Because our lives are more interesting than yours.

Having chosen his favorite and least favorite of the Harry Potter books, Nathaniel now casts his vote for the best and the worst of the Harry Potter movies.

Yeah, I can be one of those crazy purists when it comes to books. I believe that in almost every case, the original book will always be better than the movie adaptation.

These don't often blend well.

It just makes sense- books allow the readers to inject their own imaginations and imagery into the narrative the writer provides. With movies based on books, you’re just watching someone else’s interpretation. Yes, you can actually see the story, but it’s never how you personally pictured it would be.

Having said that, I still enjoy the Harry Potter movies. They are an adaptation, but they’re a good adaptation. Plus I think the fact that the movies were being made while the book series was still being written really helped solidify the movies’ cast and settings as being “the real deal.” You could connect the faces and places from the movies with the books while you were reading them.

But out of all of the Harry Potter movies, which one do I hold in the highest regards? And which one, sadly, do I like the least? Here are my picks for the best and worst Harry Potter movies.

Best Harry Potter Movie: “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1” (movie 7)

"And I raaaaan. I ran so far awaaaaaay."

I’m tempted to cheat here and just say I liked “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” as a whole. Can I do that? That counts, right?

No? I have to actually pick a movie? Darn.

I’ve said before that one of the things I like about the Harry Potter film series is that, as it progresses, aspects of the movies like the acting, the effects, and the cinematography do get better. The early ones, like “Sorcerer’s Stone” or “Chamber of Secrets,” are fun to watch in a lighthearted kid-friendly way, but there’s a lot that can be improved on.

The early movies are full of charm.

But by the end of the series I was blown away by how well-done both halves of “Deathly Hallows” were when I first saw them. Together, both parts of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” stand out as being, I think, the best of the series, with great acting from all of the main cast showing a wide emotional range, superb settings and special effects that look both magical and realistic, and beautiful cinematography capable of communicating to the audience just as much as the characters do. These aren’t just good Harry Potter movies, these are good movies.

But I can only pick one. To me, part 1 of “Deathly Hallows” wins out because of how different a movie it is than the rest of the series. This isn’t a movie about another year at Hogwarts with Harry and friends, this is a movie about Harry, Ron, and Hermione on the run and isolated. This is a character-driven movie, pretty much just centered on those three leads. Not that I don’t like the other movies and the magical goings-on around Hogwarts, but I get the most emotional depth from “Deathly Hallows part 1” because it lets us focus on our three heroes. I admit, the movie can feel a little slow at times, but I appreciate it because, in doing so, it lets us connect with the people more.

Apart from that, I also like “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1” because of how visually beautiful it is. Say what you will about how cool and enchanting Hogwarts can be, this movie stands out because we get a plethora of different, beautiful locations. Some of my favorite parts of “Deathly Hallows part 1” are the montage scenes where you see Harry, Ron, and Hermione traveling to different places around the U.K.

It's good to get out of the house every once in a while.

The Forest of Dean, the White Cliffs of Dover… we see Harry’s plight played out in more than just sitting around at Hogwarts. I think that both emotionally and visually, “Deathly Hallows part 1” provides some of the richest moments in the series. And that makes it my personal favorite.

And now comes the hard part…

Worst Harry Potter Movie: “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” (movie 3)

"Harry Potter and the Unfortunate Let-Down"

Now this one just makes me sad. Like I said last time, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” definitely ranks as my favorite book of the series. So it really pains me to find “Prisoner of Azkaban” here as my least favorite movie.

What went wrong? Story-wise, I think the movie holds up well enough. And I think the acting’s a bit improved from the first two movies. They’re not the problem. The reason I don’t like this “Prisoner of Azkaban,” no matter how many times I watch it, is its cinematography. Compared to the rest of the series, I don’t like the way this one feels, the atmosphere or the directing style.

It’s kind of hard to explain. The first two Harry Potter movies, “Sorcerer’s Stone” and “Chamber of Secrets,” were both directed by Christopher Columbus and helped establish the movie series’ style for Hogwarts and Harry’s magical world. They established the artistic theme for the movies- what the castle, characters, design, effects, and even the film style of the movies felt like.

