What movies insist upon themselves? You can feel this one huffing its own farts all throughout its runtime.

>>211819196 (OP)
>Best movie in the series
>Best Book in the series apparently
>Still boring as fuck
>Incoherent mess of a setting
>Characters are as chilche as you can get
>Ass-pull solutions to their problems
This franchise and Twilight are in the same tier of shit-tier writing and survived only on being a fad amongst brain-dead teen girls, I'm glad the author is a raging transphobe because that's chasing away it's core demographic which is said teen girls now adult women because adult white women (natural women, not retarded homosexual men on hormones like you) are the most consistent supporters of liberal causes and support the LGBTs and find Trump supporters echoing TERF talking points revolting.

deathly hallows part 1 was kino as fuck

>>211819196 (OP)
Every Nolan movie. Can't stand this arrogant soulless crap making hack.

>>211819772
zoomer moment

>>211819196 (OP)
Prisoner of Azkaban is FORCED to insist upon itself, because certainly no one else in their right mind would ever insist upon it. After all, we're talking about possibly the dullest entry in what remains, to date, the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though

"No!"

The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>>211819739
>>Best Book in the series apparently
That was goblet of fire