1. Prisoner of Azkaban
2. Deathly Hallows Part I
3. Half Blood Prince
.
4. Order of the Phoenix
5. Goblet of Fire
6. Chamber of Secrets
7. Philosopher's Stone
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8. Deathly Hallows Part II
[imo] Alfonso Cuaron is the only director of the four who managed to bring out the magic and sense of wonderment from the series. Prisoner of Azkaban is, to me, the only film in the entire series that felt like an adaption of the books. Gorgeous cinematography, decent script, well-acted (Gary Oldman and David Thewlis were excellent, and the trio improved oodles with their acting, especially after their cringe-fest in the first two movies), soulful score, well-paced, visually stunning to look at and emotionally satisfying.
Deathly Hallows Part I and Half Blood Prince both were (excruciatingly) slow-paced and dull at times. Yates captured the darkness of them, but he failed to capture the humor, witty one-liners and jokes that really balanced things out - which is what made these two films so unbearable to sit through at times. Deathly Hallows part I had a more streamlined script; this one got the characters right and that's a big plus for me. Nevertheless, so many scenes were not done well - like the Malfoy Manor sequence, which was originally a pretty creepy and frightening scene in the book, but in the movie, it feels more like a comic sequence with Helena Bonham Carter making a joke out of Bellatrix. Half Blood Prince failed to do any justice to either the love stories (to be fair, even Rowling isn't the best when it comes down to writing romance - most of her love couples make me gag, or just shake my head in disbelief), or the torment Draco went through; the Half Blood Prince subplot were poorly executed; the aftermath of Dumbledore's death wasn't very well executed; and seriously, only two Tom Riddle memories (unless my memory isn't working either). As a whole, these two had the most character moments and interactions, which is what most other movies are lacking.
Order of the Phoenix is an abomination as far as the process of adaption is concerned. So much is left out, trimmed or toned down that it's not even funny. While the movie, unlike some sections of the book, is well-paced, it is actually this fast pacing that stops the movie from achieving the depth of the book. Funnily enough, as a stand-alone movie, it works pretty fine though. It was well-acted (especially coming after GoF's over-the-top performances): Imelda Staunton, Gary Oldman and Daniel Radcliffe were excellent.
Goblet of Fire was nothing but a loud, noisy, obnoxious W*F-fest. Horribly acted and terribly executed for the most parts. As an adaption it's poor, and I never felt the adrenaline-rush watching it like so many claimed. Newell is without doubt the worst director the series had seen.
I can't stand Columbus's films. The guy had zilch to very little creativity of his own. The first two films weren't so much an adaption as much as a copy-and-paste job of the books. He almost relied entirely on the books, and yet, he failed to bring out the magic from them - something Cuaron managed to do without having to reply entirely on the published works. Pedestrian, half-baked, lousy and boring is what I'd call them - exactly the opposite that children's films are supposed to be. But he, unlike the latter directors, created the foundation for the series, which is why I hold him in utmost respect just for that reason.
I couldn't stand DH Part II when I watched it, and as much as I want to believe that repeat viewings will help me in appreciating it, realistically speaking, I don't think that will be the case. There is just too much in that one I found awful. Other than Prince's Tale, the whole film felt just so emotionally void. [/imo]
Edited by Beyond_the_Veil - 12 years ago Half Blood Prince failed to do any
justice to either the love stories (to be fair, even Rowling isn't the best
when it comes down to writing romance - most of her love couples make me gag,
or just shake my head in disbelief), or the torment Draco went through;