Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt.2 has been voted the best Harry Potter film by both users and critics of Rotten Tomatoes, with a combined rating of 93%. Critics gave the movie a 96% score, while fans gave it a 89% rating.
In second place, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban received an average rating of 88%, while Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets both scored 82%. According to National Holidays who compiled the data, there isn’t much disagreement when it comes to the least favored movie. The Fantastic Beasts sequel plummeted to the bottom of the pile, with Crimes of Grindewald scoring just 37% from critics and 55% from fans.
The Harry Potter Films, ranked in order of ratings:
Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2
Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban
Harry Potter & the Philosopher’s Stone
Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets
Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire
Harry Potter & the Half Blood Prince
Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Pt. 1
Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix
Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them
Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald
Although voted the least favourite films, both of the Fantastic Beasts releases had budgets of £200,000,000, making them amongst the most expensive movies ever to be released. On the flip side, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets had the lowest budget and proved to be the most profitable, making £778,979,634 ROI.
If you’re a big fan of the franchise, you can look at the full data here, and see how many spells were cast, the number of magical creatures and items, along with the number of magical terms used in each of the 10 movies. Apparently Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 contains the most magic overall, with 80 magical creatures and 100 wands appearing throughout the movie.
Post Disclaimer
Some of our content may contain marketing links, which means we will receive a commission for purchases made via those links. In our editorial content, these affiliate links appear automatically, and our editorial teams are not influenced by our affiliate partnerships. We work with several providers (currently Skimlinks and Amazon) to manage our affiliate relationships. You can find out more about their services by visiting their sites.
Published by
Wayne_j
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 3,952
- Real Name
- Wayne
sidburyjr
Second Unit
Mikael Soderholm
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,295
- Real Name
- Josh Steinberg
But I think special consideration has to be given to the first film. If that movie doesn’t come out right and please both an eager fan base of readers and a much wider new group of moviegoers, there is no franchise. The first film not only told a compelling story but also credibly suggested an entire world of stories that was worth revisiting.
Especially in this day and age of remakes and reboots and sequels, all building off prior works, there’s something to be said for a film good enough to start a film franchise. The books are very good and very popular, but succeeding as a crossover general audience event was never a guarantee and the path the first film charted for the series is quite an achievement.
Patrick Sun
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1999
- Messages
- 39,368
Colin Jacobson
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2000
- Messages
- 10,552
He was bland in the first few but eventually matured and became a strength.
Watson's limitations became clearer with every passing film, but the movies were good anyway.
Grint improved a bit, but he was pretty good out of the gate...
Darby67
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,504
- Real Name
- Sean
Chuck Mayer
And the direction was phenomenal.
noel aguirre
Colin Jacobson
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2000
- Messages
- 10,552
"GoF" was the 1st that really started to interest me in the franchise. The 1st 3 left me semi-cold, but "GoF" got me more invested...
noel aguirre
Same here- especially the first which I found extremely tedious. If I recall it and Spider-man came out closely around the same time and which to me was so much better after being let down by HP.
Lord Dalek
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
- Real Name
- Joel Henderson
Colin Jacobson
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2000
- Messages
- 10,552
I thought the 1st 3 just spent too much time with Harry and his pals as they did Hogwarts stuff and they didn't push their plots very well.
I think that content works in the books but becomes tedious in the movies!
"GoF" was the first where I felt they really started to emphasize story movement over unrelated wizardry...
I'd seen Sorcerer's Stone and found it somewhat laughable (the troll/bathroom sequence especially so, partly due to the vfx) vowing to not bother with any others. I don't know why I saw Azkaban but I did and found it much better than the first film. After seeing that one I went back and watched Sorcerer's Stone again. In that viewing the film was much better so I watched Chamber and enjoyed it too. It got a bit tedious towards the end.
Since seeing all the films I started reading the books. They've been fun reads so far (I think the last one I read was Azkaban) in spite of knowing what's going to happen.
Harry Potter And The Sorcerers Stone was released on November 16, 2001.
Spiderman was released almost six months later on May 3 2002.
AshJW
Screenwriter
Similar threads
