[wallijonn]

Entertaining & engrossing. 4 stars. A must see movie. 172 minutes long.

My two objections are that the film tended to have a yellowish tint and was out of focus in parts. It may be the screen that I viewed in on, though. As usual I had the best seat in the house and saw the first showing.

Not only is there a new direstor, but it would seem to be a completely different production company as it easy to see the work of a different camerman, editor, cinematographer, etc. Very good camera angles. Very artistic. For the most part it stays true to the book (with the usual artistic licenses taken).

There is one very big problem with it though: those who have read the books will be left panting for more.

Don't make the mistake I made: I got up to go to the snack bar (didn't have breakfast) and in the two minutes that I was gone the film ended. I was allowed to see the end in another theatre and when two girls got up to go to the snack bar I warned them not to leave. They didn't listen. They missed the ending. The ending could have followed the book more closely.

I will definitely buy the DVD when it is released. I just wish that "Goblet of Fire" is released by Christmas time. I will probably see this one again.

And yes, I am looking for "Thunderbirds are Go" to come to the theatre soon. It's cheesy, made for kids, and looks like a damn good time. Those of us who grew up on "Thunderbirds" should enjoy it immensely.

 

[darkclouds]

Just got back from seeing it. I nearly fell asleep. Guess it's not my kind of movie. I was thinking that it may be better as a rental. I just wasn't engrossed, kept on checking the time and wishing it would end so I can go home.

 

[acs236]

I thought it was very good, better than the other two. It actually had a life to it, a sort of realism, as opposed to the cartoonishness (?) of the first two. Are you sure it was 172 minutes? The official listing is 142.

 

[Lisa]

Compared to the first two movies, is this one better?

What I mean is that the first two were nice. Sort of like bonus material on a DVD. The movie in the DVD is what counts, the bonus material is nice. To me the movies were like bonus material on the books. Pretty pictures, magical atmosfere etc. But it didn't give much insight to the story and caracters. Especially the first one. (This all IMO)

Is the prisoner of Azkaban better in this aspect?

 

[lextek]

I plan on seeing it tomorrow with the family.

 

[kartik]

I'm a great Harry Potter fan, and of the two earlier movies but was sorely disappointed in this one. In my opinion, for all his faults Chris Columbus did a far better job of handling the plot and characters in the first two movies than the current director who dropped the ball on this episode.
Transferring work from print to film is never easy and convincing a purist of the completenes of such a transfer is an arduous task. It is a task requiring considerable insight and to a great extent a lack of originality. To be able to convey the emotions of the book, a director sould avoid adding touches to the movie which change its very character. My biggest problem with the movie was the directorial style of the current doofus who made the movie. He failed to understand that Harry Potter is not an artistic effort nor will it ever be one. To try to make it one steals considerably from the childish enthusiasm and the underlying spirit that drives the storyline in the books. His characterization of events is bland with more focus on landscapes and CG than on either character or plot development. In trying to break with Chris Columbus' simple "get-the-story-as-it was" style to incorporate his own bizarre style, the director has destroyed the entire movie for me. He might have done better taking a chain-saw to the set than his efforts on film. In focussing on foolish and unnecessary details he completely lost the big picture. The movie has the frame and backdrop of the Mona Lisa with a foreground depicting Mickey Mouse.
The fault is not completely with the director, the producers of the movie (Columbus included) also laid an egg on multiple other fronts. The foremost being the casting, particularly Dumbledore. While Dumbledore in the first two movies seemed to be close to what I imagined from the books, in this movie Dumbledore goes from being a sage to a clown. his portrayal of authority is unconvincing, his delivery of dialogue, comical and his overall demeanor and appearance ridiculous. The children themselves are older as children are known to become, but while teenage angst is a strong component of the following book: "HP & the goblet of fire", it certainly wasn't an important part of the Prisoner of Azkaban. In particular, the makers of the movie have really ridden roughshod over the role of Ron Weasley. In this movie he seems to have been reduced to a minor supporting role merely depicting a strong undertone of sexual tension between him and Hermione. Hermione's role was mediocre but acceptable. Other characters who were extremely disappointing included Remus Lupin and Sirius Black, which further contributed to the decline of the movie. Strong characters from previous books who could have rescued the movie like the Hagrid and McGonagall characters were unnecessarily diminished. Unlike the other movies, Harry's adversary, Draco is reduced to a whimpering, crying little bully-boy. While the books portray Malfoy as a dark but strong character, this movie does no justice to this character. Similarly, the role of Snape is unnecessarily minimised considering the balancing act that he provided along with Voldemort and the Malfoys as dark counter-forces to the good of Harry Potter and his merry men.
Although, many things were seriously wrong with the movie, there were some nice touches. The dementors were appropriately scary, the landscapes breathtaking and may of the CG effects taut and excellent. The Sybill Trelawney character is probably the ony character to remain true to the book itself. In particular, three scenes are worthy of mention. Firstly, Harry and Buckbeak early in the movie. Next, the transformation of Lupin into the werewolf. IMO the best scene of the movie is Harry's final battle with the dementors and his Patronus charm.
All in all, in absolute terms the movie was a complete washout. The single biggest problem is that the idiot who made the movie, hasn't the first idea about what he was doing. In any movie, at least two roles need to be well defined. The protagonist and the antagonist. While Harry's role as the protagonist is all over the place, he doen't really have an antagonist in this movie. While Voldemort was also absent in the book, JKR's character and plot development and storyline was lost in translation in this dumb director's efforts. Movies adapted from books are not purely judged on the direction (which was bad enough itself!) but rather by the ability of a movie to transfer the excitement and spirit of the book to film.

