The Sorceror's Stone. It was one of the few movies that did justice to the books and though I'm usually not the type you yells a movie out for being so different from a book, I feel that with Harry Potter and out of all the directors that directed the films, Chris Columbus was without second thought the best director for the films. And I really enjoyed the first and second film! They were great (and the fact that Richard Harris was Dumbledore in both films, may have added to the reason.) But then again Ian Hart didn't make half as good Voldemort as Ralph Fiennes does.
Anyways, That's how it's always been for me. I loved the first and second, and the rest I enjoyed but just because I'm a real movie buff. Truly, Columbus should come and direct the final two parts because this is the finale and probably the most important installment of the series.
posted over a year ago
I agree. Christopher Columbus, I noticed, stuck to the books the most, and that was a definate perk to the movie.
like, the same director. Also the fact his name is Christopher Columbus, like the explorer who found the American Islands on Oct 12 (my b'day, and I'm ashamed). That just makes me hate Chris Columbus even more
But Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets dragged for me. You can stick to the books, just don't copy them exactly. Like base the books but make the films different. Personally there should've been a British director all the way
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince :) Although they did leave out a LOT of info, the acting was really good, I loved the music, and I liked how they did most of the scenes. The cave scene was EXACTLY how I imagined it!
Oooh... i don't know!!
The chamber of secrets is one that pops into my mind because i remember being scares to watch it!
(My friend had told me it had a giant snake in it, and i was quite young!)
I loved Harry Potter and The Prisioner of Askaban, it's just so well done and fun to watch. And Alfonso Cuaron gives us, mexicans, a big amount of pride ^^
