Whats your favourite harry potter film?!
Question: Whats your favourite harry potter film!?
and from your favourite one,which is better the book or the film!?Www@Enter-QA@Com
Answers:
I really feel that Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone was the best film!. It introduced us all to Harry Potter!. I didn't even know about the books until I watched this movie!.
The first 3 films are the most similiar to the books!. I feel films 4 and 5 lost a lot because they left so much out from the books!. I'm not saying those films are bad, actually far from it!. Which is going to make the adaption of books 6 and 7 very hard!.
If your a very big fan!. I put some links of websites that have a lot of Harry Potter info and news!. Have fun and good luck!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
The first 3 films are the most similiar to the books!. I feel films 4 and 5 lost a lot because they left so much out from the books!. I'm not saying those films are bad, actually far from it!. Which is going to make the adaption of books 6 and 7 very hard!.
If your a very big fan!. I put some links of websites that have a lot of Harry Potter info and news!. Have fun and good luck!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
Oh, I loved the fourth one, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire!." It's the one I watch over and over again, and it was the first one I bought on DVD!. It's also one of the few movies that really lives up to the book upon which it was based!. The others either dumbed down the story a bit too much or cut too much out!. Don't get me wrong, since I like most of the movies!. It's just that "Goblet of Fire" did its source material the most justice!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
Wow, you would think that would be a simple answer but its not!. Each movie brings something special to the viewer!. I can easily name my LEAST favorite, which was Chamber of Secrets!. No fault of the film crew or anything, though!. It was also my least favorite book, for some reason!.
I loved the fun, surreal sense of magic that the first one introduced, very fitting for the 11 year olds out there (Harry's age, of course)!.
The third one took a darker turn, which I enjoyed but I did miss some of the "fantasy" and wide-eyed wonder from the first two!. But whatever!. The time-turner storyline was one of my favorite parts of the movie and book, ever!.
The fourth movie wasn't my favorite as it was a bit too rushed!. I understand the need to leave stuff out, etc!. and I know Rowling would not have allowed them to omit anything that will be important to the franchise later down the road!. However, one round of tournament after another became a bit harried, in my opinion!. I did really enjoy the book!.
The fifth movie surprised me at how UNbothered I was by how much was left out!. I really enjoyed it, though that book was probably my least favorite due to all the bad breaks Harry kept getting!.
So!.!.!.I guess the 3rd film was my favorite with the 5th running a close second!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
I loved the fun, surreal sense of magic that the first one introduced, very fitting for the 11 year olds out there (Harry's age, of course)!.
The third one took a darker turn, which I enjoyed but I did miss some of the "fantasy" and wide-eyed wonder from the first two!. But whatever!. The time-turner storyline was one of my favorite parts of the movie and book, ever!.
The fourth movie wasn't my favorite as it was a bit too rushed!. I understand the need to leave stuff out, etc!. and I know Rowling would not have allowed them to omit anything that will be important to the franchise later down the road!. However, one round of tournament after another became a bit harried, in my opinion!. I did really enjoy the book!.
The fifth movie surprised me at how UNbothered I was by how much was left out!. I really enjoyed it, though that book was probably my least favorite due to all the bad breaks Harry kept getting!.
So!.!.!.I guess the 3rd film was my favorite with the 5th running a close second!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
We live in a world where economics is hard!. This forces practical limitations when making a movie!. Time and money are sadly finite, cinema owners need to be pleased as well as fans and computer animation ain't perfect!. Given these limitations, this film is about as close to human perfection as it is possible to achieve!. However, it's extremely clear what an immense challenge it is to turn Philosopher's Stone from book to film!.
Two and a half hours is not long to explore a wonderful, magical world!. Furthermore, the directors have bowed to the inevitable temptation to show us things that cannot be communicated so effectively in a book!. The consequence is the feeling of a slightly breathless sprint in places!.
It also means that the movie has to stay true to the spirit of the book rather than to the letter of it!. There are omissions and there are changes!. The changes that were made capture and maintain the spirit of the story really well; indeed, there are places where the story is more clearly and straightforwardly told in the movie than in the book!. Some aspects of the story are fleshed out on screen and the additions are delightful, completely in keeping with the flavour of the world!.
The humour of the movie is inevitably more visual than that of the book; no belly laughs, but a lot of smiles!. Some punchlines have changed, but the reasons why the jokes are funny remain the same!. Not knowing exactly what's coming next is a good thing! It's all kept tasteful, classy and above the belt; there's nothing to cringe about!.