And while Chris Columbus stuck around to help produce “Prisoner of Azkaban,” directing duties were given to Mexican director Alfonso Cuaron.

"Trust me, it'll look good in post."

And Cuaron… changed things. I’m sure every director wants to make their movies feel like their own, but there were a lot of stylistic changes done with “Prisoner of Azkaban” that I didn’t like, nor do I think they fit well with the style of the series as a whole.

Maybe it’s just me, but there were a lot of things that took me out of the movie. Like the scene with Aunt Marge being reduced to slapstick, or the bizarre inclusion of talking shrunken heads in several spots in the movie.

What are you DOING here?

Or the puppet Monster Book of Monsters, the frog choir during the opening feast at Hogwarts, and the inclusion of a regular, nonmagical record player playing big band dance tunes. That in particular just felt really out-of-place in Harry’s magical world.

Not to mention the fact that this movie changed the locations for many places around Hogwarts, which really just left me confused as to where everything was. And as far as Michael Gambon being the new Dumbledore, yes, Richard Harris tragically died, but Gambon plays such a different Dumbledore it almost felt like he was a completely alien character. Story-wise, there’s no connection made between the Marauders’ Map and Harry’s father and a lot of important backstory about the Marauders is left out. Cinematically, there’s also way too many scenes that fade to black, which I understand kind of works with the dementors but after a while it just felt forced.

Bottom like, in my opinion “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” changed too much unnecessarily and left me feeling out-of-place. Every movie and every new director made changes to the Harry Potter universe, but this was the first and, in my opinion, the most jarring. Maybe I’m just nitpicking; I don’t know. But for as much I liked “Prisoner of Azkaban” as a book, the movie let me down. Decide for yourselves, but those are my picks for the best and worst of the Harry Potter movies.

- Natron out

I’ll admit, as much as I (allegedly) hate the beach, coming back from vacation only to have to step back into the daily grind again sucks more.

"I'll set this place on fire..."

I may not be going back to school, and most of my friends will still be around to hang out with anyway, but this still feels like the end of summer…

…

Heck with it. We’ve still got a little vacation left, so I’ve decided to wrap up my summer by getting in a few last words on one of my summer highlights: seeing “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2.” I don’t have much else to say about the movie itself, but it was a great night spent with friends and now that I’ve seen it, yeah, I’m still a little sad that it’s over. I loved the series, the books and the movies. It was a part of my life for over 10 years, after all. It was a cultural phenomenon.

Gahhh!! Go away! Go away! WHY WON'T YOU DIE?!?

I meant a GOOD cultural phenomenon! Get lost, “Twilight.”

Anyways, something that important needs some closure. And now that the movies are all said and done, I thought this week would be a good time to look back on all that’s been and point out my favorites. Which of the Harry Potter books and movies are my favorites? And which do I like the least? This is completely opinion-based, based on personal preference instead of any statistical fact. I’m going to split this into two articles, with the movies in part two, but for now let’s look at what I consider the best and the worst Harry Potter books…

Best Harry Potter Book: “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” (book 3)

After saving up enough gold, Harry could finally afford his own flying mount.

Figures. The first choice I have to make is probably the hardest one to decide. Can’t I just say that I like them all for their own reasons? But I suppose, if I had to choose, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” wins out. This is the one that I love the most. Explaining why, however, can be a little complex.

At its most basic, I like “Prisoner of Azkaban” because it’s the last of the more “innocent” years at Hogwarts. I first started reading Harry Potter when my grandma, who worked at a Borders bookstore, bought me a box set of the first three books. So they hold a special place in my heart for being “the first,” and together I think books 1-3 are the ones that introduced readers to a hidden world of magic and adventure.

"Come with me... and you'll be... in a world of pure imagination..."