Overall Rating: [size=large]F[/size]

 

[oneeyedhobbit]

I'm inclined to almost completely disagree with Kartik's review. I saw the third movie on Thurs. at midnite (one of the few college students in there with the 10 year olds

). This movie was leaps and bounds ahead of the first two, which were huge let downs to me. The acting, the camera angles, the sound track, and the general darker nature of the movie all contributed to it being much better than the first two. My only real beef is in some of the characters--this is where I'm inclined to agree with Kartik. Ron's role was really diminished, and the emotional bond between Harry and Sirius hardly played out at all. Some of the other characters weren't necessarily poorly done, they just weren't utilized enough (Snape, McGonagal, etc.). However, by and large the movie was a huge imporvement over the last two.

 

[wallijonn]

Purely on cinematography I rate the third movie behind the first two. To me the first two had a childhood innocence charm that the third can't begin to meet. So, Lisa, in my estimation I find the first two to be superior. It's colours were much better, the mood was better, etc. As I said the film stock seems to have suffered, gone are the crisp visuals of the first two. At best I consider this to be half a movie - because it ties in with Globlet of Fire seamlessly. But it stands on its own only because there was no cliff hanger type of "to be continued" ending. The Sybill Trelawney character I found to be not what I envisioned from the book. I thought the ending had a cheesy "Superman" type ending where the character looks into the lens or the end of "Back To The Future" where the car flys into the camera, etc.

My main concern is that if such a slip shod production was made of a thin book like the Prisoner of Azkaban I see a lot of problems when they make Goblet of Fire. If however you enjoyed the book then you should find enjoyment of this film. For some reason I wanted to see some younger faces, so I was disappointed that churbic characters weren't even glipsed at, like Weasley's younger sister Jennie (which will play promently in the next film). But then, since when do Juniors mix with Sophmores in our schools?

Kartik,

Excellent review. I expect the supporting characters to play a much bigger role in the next movie. Somehow I can't see Prof's Snape's character being relegated to second fiddle as he plays such a pivotal role in the Goglet of Fire.
It's tough when a Dumbledor character dies in real life. I felt that they would have added an ironic twist which is only hinted at - that Dumbledor knew that the future Harry was in the back yard. He could have waved his hand behind his back - but that may have only confused the audience.

 

[bong]

overall, i enjoyed POA the most compared to the first two movies. granted that all three had its hits and misses, i think the setting and mood of POA was spot on; as opposed to the approach of the first two movies which was more cartoonish than straight on storytelling. the movie (and book) is much more of a darker affair, and the backdrops and scenery were breathtaking (most of them almost as i imagined while reading the book), the camerawork was also done with appropriateness.

Daniel Radcliffe's acting has vastly improved; he's a bit more convicing as Harry Potter in this one. maybe because his character is changing from a downtrodden, modest innocence to a more confident teenage angst, but Radcliffe's more convicing as the latter than the former. i always thought he did a poor job on SS. hell, even Dave Dale's audiobook portrayal as Harry Potter is more convicing. Emma Watson as Hermione was great as usual (what a great casting effort!) and the change from a slap to a punch was delicious. Ron Weasley's character (played by Rupert Grint, which i was never too fond of because i envisioned him as more thin, gangling, and a bit cockney than comical) wasn't necessarily diminished because he really didn't do too much in the book as well. it might seem that way especially in the climax of the movie because he was concious in the hospital wing, unable to help because of an injured leg; but he was definately conked out in the book and had no idea of what took place with Harry, Hermione, and Sirius Black. his role will definately be very important in the fourth movie as he becomes Harry's antagonist for a period of time, and i will be highly disappointed if that aspect is cut off. i think overall it wasn't the fact that many characters were diminished, but they didn't play an overly important role in the book. the whole story was about the relationship between Harry and Sirius (hence the title of the book/movie) even though Harry doesn't meet him until the end of the story, and how his hatred for Black consumes him.

