzzzzz with some last minute shoehorning of pat morality. It felt utterly wrong for Goblet, completely boring for Phoenix, and really only felt fitting in Prince.

Not sure how else Phoenix could've ended, but I always imagined Goblet ending with the tone of a cliffhanger (without really being one) that gets you good and pumped up for the series to really pick up steam.

As for Half-Blood Prince, though I felt the ending hit the right tone, I resented the fact that it was directly followed by an end credits sequenced scored with a jaunty piece from the score. It felt like a blatant attempt to get the audience feeling happy walking out of the film instead of being in a state of muted contemplation (AS THEY SHOULD'VE BEEN!!! hehehe).

That's really a problem from the books. You can't build up too much momentum going from one entry to the next because there's a set period down time between each mandated by the structure. Although that window did keep shrinking between books as Harry spent less and less time with his family and more with his friends.

True. But at the same time, the films have been pretty brutal in cutting out the down time between school years even as Rowling shortened the Dursley Adventures segments.

bluh. Ranking the films is boring. Let's rank the adult actors!

1. Alan Rickman as Severus Snape. Sure, his Snape is not the Snape of the books, but he portrays utter loathing so damn well.
2. David Thewlis as Remus Lupin.
3. Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge.
4. Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore (#3 to #7)
5. Maggie Smith as Minerva McGonagall
6. Jim Broadbent as Horace Slughorn
7. Julie Walters as Molly Weasley
8. Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy
9. Brendan Gleason as Alastor Moody
10. Timothy Spall as Wormtail

What's unfortunate about this series is that though it allows for steady stream of fantastic actors, they'll get their moment in the sun and then be relegated to cameos in all of the following movies.

Thewlis made Lupin gave such an appealing performance in Azkaban, but it's really a one-shot deal. After that, he only shows up to deliver exposition in one scene or fight in a dull wizard fight.

Same deal with Jason Issacs and Brendan Gleeson. Alan Rickman got the most screentime in the movies with the least interesting stories and has been given less and less screentime.

My favorite performance has probably been Gambon in Half-Blood Prince. I really felt that he finally settled into the role in that movie. Just in time!

I am really pleased that Imelda Staunton will be reprising her role in Part I of Deathly Hallows. And Bill Nighy, briefly! And Rhys Ifans, also briefly!

While I do like Rhys Ifans, I cannot read Xenophilius Lovegood without thinking of Bob Hoskins. I know he's too old to have a teenage daughter but, magic right?

I know it's been sung before but this franchise has been a showcase for the very best British actors alive today.