I see the next book in the series, “Goblet of Fire” as the turning point of the whole series, when evil Lord Voldemort returned and everything got serious. Suddenly what started out as a simple story of a whimsical, magic world grew up and started dealing with issues of death, war, and corruption. It was an important change, but I still love the lighthearted magical world more, where whimsical things happened at random and the fate of the world wasn’t at stake. If I remember correctly, “Prisoner of Azkaban” is the one book in the series where Voldemort doesn’t appear at all. It has its darker, scarier moments, such as the spectral dementors or the ominous Sirius Black, but “Prisoner of Azkaban” was the last of the simpler, lighter adventures of Harry Potter.

The other major reason I really love the third book is because it has time travel. The climax of “Prisoner of Azkaban” involves Harry and Hermione going back in time to change events and help themselves, all while making sure not to be seen or disrupt the timeline. You get to see events happen twice from different perspectives. And that’s just awesome. Nevermind that it’s totally inconceivable that they’d let schoolkids time-travel, or that it’s never used again in the series, it’s just fun.

Yeah, my thoughts went here, too.

One of my favorite moments in the book comes when Harry finally grasps that they’ve actually managed to go back in time and simply states, “This is the weirdest thing we’ve ever done.”

Aside from that, “Prisoner of Azkaban” just has a lot of memorable scenes and things that I like. The Marauders’ Map, the boggart, Hogemeade, winning the Quidditch Cup, Buckbeak, Sirius Black and Remus Lupin… “Prisoner of Azkaban” is full of some of the best moments in the series.

And now…

Worst Harry Potter Book: “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” (book 5)

For some reason, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Unicorn Faeries" just didn't sound right.

This one is a little easier to decide. While I don’t consider any of the books bad, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is the one I probably like the least. And if I had to say why, I think it’s because I see this one as being, essentially, filler.

“Order of the Phoenix” is one of the longest books in the series, but it didn’t have to be. The previous book, “Goblet of Fire,” was also very lengthy, but there was a lot of plot crammed into it. “Goblet of Fire” had the Quidditch World Cup, the Triwizard Tournament, a fallout between Harry and Ron, the first task, the Yule Ball, the second task, the third task, Voldemort returning, Harry and Voldemort’s Duel, and the reveal of Barty Krouch Jr. That’s a lot.

And this happened.

“Order of the Phoenix” is also very long… but there’s just not enough plot to fill the pages. For me, the book boils down to just two memorable things: the vile Dolores Umbridge and the climactic fight at the Ministry of Magic. The introduction of Professor Umbridge is enjoyable, as she’s a revolting, mean-spirited person easy to hate, but she doesn’t make the story. She’s more of a self-important side character.

She is every mean teacher you've ever had.

Really, the entirety of the plot of “Order of the Phoenix” comes down to Harry piecing together that Voldemort wants to break into a room in the Ministry of Magic and finally confronting him there at the end of the schoolyear. That’s it. The whole plot of the book can be summed up in, “Voldemort wants to open a door.”

The other thing that upsets me with “Order of the Phoenix” (and, in a similar way, “The Half-Blood Prince”) is how a lot of the problems Harry ends up facing could easily be avoided if Dumbledore just TOLD HIM WHAT WAS GOING ON. Information about the mysterious “prophecy,” Harry’s premonitions, the fact that Voldemort is able to manipulate Harry’s thoughts, the Horcruxes… If someone had actually told Harry what was going on instead of keeping things from him “for his own safety,” maybe he could have made an intelligent decision that didn’t put the lives of his friends at risk. I bet Sirius might have lived longer, anyway…

If he can make fun of it, that makes it okay, right?

Beyond that, the book’s just a lot of filler. We get some political allegory with the way the Ministry of Magic tries to interfere with the school, but that’s not the main plot, either. The teen romance, Professor Umbridge, Hagrid’s giant half-brother… it all just feels like extra stuff to pad out a book that didn’t need to be. I consider it the low point of the series.

But enough of that. Now it’s time to look at the movies…

(to be continued)

- Natron out

Seasons’ greetings, boys and girls! I just thought I’d take a quick moment to wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, whatever. Here’s hoping you’re having an enjoyable time however you celebrate it.

Edit: Absolutely NO human sacrifice.

Since I’m still pretty hopped up on sugar cookies and egg nog from yesterday, I figured I’d just stop by to share with you what I consider to be my favorite Christmas movie ever. And, if you’re a nerd like me, I’m pretty sure it’s one of yours, too.

