The first 2 Harry Potter movies were the best imo.

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I just love the first 2 movies so much because well alot to explain but it can be summed up as this, they just feel so.....magical.

Its helped with the childlike/whimsical/fairy tale athmosphere, like the first 2 movies felt like Disney movies, as in the older disney movies like Mary Poppins and the Princess movies of yore. If anything visiting Hogwarts in those 2 movies was like visiting Disney Castle but as a school of magic.

Also John Williams score for the music furthur nailed it I mean listen to these tracks:

Spoiler: For space its in spoiler tag

The Cinematography, the casting (Richard Harris Dumbledore was just loveable), the I love the British way of dramatic acting. Everything just felt warm and magical. But even than the movie had its dark moments that still felt appropriate to the fairy tale tone, Voldemort sucking unicorn blood and the darker dungeons of Hogwarts, the Spiders, the Chamber of Secrets and the Basilisk. Overall I just loved the fairy tale/magical athmosphere of the first 2 movies.

Than movie 3 came and everything darkened and changed.

Movies 3 and 4 became akin to Tim Burton Movies, than movies 5,6,7 became akin to Nolan movies. (Personally though between the 2 I prefer the dark tone of the Nolan-esque movies than the Tim Burton esque ones)

ANd I get that's the point of the movie's story and theme, we grew up, the older movies of Hogwarts is now a childhood memory. But it does make for an overall inconsistant tone and setting. Hogwarts itself change over the years becoming Darker and Gothic (Which explains why a good portion of Harry Pottr fangirls are emo/goths, especially from that infamous fanfic)

I mean you would never see Richard Harris Dumbledore in the later movies especially Movie 5 and 6. (Which thinking about it they would have casted Michael Gambon anyway even if Harris lived)

Overall I don't think the later movies are completely bad, far from it, but I still cherish the first 2 movies in my heart, so just to rank it:

1. Harry Potter 1 and 2
2. The last part of movie 4 (when Voldemort did came back), 5,6,7.
3. The whole of movie 4 prior to the end and movie 3.

 

[Hawki]

Well, that's a fair assessment, but I don't consider it a drawback. Both the films and books become darker over time, and IMO, the series is stronger for it. Harry grows, the world becomes more grim, the danger becomes more real, and the stakes are raised.

It's been ages since I've seen some of the films, so I can't really rank them. Deathly Hallows pt. 2 would come in the top spot, mainly because I feel it's the most film-like - as in, it uses its medium to best effect. Order of the Phoenix would come second. Fantastic Beasts would be lowest if we're counting that, if not, I'm not sure how I'd rank the rest. But if we're ranking the seven main books, for me, it would go:

7) Order of the Phoenix
6) Deathly Hallows
5) Chamber of Secrets
4) Philosopher's Stone
3) Half-Blood Prince
2) Goblet of Fire
1) Prisoner of Azkaban

Yep, my favorite films are my least favorite books. Go figure. Though to be fair, I need to give Order of the Phoenix another shot sometime, what weighs it down for me is that it's just so long, and Umbridge is so despicable, that it becomes a double-edged sword. And this (censored) is still around till book 7.

 

[Lilani]

The first two, well first one especially really, does capture the proper sense of wonderment for the events. It's the first time both the audience and Harry are seeing the world of magic, and between the music, the aesthetics, and the pacing it really does feel satisfying all the way through. From the third one on it all feels kind of run-of-the-mill. Which makes sense since we have gotten to know things more, and so has Harry. But still, it was that wonderment which attracted me to the series in the first place. Not the political conflicts and such that came later.

My favorite book was the fourth one, though. It's a nice change of pace from the usual order of events established thus far, it expands upon the world of wizards in ways that aren't directly related to Hogwarts or Voldemort, and I love Mad Eye Moody.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Take this as the opinion of someone who thinks Harry Potter in its entirety is really stupid and lame, but the 3rd was the best movie. It felt the most competently shot and paced, and it made the world feel real and lived-in.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

I do get where you're coming from, the first 2 films were very successful in their aims, i.e., being magical and whimsical and enjoyable in a childish wonder kind of way. But they don't offer much beyond that. The kids are too young to be convincing actors, the plots are scattershot, and the whimsy turns me off a bit. Just not my style.

That said, films 3 and 4 are almost entirely bad. They're such an awkward attempt to darken things and make it more mature. They only succeeded in being confusing and lame.

It isn't until movie 5 that things improve, and still, if you ask me none of the eight are great films. They just don't have the time to do the books justice, and the world is just so inconsistently executed in tone and style. I guess Deathly Hallows does have a consistent tone in itself, but by then the series is so all over the place. I dunno, I usually don't have a problem separating the books from the movies in adaptations, but for Harry Potter the books are just much better put together.

 

[Catnip1024]

I may be confusing books and films here a little, but as I recall the first three were great. After that, JK Rowling assumed she had to make him a maungy shit to demonstrate that he was going through puberty. Which kind of ruined him as a character I could root for.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Never read the books, never going to, but I do have the boxset and I do think it's one of the finest mainstream series in a long while (it did wonders for the British film industry, too).