The voice acting is almost uniformly brilliant!. However, there are occasions where some of the actors are required to convey high emotions and are only given a second or two of face shot, or head-and-shoulders shot, to do so!. This isn't as much freedom as they need and they fall a little short!. The blame here must fall on the decision to give the actors too much to do too quickly, not on the actors themselves!.
Other than these rare jarring instances, the physical acting is frequently excellent and seldom less than completely adequate, judged against the highest of targets set by the book's clear emotion descriptions!.
Dan Radcliffe has the look, the mannerisms and the charm of Harry down pat!. His strongest expressions are the bemusement that must be inherent at entering a world where science does not rule alone and the bravery that Harry shows in his achievements!. Emma Watson possibly slightly overplays Hermione, but does so in a fully endearing fashion!. There's one scene which gives her too little chance to truly express panic; otherwise her performance needs no changes!.
Rupert Grint has comic timing way beyond his years, hitting Ron's lines perfectly!. Tom Felton makes a stylish Draco; Matt Lewis' Neville character suffers from the acceleration, so the finale does come as a slight characterisation shock!.
The Phelps brothers' Fred and George are distinctively cheeky rather than proactive pranksters; Chris Rankin imbues Percy with genuine authority!. Sean Biggerstaff shines; his Oliver Wood is likeable and an ideal Quidditch team captain!.
Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid is the single dominant adult character, with maximum laughs extracted at every step!. The movie changes strongly exaggerate one side of Hagrid's nature, though; probably inevitable considering how much plot exposition his character has!.
David Bradley has a vicious Argus Filch; John Hurt's Ollivander is an eccentric treat, giving a wonderful introduction to the Wizarding World!. The professors are uniformly excellent, though Richard Harris' Dumbledore comes off as disappointingly flat until the end!.
The most ambitious point of the movie is the computer generated imagery!. The stills are wonderful, but the fastest animation is restricted by the limitations of real-world technology!. The book makes extremely stringent demands of the CGI; sometimes their overall effect in the movie is merely good rather than insanely great!. Some of the magic spells and effects look awesome; others don't capture the imagination nearly so much!.
The world cannot yet completely convincingly animate human beings doing inhuman things, which serves as a clear reminder that you need fictional magic to make the impossible possible!. The Quidditch scene is the most demanding of them all; while the sequence is action-packed and good-looking, disappointingly, it's not a total success!. Perhaps some of the scenes would have been better with more conventional special effects!? (For instance, the lower-tech-looking Sorting Hat scene is one of the most delightful of them all!.)
The set looks gorgeous!. However, it may not stand up to detailed analysis!. It's fairly obvious that things are shot in many disparate locations, rather than one big Hogwarts School near Hogsmeade!.
The score is absolutely wonderful!. The soundtrack may rely too heavily on The Famous Bit, but it's clear that the balance and mixture of things in the finished movie are exactWww@Enter-QA@Com
Two and a half hours is not long to explore a wonderful, magical world!. Furthermore, the directors have bowed to the inevitable temptation to show us things that cannot be communicated so effectively in a book!. The consequence is the feeling of a slightly breathless sprint in places!.
It also means that the movie has to stay true to the spirit of the book rather than to the letter of it!. There are omissions and there are changes!. The changes that were made capture and maintain the spirit of the story really well; indeed, there are places where the story is more clearly and straightforwardly told in the movie than in the book!. Some aspects of the story are fleshed out on screen and the additions are delightful, completely in keeping with the flavour of the world!.
The humour of the movie is inevitably more visual than that of the book; no belly laughs, but a lot of smiles!. Some punchlines have changed, but the reasons why the jokes are funny remain the same!. Not knowing exactly what's coming next is a good thing! It's all kept tasteful, classy and above the belt; there's nothing to cringe about!.
The voice acting is almost uniformly brilliant!. However, there are occasions where some of the actors are required to convey high emotions and are only given a second or two of face shot, or head-and-shoulders shot, to do so!. This isn't as much freedom as they need and they fall a little short!. The blame here must fall on the decision to give the actors too much to do too quickly, not on the actors themselves!.
Other than these rare jarring instances, the physical acting is frequently excellent and seldom less than completely adequate, judged against the highest of targets set by the book's clear emotion descriptions!.
Dan Radcliffe has the look, the mannerisms and the charm of Harry down pat!. His strongest expressions are the bemusement that must be inherent at entering a world where science does not rule alone and the bravery that Harry shows in his achievements!. Emma Watson possibly slightly overplays Hermione, but does so in a fully endearing fashion!. There's one scene which gives her too little chance to truly express panic; otherwise her performance needs no changes!.
