Which Harry Potter MOVIES work well as stand-alone movies?

I'm just wondering which Harry Potter film (or films) stands on it's own without being dependent on the viewing of previous entries in the series to fully enjoy and understand it, and ideally doesn't require viewings of later entries for closure. I want to watch one or two of them with my friend who has never seen a Harry Potter film, but we don't plan on watching the entire series. We especially don't want to watch the first two as they aren't that good, IMO. Also, lets count Deathly Hallows Parts 1 & 2 as one film.

Please try not to make comparisons to the books, as that is irrelevant. (Whether or not a film is or isn't like the book as nothing to do with what I'm asking here, and I really only care about the movies).

It's been a long time (and I'm actually going through the films again now, so maybe I'll have more input once I finish them all again), but I seem to remember 4 fondly. That's the Goblet of Fire one, which I think would make a decent watch due to it revolving around a giant house cup competition. I like Order of the Phoenix but it requires you to know about Sirius Black, so without watching 3 (Prisoner of Azkaban) it would be no good.

If you're willing to count Deathly Hallows 1 and 2 as one film, that might be a good shout. Watching one on its own would be rubbish, but both might work.

3 is the best one by far and it introduces Sirius Black as a main-character, the coolest dude in this whole universe. I didn´t like 4 but it´s really action-heavy and shows a lot of wizard-stuff like Quidditch and other schools and so on, so that could be the easiest one to "get in". 3 is a bit more complex in it´s relationship to the main-storyarc. 5 is too long, 6 goddamn awful and finishing with the last one.. Well, you could do that, but it blows the whole emotional factor away to do so.

But to be totally honest, HP-Movies are all pretty dependent on what´s happened before.

None?

@anonymous_jesse said:

Yeah I'm not sure if any of them are particularly stand alone? Maybe the third one, but the third one isn't great (that said they're all kinda bad so whatever).

3 doesn't actually stand that well on its own because some of the ending explanations are told so poorly that they don't really make much sense if you don't have book-knowledge to fall back to. I actually think, if you gave just a few basic points of knowledge before going into it (Who ___ is, what ___ means, where ___ takes place.) then Goblet of Fire is probably the easiest standalone.

Watch something else with your friend.

I never saw the first 4 movies and liked and enjoyed the second half of the Harry Potter films but I had a girlfriend at the time who'd bring me up to speed on stuff I was missing.

The Prisoner of Azkaban is by far the best film in my opinion, I think it will stand on its own the best as well.

I think it does a really good job at re-introducing the characters and the world in the first third of the film. I think a lot of that is due to the extra year gap in release, the actors growing up a lot, the new director (Columbus to Cuaron), and quite a large re-design of the geography and identity of Hogwarts, so they focus on reintroducing that stuff. I think that would be great for a new watcher. Its also the first film that has the main adult characters that populate so much of the series past this point. Its good if you do watch past this point but if you don't I think the presence of the older characters means it relies less on the performances of the main three child actors, though this film is really where they come into their own.

But probably the main reason why Prisoner would work on its own is that it isn't really tied to He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named that much. Every film other than this features him more prominently.

I don't think any of them work as well without at least some background knowledge. There's a novelty to the first, because it focuses a lot on introducing the wizarding world.

Other than that, the 3-4-5 arc isn't too bad a choice. 3 and 5 have quite a lot of inherent ties thanks to Sirius, but it'd be weird to jump from 3 to 5 so you might as well slot 4 in there too. That one, as people have mentioned, probably works quite well as a stand-alone thanks to having a couple of big set-pieces that the film is around (the Quidditch cup and the Triwizard Tournament) which are pretty much unique to that book. In terms of the overall arc 4 is quite an important book but I think it's also probably an easier stand-alone experience to follow than any others (except for perhaps the final section).

Why exactly do you want to watch a Harry Potter film with your friend? That might swing it slightly. Perhaps it's just best to show them the ones that you enjoy the most and then answer any questions that they might have yourself, presuming from your initial post that you've already seen them all.

As I have seen all of the Harry Potter films (although it's been a while, and I have trouble remembering everything about them), I can agree with the general consensus that Prisoner of Azkaban is the best film in the series. I wonder two things about that though. One, would the people who praise it have the same or lower opinion of it if they had seen the film without having any prior knowledge of the series? Two, do people praise it as a really good film on it's own or only when it's compared to other Harry Potter films?

I want to watch Prisoner of Azkaban with my friend, but I'm worried that her enjoyment of it will be hindered by the fact that she has no prior intimate knowledge of the series as she has neither seen the first two films nor read any of the books.

Watching any of the films on their own will hinder her enjoyment. In an ideal environment you would watch all of them and see the characters develop over time, this is what makes the series really special to people. But as you say in your first post if she wants to watch just one, I think you'll have to get over the fact that she won't be able to enjoy it to its fullest.

If you can refrain from saying stuff like "yeah but you would like it so much more if you knew about X" then that's maybe the best experience for her watching one film. And, again, for me I think Prisoner of Azkaban stands best on its own.

3 was the first book i read and it wasnt a problem for me, so i dont see it being a bad film for a new watcher either

Watch the first one then go from there.

Prisoner of Azkaban.

But to really appreciate them you should watch them from the beginning. The first one is pretty dull and kiddy. But they get exponentially better with every movie.

None of them. They barely work without a knowledge of the books, let alone the other movies.

2 - it's the only one worth watching

I really want to watch Prisoner of Azkaban with her, but I'm concerned that her enjoyment of it will be dependent on the knowledge of what happened during the previous two films. I don't want to subject to watching two mediocre films in order for her to be able to enjoy what is considered to be a fantastic film. This will only increase the risk that she'll judge the series on the first two films, and be turned off by the kiddiness of them hindering her desire to watch any additional films. If I want her to watch Harry Potter with me, I want to start with the best in the series, which would be Prisoner of Azkaban (according to a lot of you, and I agree), but I don't want the viewing of Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets to be prerequisite viewing before Prisoner of Azkaban.

Goblet of Fire is pretty awesome and fits the bill... up until the very end where it sets up the rest of the series. But it comes closest, I think. Azkaban, maybe.

For myself? Only Prisoner of Azkaban. Best director, best use of time (instead of being slavishly beholden to the books), and for my money some of the best acting. The latter movies that people seem to like much better don't craft good scenes for my money. They simply follow all the plot points of the books with little imagination.

Just to be clear, you are saying that POA is the film in the series that stands best on it's one without requiring prerequisite viewings the the other films in the series. Is that right?

(This may be a little off topic).

In my opinion, I think there are too many movies in the series. Again, this is just my personal opinion. For my own enjoyment, I would like to take out all but 3 films in the series to make a trilogy (counting Deathly Hallows Parts 1 & 2 as one film). I'd ideally like the "trilogy" to be Prisoner of Azkaban followed by Goblet of Fire and concluding with Deathly Hallows. Would that work? What films would you suggest for the "Trilogy"?

@chezblunts: No, sorry, I got kind of off-topic with my response. I meant that PoA is the only HP flick to be an actually well made movie that is better than just okay.

The first one is probably the best standalone journey. It goes through a well defined heroes journey with an introduction to a character and an interesting world, and at the end a bad guy is defeated without (to my memory) an overt setup to a sequel. You could probably watch The Philosophers Stone and feel content in it's complete little story.