I've never seen a Harry Potter movie. Should I keep it up or cave and give them a watch?

The movie adaptations were great and I loved the books. Stop being a snob. The only semi poor one was goblet and it's actually aged well. Half of the movies are amazing.

This. Goblet of Fire is pretty watchable too but it’s insane how quickly the series deteriorates after that.

Skip them.
They are garbage movies.

why are you asking for permission
just watch them if you want to be entertained for for 20 hours otherwise who gives a shit
bad thread

Don't listen to any zoomer ADHD retard who only says to watch the first three and just watch them all.

Is one even worth watching? maybe at 2x speed, to begin with, and perhaps also to make an end. Why watch it? Presumably, if you cannot be persuaded to watch anything better, the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises will have to do. 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.

Attached: 1520524589904.jpg (1600x2874, 558K)

Harry Potter is shit and Rowling has never made any mountains of moved.

watch them all they are great

they're unironically ok, inofensive, fun fantasy films

No
Don't even bother reading the books as they're complete shit too if you're an adult

The series becomes kino again after goblet of fire kek

This
6>5>3>7>2>8>4>1>FB2>FB

>snap

Which is why I never engaged in the first place. I'm an adult.

Azkaban is the best one

Watch them. You won't regret it. They aren't great movies but they aren't trash either. They are honestly fairly entertaining for the most part.

>the first two
FTFY

DEH

Glad this opinion is taking its hold here.
Months ago every second poster was praising 5 and 6.

>cave and give them a watch?
No!

This
I love azkaban but it isn't there actually some more interesting narrative things with harry done on film in 4 5 and 6 and 5 and 6 and 7.1 have some goat moments desu

I was beginning to miss this pasta.

Says the plebbor who gets mad when a book isn't like the movie, as if jurassic park or any book is ever like it's movie, the potter movies are actually faithful adaptations for the most part 1 2 3 5 6 7.1 are the most faithful

>months ago every second poster was praising 5 and 6
Months ago there were actual patiricans here and now only captain marvel squads?