No, it’s not “A Christmas Carol,” any one of the lord-knows-how-many versions there are out there (though the Muppet version is always good). It’s not “Rudolph” or “The Grinch” or any of those old cartoons they show every year. It’s not even professional badass John McClane in the action-packed Christmas movie “Die Hard.”

"Merry Christmas to all! Oh, and uh... yippie kay yay and stuff."

They’re all great Christmas movies, but they’re no substitute for some good old superhero holiday action. And there’s only one Christmas movie that has just the superhero I want…

Taking place around Christmas counts as a Christmas movie.

That’s right. I hereby dub “Batman Returns” to be the greatest Christmas movie ever… because I am a comic book fanboy that loves Batman. That’s all. “Batman Returns” is awesome because I say so.

Although, if you do get a chance to sit down and watch it this holiday season, I do think you’ll find that it is a pretty good movie. Up until Chris Nolan rebooted the film franchise with “Batman Begins” I always considered “Batman Returns” to be my favorite in the series. Mostly because the Joel Schumacher movies (“Batman Forever” and “Batman and Robin”) were a downward spiral, but also because I think “Batman Returns” really did improve on the original.

In the sequel, Batman’s more of an established character, and I like how the movie explores the dual neuroses of Batman and Catwoman. They’ve each got some serious issues which, of course, means they find the other strangely attractive.

... in the Tim Burton tradition where "strangely attractive" means "dark and crazy."

Aside from the crazy romance, the action’s good, the acting’s good, and Danny DeVito was meant to play the Penguin. I mean, seriously.

Plus there’s just something about Tim Burton’s Gothic style that somehow I really like mixed with Christmas. It’s not one of the stereotypical, bright-colored Christmases with those obnoxiously cheery songs that stores and TV stations cram down our throats for months beforehand. This is Christmas in Gotham. Its darker tone is oddly refreshing.

And if all of that doesn’t convince you, I have only two words to say: Christopher. Walken.

"That's right, I'm... wearin' a turban. Insult me again... I'll stab you in the face with a soldering iron."

I rest my case. “Batman Returns” is a holiday movie apart from the rest, but it has everything in it that you could ask for: Christmas, romance, superheroes, and Christopher Walken. Feel free to check it out when you’re binging on Christmas cookies.

-Natron out

Due to my… enthusiasm last month to make everything scary and Halloween-related, I’ll admit I may have neglected to talk about some other important issues which, as a nerd, I am obligated by law to rant about whether anyone wants me to or not. A few of these were actually some pretty big movie announcements dealing with three of my favorite nerdy things: Transformers, Lord of the Rings, and Batman.

With Transformers, we finally got an official title: Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Since I plan on talking a LOT about Transformers in all their incarnations in the near future, all I’ll say for now is that I think the title sounds kind of silly and that I was really gunning for Transformers: Shit Blows Up. I think that one says it all.

Bay-SPLOSIONS!

In Lord of the Rings news, the heavens themselves opened and we fans finally, FINALLY got confirmation that The Hobbit is actually going to be filmed. This made me so happy I ended up with a fever, but again I plan on talking more about this one at a later date. I’ll just say that I am already so full of anticipation that I am dusting the cobwebs off of my shelf in the space next to my Lord of the Rings extended edition DVD box set.

Which brings us to Batman news. Though we’ve known for a while that Christopher Nolan has been planning on a third Batman movie, we really haven’t heard anything beyond that… until last month, when we not only got a title (The Dark Knight Rises), but also got some important information about who the villain ISN’T. According to interviews, Nolan has said that the new bad guy “won’t be the Riddler.”

This actually makes me kinda sad since, out of all the possibles, the Riddler was the one villain I was expecting the most. It would have been great: while the Joker spent most of The Dark Knight messing with the city at large, blowing stuff up indiscriminately, I could see the Riddler coming in and playing head games with Batman alone. Trying to prove how smart he is. Figuring out his secret identity and putting pressure on both halves of Batman/Bruce Wayne, all while with Batman being hunted down by GPD. I so wanted to see a Riddler that’s cool and calculating instead of giggling. And I would have loved to see him played by David Tennant.