However... I don't want to see the first two films ever again, frankly. The first two are just kid's films, and generally I really don't care about child narratives. The acting and direction's iffy, and I'm not overly keen on John Williams at all (too often blandly, sentimentally literal. he's good for generating cues and motifs, but not a lot else).

They start to get good by Azkaban, and for me the series really starts with Goblet Of Fire. Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince, and Deathly Hallows P1 would be my favourites.

ANd I get that's the point of the movie's story and theme, we grew up, the older movies of Hogwarts is now a childhood memory. But it does make for an overall inconsistant tone and setting.

What? No it doesn't. The tone and themes surely suit each age group/era of characters.

A little like Buffy The Vampire Slayer, the overall arc from start to finish is one of maturation and, inevitably, darker, tougher themes as they face responsibilities and burdens only young adults need to.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

I agree that from the third one onwards they've made some unfortunate decisions that sucked a lot of the fun out of them. The muted colours, the more mundane clothes they were wearing... I dunno, they lost a lot of their charm. Which is a shame, I'm a pretty big Harry Potter fan, which is why I'm always inclined to say that those movies could stand to be remade now that all the books are out and it's clear what exactly to focus on. On the other hand though, the casting was in some cases just absolutely perfect and it'd be hard not to fall short of it. I dunno, man, but I will say that, as good as even a lot of the later movies are, they weren't quite there when it came to the overall feeling of the books. The light hearted quirky stuff is pretty important.

But, for what it's worth, I like Fantastic Beasts just fine. Didn't love it but I don't mind them turning that into a series. That one had both the dark stuff and the goofy stuff. Though the goofy stuff almost got a bit too goofy for me on occasion. But if that's what they're gonna do with that universe I wanna see where it's going. In any case, it's better than that weird stageplay. I mean, seriously. What the hell was up with that?

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Take this as the opinion of someone who thinks Harry Potter in its entirety is really stupid and lame, but the 3rd was the best movie. It felt the most competently shot and paced, and it made the world feel real and lived-in.

See I didn't think it was stupid or lame, I just didn't get it. I didn't think the characters were anything but obvious archetypes, the character names were all over the place, and the villains were just so cartoonishly evil it was impossible to take them seriously.

I mean Snape was basically this:

And they clearly were just pulling shit out of their ass for the movies by the end.

 

[TrulyBritish]

Prisoner of Azkaban in the best book/film and anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong

More seriously, I like the first two well enough but, as someone else said, they're kid movies with the flaws that kids movies can have. The actors aren't at their best, character depth isn't as strong (relatively) as characters got later on (especially Dumbledore and Snape). Azkaban to me was the one that best managed to get the balance of cheer/dark.
My order would be:
1) Prisoner of Azkaban
2) Half Blood prince
3) Chamber of Secrets
4) Goblet of Fire
5) Philosophers stone (It's only really this low because I've never felt the need to rematch it. One time was enough for me to get the whole thing.
6) Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (seriously, fuck the "Deathly Hallows plot thing")
7) Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (Dear god did this one feel slow)
8) Order of the Phoenix (Absolute snooze fest)

 

[Natemans]

1. Prisoner of Azkaban
2. Half-Blood Prince
3. Deathly Hallows Part 2
4. Goblet of Fire
5. Sorcerer's Stone
6. Deathly Hallows Part 1
7. Chamber of Secrets
8. Order of the Phoenix

 

[Frission]

I always thought they were better because the books were shorter and the kids hadn't entered the adolescent angst stage yet.

Harry Potter is a good metaphor for teenage-hood, 11 to 12 everyone is still cute, 13 is still workable, 14 and 15 everyone falls off wagon and people start to calm down and get better around 16-18.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Take this as the opinion of someone who thinks Harry Potter in its entirety is really stupid and lame, but the 3rd was the best movie. It felt the most competently shot and paced, and it made the world feel real and lived-in.

See I didn't think it was stupid or lame, I just didn't get it. I didn't think the characters were anything but obvious archetypes, the character names were all over the place, and the villains were just so cartoonishly evil it was impossible to take them seriously.

Well, that to me constitutes as stupid and lame. As soon as we got introduced to Draco with his slicked back blond hair and two cronies I was like 'No please, are we really doing this?!'

Also, not only can everyone just do magic -- taking away "the magic" -- nearly all of it seems to consist of shooting light/beams from their wands.

And I just hated each of those child actors, especially the main three.

 

[Hawk of Battle]

Azkaban is the best, both book and movie. It's where the series starts, to steal a tvtropes term, to grow the beard, getting much darker and setting the general tone for the later installments (not that the first 2 didn't have dark moments). It's also the first in the series where more than a few chekovs guns start firing and you start to really realise just how much forward planning JK put into the series. It also has by far the best twists as we get to the revelations near the end, and the time travel elements just work so well throughout.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I tend to reply that Azkaban is the best movie but I don't know if that's because I really liked the book. I always thought of the books/movies as interchangeable. In any case nothing beats the wonder of reading the first book for me, which means the first movie is probably the best.

