Movie-Specific : Harry Potter movies -- do they get better than the first?

[nauru]

I remember years ago watching the first and extremely-hyped Harry Potter movie and being thoroughly disappointed. The plot seemed irrelevant, and the action involved some broomsticks and special effects that looked like something from the early 1980s. Based on what I remember the film would be firmly in my Tier 1, likely toward the lower end.

Does the Harry potter series get any better? (read: Way, way better than the first film by an enormous margin) I've been told that the first films are lousy because they are pitched to a much younger audience, and that later in the series the plot gets much better (read: much darker) and the characters far more complex.

I personally like fantasy films to be visually exquisite in the landscapes and special effects (Lord of the Rings), to have consequential plots with memorable characters (not some imaginary land for bratty children in a wardrobe with a lion and an ice witch and some garden gnomes) and to maintain a level of dramatic intensity that is utterly immersive for the viewer (again, Lord of the Rings). I like when it's unclear whether main characters will actually survive a given conflict or obstacle. If the film has the tone of "well it's a children's movie so of course none of the main characters will die no matter how bad the predicament" then I lose interest since any struggle or conflict seems a waste of time given that viewers can already guess the outcome of the scene and likely the entire story.


To this point I've simply ignored the Harry Potter series based on my experience with the first film. However I'm now thinking about the fact that Star Wars Episode I was horrible, but then was followed up with much better films in episodes II and III. I'm generally willing to endure bad starts to a series if I know there is a worthwhile payoff later on. Is that the case with Harry Potter? Is it common for people to strongly dislike the first film but really like the later ones?

For most films I find Criticker PSIs do a good job but I find for intensely hyped films (e.g. Star Wars films, Coen Brothers films, Quentin Tarantino films) the PSI is useless for me.

[sixx]

I'm not big on the whole series myself.. until I saw this-

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPVhmZodaLA[/youtube]

Yeah. He does the whole movie.

[TheDenizen]

lol, comparing Harry Potter to the Lord of the Rings is kinda like comparing Dr. Seuss to Isaac Asimov.

[tef]

Eh, they're not bad films. The decisions the characters make are pretty fucking retarded, but...I've honestly never seen a supernatural type thing which plays out the way a smart person would play it. Not once.

[ayall]

I agree with many of the posts, especially that HP movies are mediocre compared to LOTR.

I think HP movies failed in several places.
While they've done a fair job of keeping the main actors, the fact that they replace some of them but not the character irks me.

I also think the entire HP series frame of keeping reality in check is off balance and never liked that they tried to keep it "real," but at the same time "magical." For example, they claim that this "magical world" is secret and none in the "real world" know it, but it seems like there are millions, if not billions, of members of this "magical world" (as can see from the audience sizes of that stupid broom game they play), and it's just hard to believe that notion. Also, that game is very geigh, as well as many other things in it... most of HP plot walks the line of lame v. cool.


I don't think HP & LOTR are a 1:1 comparison, but it is a fair comparison and boils down to this.
LOTR are EPIC, timeless books, which were brilliantly made into movies.
HP are pop-culture mediocre books (which are being spit out in fast/large quantities for $), and thus the movies can really only achieve that mediocre level.

[RaymundLi]

To answer your question.. It's yes and no. In my opinion, the 2nd, 5th and 6th are disappointing. The 4th and 7th (part 1) are decent.. But the only one that comes close to being great is the 3rd (Prisoner of Azkaban) and it's because of Alfonso Cuaron..

[jacobb1313]

Does the Harry potter series get any better? (read: Way, way better than the first film by an enormous margin) I've been told that the first films are lousy because they are pitched to a much younger audience, and that later in the series the plot gets much better (read: much darker) and the characters far more complex.

To answer the OP's question, in my personal opinion, yes, they get way better. I agree the first film was trite and uninspired, and I didn't find the second or fourth (#4 is my least favorite) any better. The third film is the most filmically complex, inventive, and playful (and is my favorite).

After David Yates took over direction of the series with #5 you get the "darker" and "more complex" Potter films. In my personal opinion again, Yate's films are not necessarily more complex, they just move away from being event-driven (or bullet-point outlines of the major events of each novel) to being almost completely character-driven, and therefore moodier and broodier. But I think the switch fits the source material and makes the later films more-than-decent adaptations.

[Anomaly1]

Yes, the films get better after the first two. If you really want to understand everything though, read the books. Some questionable decisions to drop stuff seemingly at random were made during the adapting process.

[ShogunRua]

lol, comparing Harry Potter to the Lord of the Rings is kinda like comparing Dr. Seuss to Isaac Asimov.

Heh, indeed!

I have only watched the first two Harry Potter movies (during free periods in school, thank God, not in the theater), both of which were very poor. Frankly though, I find little about the characters likable, or anything truly original and fascinating about the universe of the series.