Guess "Who"?

But with Nolan’s announcement, many fans are trying to guess just who the next big baddie will be. Including myself. So much so that I’ve made a list, ranging from the fairly likely to the downright impossible. Who knows? It might even be someone original. Quick, to the rumor mills!

There are a lot of small-timers in the background, but as far as I can see, here’s some prominent bad guys that might be coming to a theatre near you sometime soon…

- Natron out

The Probable:

"I MUST BREAK YOU." Seriously, just add the accent.

- Bane (Antonio Diego)- The man who broke Batman? Possible. Knightfall was an important Batman story arc, and it would be a sensible course for the movies to introduce a new challenge to Batman: the one man who crippled him. Though having Batman in a body cast most of the movie would be rather inconvenient… Maybe it could be all about Gotham realizing how much they need Batman when he’s not there, and the criminals rising up again while Batman’s bedridden. Could be, maybe.

- Black Mask (Roman Sionis)- A decent possibility, I guess. One of Gotham’s biggest crime lords, he’s never been in a movie before. I could almost see him being some kind of a cultist, a uniting force for criminals and the crazies, turning the whole city against Batman (cops hunting him, criminals defying him). However, we’ve already seen the mob underworld in the forms of Carmine Falcone and Sal Maroni. And look what happened to them.

- Catwoman (Selina Kyle)- A likely choice. Catwoman would be a romantic interest that helps Batman get over Rachael, and force him to question his own line between morality and flaunting his power. The thing is, she probably wouldn’t be his antagonist. They would have a love/hate, on-again/off-again romance, which would be complicating but not dangerous. She’d be a bad girl, but not the villain. There would have to be someone else to actually hate Batman.

- Hugo Strange- Kind of possible. While I can see him messing with Batman psychologically, I think the Riddler could do it better. He’d have to have something that makes him stand out as a unique villain.

Tommy Elliot teaches you to never have childhood friends. Ever.

- Hush (Thomas Elliot)- Very possible. Maybe even my next pick after the Riddler. Like the Riddler, Hush could play some serious head games… but with him focusing more on the Bruce Wayne half of Batman. Bruce’s childhood friend who grew to resent him, Hush could wreck Batman from the inside out. Pretty much like in the Hush graphic novel.

- Killer Croc (Waylon Jones)- Maybe. The “Croc” side of him would have to be toned down for believability, but it could work. I could see Killer Croc rising up as an urban legend in the underworld, kind of like Batman. He could prey upon cops and innocents, who would inadvertently blame fellow monster Batman by mistake. Kind of a stretch to make it work realistically, but maybe. Just maybe.

- Talia al Ghul- Perhaps. Talia would be a way to bring the movie full-circle to Ra’s presence in Batman Begins, and be more believable than bringing Ra’s back from the dead (again… kind of). Plus, she could also be Batman’s love interest, torn between avenging her father and kissing Christian Bale. Bruce could also be similarly torn, struggling with whether to uphold his code or join with Talia. It could work, I guess.

- Two-Face (Harvey Dent)- Perhaps..? I could see the next movie having him going on a vendetta against mobsters, killing like Holiday in The Long Halloween. But between him and the Joker, that pretty much already happened. Plus I think he’s dead. But who knows? They could do something. I believe in Harvey Dent.

The Probably Not:

- Firefly (Garfield Lynns)- Unlikely. Not because Firefly wouldn’t be an innovative new character that has never been in a movie before, but because, among the other crazy things he did, the Joker burned and blew up a lot of stuff in The Dark Knight. There’d have to be some new angle to it, which I doubt would happen.

Love is blind. And a little ditzy.

- Harley Quinn (Harleen Quinzel)- Hopefully not. While she is one of the best new characters to come around ever since starting out in the ‘90’s animated series, you can’t really have Harley without her Mr. J.

- Holiday (Alberto Falcone)- Doubtful. While it’d be interesting to bring the whole thing back around to the Falcone family, the Joker pretty much filled Holiday’s serial-killer role in The Dark Knight. Holiday would just be more of the same.