 

[Drathnoxis]

As a really big fan of the Harry Potter books, I really can't stand watching any of the movies beyond the first two, and I only ever made it as far as the fourth before writing them off completely. They just don't do the books justice in any way, you just can't boil down 400+ pages to 2 hours without losing a huge amount. Beyond that they made a lot of choices that just rubbed me the wrong way, gross hairless werewolves, hippy Dumbledore, muggle clothes. I really don't understand why, in this wizarding school where most of the kids come from wizarding homes consisting of family members that probably wouldn't have any idea what to do with a telephone, why is everybody wearing muggle clothes? It's just wrong! I didn't notice the couple times they wore muggle clothing in the first two, but that bright pink hoodie Hermione wears in Azkaban just makes it stand out.

The fact that the fourth movie wrote Dobby completely out is a huge black mark on the series, considering become really important later on.

Azkaban is the best, both book and movie. It's where the series starts, to steal a tvtropes term, to grow the beard, getting much darker and setting the general tone for the later installments (not that the first 2 didn't have dark moments). It's also the first in the series where more than a few chekovs guns start firing and you start to really realise just how much forward planning JK put into the series. It also has by far the best twists as we get to the revelations near the end, and the time travel elements just work so well throughout.

She had some stuff worked out, yeah, but she obviously hadn't planned out a decent ending for the series and never did, judging by how Deathly Hallows ended up. So many deus ex machina, so many lucky coincidences for the characters, and that final battle!

Deathly Hallows is the only movie I could see actually improving on the books, because that final battle was one of the worst I've ever read.

 

[Hawki]

Deathly Hallows is the only movie I could see actually improving on the books, because that final battle was one of the worst I've ever read.

I don't know if I'd call Deathly Hallows better than the book (since the books on average are much better than the films), but Deathly Hallows is my second least favorite book, while Deathly Hallows pt. 2 is my favorite film. Partly because by this point, book loyalty was moot, and the film is effectively one giant action climax. Which, being a visual medium, makes it quite an enjoyable climax, and in the film's take on the Limbo scene, a poignent one as well.

Also, the battle between Harry and Voldemort is better. Much better. I get what the book was going for, that Voldemort's life ends with a whimper rather than a bang, so to speak, but the Battle of Hogwarts is just that much more enjoyable when I get to see it. And that includes Harry and Voldemort duking it out as well.

 

[Glongpre]

I mean Snape was basically this:

Do you mean Voldemort? Snape was a good guy (for the most part).

OP: Didn't read the books.

The movies are alright. Idk how I would rank them, but I like Deathly Hallows pt.2 the best.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I mean Snape was basically this:

Do you mean Voldemort? Snape was a good guy (for the most part).

OP: Didn't read the books.

The movies are alright. Idk how I would rank them, but I like Deathly Hallows pt.2 the best.

Snape wasn't a good guy. He was a murdering, child-abusing scorned miserygut who took out his pent up rage and sexual frustration on the child of his stalked lover.
And then he palled around with the murderer of his unrequited love for decades...'cause...

 

[oRevanchisto]

Take this as the opinion of someone who thinks Harry Potter in its entirety is really stupid and lame, but the 3rd was the best movie. It felt the most competently shot and paced, and it made the world feel real and lived-in.

See I didn't think it was stupid or lame, I just didn't get it. I didn't think the characters were anything but obvious archetypes, the character names were all over the place, and the villains were just so cartoonishly evil it was impossible to take them seriously.

I mean Snape was basically this:

And they clearly were just pulling shit out of their ass for the movies by the end.

The fuck are you even talking about? Snape wasn't evil, though he was a dick. And, "pulling shit out of their ass by the end." Again, what are you talking about? They followed the books, for the most part.

As for the OP, sorry but I have to disagree with you. I've recently been on a re-read and rewatch of the series and the first movie is really rough. The acting is rough, especially from many of the child actors. The sets are obvious and certain changes from the books kills some of the pacing and characters. It's good in that it maintained true to the spirit of the books and proved they could be successful movies, but they are definitely rough around the edges. However, Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire, and the Order of the Phoenix are all better films. Almost everything is better. And, as good as Richard Harris was I prefer Michael Gambon overall. Gambon captured the mischievous nature of Dumbledore better than Harris who played him a bit too much like "the old wise wizard."

Though I think the Half-Blood Prince ranks the lowest simply due to how much was changed and cut from the books. Why was half the movie spent on the Ron-Hermione romance? And, the Half-Blood Prince reveal fell flat.

EDIT:

Snape wasn't a good guy. He was a murdering, child-abusing scorned miserygut who took out his pent up rage and sexual frustration on the child of his stalked lover.
And then he palled around with the murderer of his unrequited love for decades...'cause...

Agreed, some people hero worship Snape too much. Hell, even the last book does to an extent at the end. Snape was a fucking asshole. No one forced him to be a dick to every child in school, no one told him to hate Harry Potter, no one forced him to pal around with Voldemort until he killed his crush. Yes, he redeemed himself in the end but that doesn't make up for his horrible behavior both before and after he joined up with Voldemort.