i thought the portrayal of Sirius Black was done quite well. he was particularily dark and angry, but soft spoken when he needed to be. what was slightly disappointing was the drastic change of feelings from Harry and Sirius from start of the movie to end. in the book, the change from anger to love for his Godfather was a complete turn of events, i think the movie slightly downplayed this aspect.

the casting for Remus Lupin was a bit more disappointing. i envisioned him as being more likable from the first impression of appearance, (without a corny moustache!) more friendly and softspoken in certain scenes, and stern in others. Lupin was supposed to be a COOL professor who was really in touch with his students; the actor who played him seemed too "grown up," like an actual professor. also, he kind of rushed through the important scenes and didn't seem warm enough in Harry's life. Harry was supposed to be devastated when Lupin left Hogwarts but the relationship between the two was definately downplayed in the movie.

Sybill Trelawney was great, almost as exactly as i envisioned with disheveled appearances and an air of comical falseness. i think she was portrayed excellently. the new Dumbledore wasn't particularly engaging, but then again he did provide a bit of comical relief in the book every now and then. what was sorely missed was one of the final scenes in the book where Harry and Dumbledore have a conversation in Lupin's office about the change of events and how each of our actions have a deeper meaning and consequence. this scene was the most important part for Dumbledore in POA, and it was completely cut out in the movie. maybe that's the reason why Dumbledore didn't have an air of wisdom and knowledge for some of the movie viewers in this one. however, we shall see just how powerful of a wizard Dumbledore is when Goblet of Fire comes out as a movie (where he angrily crashes into Prof. Crouch's office) and hopefully the actor will do a great job for this scene.

Alan Rickman was great as usual, and the midnight hallway Marauder's Map scene was quite good; he plays spite for Harry so well. seeing him dressed in drag as Neville's grandmother was also great, so was the spite between him and Sirius and Remus in the Shrieking Shack. what was missing was his outburst when he learns that Black escapes from Hogwarts and he comes crashing into the hospital wing like a madman, accusing Harry had something to do with it. that would've been a great scene for Alan Rickman to play.

as much as i like the third movie and how it is a drastic improvement over the first two, there are two important scenes that are quite lacking in depth, emotion, and understanding. the first one is the Shrieking Shack scene (which remains my most favourite chapter throughout the whole series of books) because it seems too rushed. this scene is one of the most important in the whole series because there is a landslide of revelations where a ton of information comes bursting out. something as important as this should not be rushed and every piece of information should be allowed to be digested and understood. unfortunately, many of my friends did not understand a few things and i had to explain it after the movie.

another disappointment is the Three Broomsticks scene where Harry learns that Sirius Black is his Godfather and that he allegedly sold the Potters to Voldemort. this important scene was also too rushed and a total of four characters were completely cut out of this scene. Minister Fudge, Hagrid, Profs. Flitwick and McGonagall are supposed to be discussing Black's past events to Madam Rosmerta at a table in the back of the pub, and Harry, Hermione, and Ron are supposed to be eavesdropping at a nearby table behind a large Christmas tree. the story of Black was revealed to the threesome AT THE SAME TIME with the same impact. also, the story is supposed to be told quite emotionally, not rushed like how the movie shows. in the book, Fudge tells the scene where Sirius allegedly kills Peter Pettigrew in high detail; Flitwick describes the brotherhood Sirius had with James Potter, Hagrid (who was the last person to converse with Sirius before he gets arrested by the Ministry) is emotionally angered that if he knew Sirius sold the Potters to Voldemort he would've killed him with his own bare hands, and McGonagall actually loses her stern exterior and breaks down and cries over Pettigrew's "honourable" death.