- The Joker- I doubt it. Even though he’s alive at the end of The Dark Knight, I’m pretty sure they’ll let him be. It’d just feel too much like a continuation of The Dark Knight. I would also think they’ll leave him alone with respect to Heath Ledger’s amazing performance.

- Ra’s al Ghul- Unlikely, but maybe. If he does come back, I don’t know what more they’d do with him. And he may be dead, but they twisted with that once already. You never can tell with immortals…

-Scarecrow (Jonathan Crane)- Doubtful. Like the Joker, he’s most likely locked up in Arkham Asylum. And while he was almost non-existant in The Dark Knight, he had a great run in Batman Begins (let it be known that the Scarecrow is my favorite Batman villain). They’d probably go for someone new rather than reusing the Scarecrow.

Demonic force or disturbed mental patient? You be the judge.

- Simon Hurt- This one is tricky. Although I’ve really gotten to like the character, I think he’s still a little too new to everyone right now. I did love Grant Morrison’s Batman R.I.P. storyline, though. Having Simon Hurt be as manipulative and subtly nefarious as he was made for a pretty interesting bad guy.

The Rejects (no chance):

-Clayface (Basil Karlo)- Pretty much no. A guy made of living clay has no place in the newer, more realistic Batman movies. Sorry, fans of Clayface.

- Mad Hatter (Jarvis Tetch)- Unlikely. A delusional tech wizard is cool and all, but with the Mad Hatter as a villain I could just see The Dark Knight Rises turning into “Batman meets Alice in Wonderland”.

- Man-Bat (Kirk Langstrom)- No way. A mad scientist and his mutating abilities are nowhere near realistic.

"Here is Sub-Zero! Now, Plain Zero!"

- Mr. Freeze (Victor Fries)- Another unlikely. Though I’ll admit he makes more sense than Clayface or Poison Ivy, having a guy supercool in a chemical bath and blast things with a “freezing gun” is still a little too unbelievable. Though they could make it work, they probably shouldn’t.

- Penguin (Oswald Cobblepot)- Nope. Even if he’s kind of believable, they said they wouldn’t bother with him. Which is fine by me. I never thought the Penguin was that interesting of a character.

-Poison Ivy (Pamela Isley)- Highly unlikely. Probably an outright “no.” With Chris Nolan’s more realistic Batman movies, Poison Ivy is pretty darn un-realistic. They would have to practically reinvent the character if they wanted her in.

It’s “Jurassic Park.”

Look out! A zombie skeleton dinosaur! Oh wait, it's just the logo.

Yeah, I’m just gonna come right out and say it. Jurassic Park is my favorite scary movie. There. It’s always been one of my favorite movies, period, and I think it’s pretty darn scary. That’s that.

…

Oh, you want details. I guess I have to explain things. Fair enough.

Alright, yes, I realize “Jurassic Park” is not a “horror” movie. I realize it does not contain any serial killers with elaborate death traps nor nightmarish supernatural monsters that can attack you in your dreams. I get that.

But I’m not looking for the scariest scary movie. I’m looking for my favorite. And from the first time I saw it, I’ve always loved “Jurassic Park” because of how well it builds terror and suspense (that, and because it had dinosaurs). It may not be a horror movie, but damn it if you don’t find yourself on the edge of your seat watching it.

Yes, I almost wet myself the first time I saw this. Why do you ask?

I’m not going to go into an elaborate rant about why I’m right. But I am going to show you a movie clip. I’ll admit, it wasn’t my first choice (I tried to find that scene where they’re crawling through the air ducts, but no luck), but it does show off my favorite scariest part of “Jurassic Park”: the raptors. Screw the T-rex and that scene where he attacks the car, these guys were the scariest part of this movie.

A Two-and-a-Half Men marathon isn't the only thing that'll give you nightmares.

The giant claws on their feet, the way they moved, the intelligence in their eyes. And ESPECIALLY that high-pitched bloodcurdling scream they made. I don’t even want to keep talking about it. Just watch this movie clip and enjoy…

The Raptor Kitchen Scene

- Natron out