Actually, I don't. I think certain elements were good - Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith, for instance (though not enough of either). And John Williams excelled himself as usual with the music score. But certainly in the earlier films, the adaptation seemed pedestrian.

For instance, how do you open the first film? By showing the attack on Harry's parents, not having it discussed by characters. Yes, that works in the novel, because we imagine the events, but film is a visual medium and this should have been shown. It would also have made for one hell of an opening.

Another part of the first film that didn't work for me: The Mirror of Erised. That's a key chapter of the novel, but we get no real sense of Harry withering way in front of it, like we do in the book. Instead, it is skimmed over and doesn't get a chance to resonate on an emotional level.

I also think they got Voldemort wrong in the films. He should have been a motion capture creation like Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, and he should have been far scarier. Where were the red eyes? Ralph Fiennes was good, to be fair, but the design of the character could have been much better.

I've always preferred JK Rowlings novels (I also love her Strike series, by the way - well worth checking out).