other nitpicks:
-while there is the arguement of human characters being diminished, there is no arguement that the importance of Crookshanks was completely thrown away. it was him who learned how to freeze the whomping willow, it was him who allegedly ate Scabbers, and it was him who helped Sirius throughout the whole book.
-Ron and Hermione was supposed to have a huge row over Scabbers' death. i hope their fight in GOF will be quite explosive.
-there are too many "not to sublte" hints that Ron and Hermione becomes a pair, where hints only come to play starting from GOF onwards in the books.
-Harry was supposed to receive the Firebolt midterm, not the end of the story. there was supposed to be a huge fiasco over who sent it and if it had any harmful implications. Hermione reports the broom to McGonagall and she confiscates it, causing a huge row between the boys and Hermione.
-the movie never explained how and why James, Sirius, and Peter became animagus. it also never explained the origins of the Marauder's Map and the people behind the names Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs. this was THE first question being asked by my friends after we finished the movie.
-the boggart was supposed to turn into a silvery orb for Lupin (less obvious), not a minature moonlit sky (much more obvious).
-Harry was supposed to learn why his Patronus is a Stag. there is a very important meaning behind it.

great stuff:
-Marge blowing up scene.
-the nighttime playground/bustop scene where Harry sees the grim.
-the triple decker purple Knight Bus scenes are absolutely delicious! i especially loved the "between the cars" one. also, Stan Shunpike was great.
-the Leaky Cauldron scenes were also quite good. Tom the wizened inkeeper was good, if only too hunchbacked.
-the dementors were great.
-Buckbeak was absolutely perfect! he was spot on and even better than i imagined.
-the Hermione/Malfoy scene.
-the Harry/Fred/George Marader's Map scene.
-the various Whomping Willow antics.
-the lakeside Patronus scene, although the Stag was supposed to drive the dementors away by galloping across the lake to meet Harry. he was supposed to be reaching out to pat the Stag before he faints.

i guess i'm being a bit too critical when comparing the book to the movie, but even after that fact, i still enjoy the movie adaptation of the Prisoner of Azkaban more than the first two. the setting and mood of the movie was done very well, with a great mix of lighter and darker aspects. the Sorcerer's Stone was overly too cartoonish for me (and the ending scene with Quirrel/Voldemort was highly disappointing); the Chamber of Secrets was a little bit better (and perhaps the most faithful to the books). despite the fact that a few items were sorely lacking and others didn't follow the storyline (obviously the length of the movie had to be a factor) but the lasting overall impression of the Prisoner of Azkaban was a vast improvement over the first two. too bad about the corny freeze frame at the end!

overall rating: B

 

[acs236]

If you're looking for depth of characters or insight, you'll find even less in the move than there is in the books. That being said -- this is first of the three film that I though established a style of its own. It was more focussed on the plot and the few main characters. I liked the darker theme.

I wonder if they are recasting the three main characters for the next movie. Are they getting a bit too old?

 

[ampgalore]

I saw the third movie yesterday, and didn't like it as much as I loved the first two movies.

Something just felt wrong. The plot was a lot more loose compared to the first two.

http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/empor...e?OpenDocument

I think filmcritic.com is the only one brave enough to rate the movie for what it is, a C.

 

[RickG]

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...121232,00.html

 

[wallijonn]

Thanks for the link, Rick.

I now know that it truly was the same actor that played Draco, Tom Felton.

As to whether or not the characters should be replaced because they're getting older - come on! Tell me there's not a market for teenage movies! ("Thunderbirds" will be a teenage movie). The plain fact is that these are great actors who have kept their looks and their charm. Felton may be an exception, though, as he was so devilishly evil in the first two films. Radcliff will be making a very big mistake if he doesn't sign on for the last two movies. It's not like he's being type cast as an actor - if anything, he shows unlimited potential. If Harry must die then I want a "The Little Wizard of Earthsea" type of ressurrection. The last thing I want is a repeat of "Star Wars" where the franchise goes to pot.

 

[acs236]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wallijonn As to whether or not the characters should be replaced because they're getting older - come on! Tell me there's not a market for teenage movies! ("Thunderbirds" will be a teenage movie).

That's not really my point. The problem is that I think they're getting too old to play the characters in the book. To me, the side characters are looking too young compared to the main characters. Doesn't Harry go on a date with one of the Indian girls in the fourth book? He'll look like a cradle-robber if they follow up on that plot line in the next movie!

The real solution is to shoot the next two together.

 

[raif]

I read the book, and because they didn't exactly follow my pre-conceptions I give the movie an F-.

Anyways, I personally enjoyed this movie a lot more than the first two. It flowed like a movie should. The first two movies I felt like the director didn't bother building up any character development it was just one "Hey, remember this from the book" to the next.

They definitely left things out from the book. I don't even think they mentioned who wrote the map or how they were connected, something I remembered being excited about when I read the novel. However, I missed the omitted parts a lot less than I did with the first two, because the story was alot more coherent.

I pretty much liked the whole movie. It made me want to go back and rewatch the first two to see if I had perhaps been too hard on them.