Rupert Grint has comic timing way beyond his years, hitting Ron's lines perfectly!. Tom Felton makes a stylish Draco; Matt Lewis' Neville character suffers from the acceleration, so the finale does come as a slight characterisation shock!.
The Phelps brothers' Fred and George are distinctively cheeky rather than proactive pranksters; Chris Rankin imbues Percy with genuine authority!. Sean Biggerstaff shines; his Oliver Wood is likeable and an ideal Quidditch team captain!.
Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid is the single dominant adult character, with maximum laughs extracted at every step!. The movie changes strongly exaggerate one side of Hagrid's nature, though; probably inevitable considering how much plot exposition his character has!.
David Bradley has a vicious Argus Filch; John Hurt's Ollivander is an eccentric treat, giving a wonderful introduction to the Wizarding World!. The professors are uniformly excellent, though Richard Harris' Dumbledore comes off as disappointingly flat until the end!.
The most ambitious point of the movie is the computer generated imagery!. The stills are wonderful, but the fastest animation is restricted by the limitations of real-world technology!. The book makes extremely stringent demands of the CGI; sometimes their overall effect in the movie is merely good rather than insanely great!. Some of the magic spells and effects look awesome; others don't capture the imagination nearly so much!.
The world cannot yet completely convincingly animate human beings doing inhuman things, which serves as a clear reminder that you need fictional magic to make the impossible possible!. The Quidditch scene is the most demanding of them all; while the sequence is action-packed and good-looking, disappointingly, it's not a total success!. Perhaps some of the scenes would have been better with more conventional special effects!? (For instance, the lower-tech-looking Sorting Hat scene is one of the most delightful of them all!.)
The set looks gorgeous!. However, it may not stand up to detailed analysis!. It's fairly obvious that things are shot in many disparate locations, rather than one big Hogwarts School near Hogsmeade!.
The score is absolutely wonderful!. The soundtrack may rely too heavily on The Famous Bit, but it's clear that the balance and mixture of things in the finished movie are exactWww@Enter-QA@Com
the first two were good, but after that they were pretty disappointing!. The third book was really great, but I was disappointed to find Sirius with tattoos - where did that come from!? I was looking forward to seeing how they'd manage to portray (and make realistic) Harry's fear of a "criminal" when everyone watching knows he's really innocent!. But they made him look like a criminal up until the truth comes out, and then poof! his character changes!. And the fourth and fifth just did not have the depth the first two did!. I figure it's because they're more complex and harder to fit all the depth into one film!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
The first two movies were the only good ones, although I am holding out hope for the last ones now that they are splitting up the 7th book into two movies!.
The producers just didn't seem to understand that they could have taken these 7 books and make them into 15 movies and people would have gone to see them!Www@Enter-QA@Com
The producers just didn't seem to understand that they could have taken these 7 books and make them into 15 movies and people would have gone to see them!Www@Enter-QA@Com
The Prisoner of Azkaban is by far the best!. It is the most visionary and no doubt has the best characters!. Christopher Columbus's Potter films' were utterly for making money!. Christopher Columbus is a business man and nothing more!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
Film: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Book: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Www@Enter-QA@Com
Book: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Www@Enter-QA@Com
my favourite film is the chamber of secrets and i like the book better because it goes into more details than the actual film Www@Enter-QA@Com
I like Prisoner of Azkaban, and I love the book and film equally!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
Loved Order of the Phoenix!. The Shadow-Fighting was beautifulWww@Enter-QA@Com
Prisoner of Azkaban!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
I'll get many thumbs down for this answer, but I've never seen a Harry Potter film!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
Chamber Of Secrets
the last good harry potter filmWww@Enter-QA@Com
the last good harry potter filmWww@Enter-QA@Com
I like the first two the best!.
The others just didnt go into enough detail!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
The others just didnt go into enough detail!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
the first one
sorcerer's/philosopher's stoneWww@Enter-QA@Com
sorcerer's/philosopher's stoneWww@Enter-QA@Com
It hasn't been made yet, but my favourite Harry Potter film will be the one where he dies!.
Then maybe people over the age of thirteen will read books that are well structured and true classics, over this populist rubbish!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
Then maybe people over the age of thirteen will read books that are well structured and true classics, over this populist rubbish!.Www@Enter-QA@Com