Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) User Reviews

My Favorite Of The Harry Potter Films

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 17 February 2008]

I thought this was excellent....better than the first two Harry Potter movies combined and better than what has followed.. That's my feeling, and I'm still sticking to it.

This was just great fun, right from the opening. In fact, the early bus scene is the best in the film. Overall, the movie didn't have as mean an edge to it as the others, although it has a number of scary moments (which might have warranted a PG-13 rating). That was fine with me. I got tired of the dark, nasty and/or annoying characters of the first two films, and especially the irritating blonde wise-guy kid. I give this major points for cutting his role down. Even Alan Rickman's character softens.

In other words, there is no despicable villain to hate throughout the film, which I thought was refreshing. Instead, we just go through one adventure after another until the final surprise ending.

Along the way are a lot of fun special effects and scenery, some humor (Emma Thompson is a hoot as an eccentric tea-leaf reader) and some fantastic 5.1 surround sound. I wish all the Harry Potter films were like this one.

Finally, a movie that captures the books' magic

[kylopod · 8/10 · 25 June 2004]

If there's anything this movie proves, it is the difficulty in separating the series from the demands of fans. This is clear just from hearing some of the comments. "Why didn't they identify the names on the Marauder's Map?" "Why wasn't the second Quidditch game shown?" "Why wasn't there more of Crookshanks the Cat?" By focusing on what the film didn't have, fans fail to look at the film on its own terms. I think this is by far the best Harry Potter movie yet.

The only way to satisfy fans would be to include everything from the book, which would require a miniseries. Since that isn't what these films are, the story has to be abridged. The first two films tried to fit everything they could within a reasonable slot of time. The result was a set of films that felt cluttered yet incomplete. Had they continued with this strategy for this movie, based on a much longer book, it would surely have been over three hours long.

The virtue of the latest film is that it makes a real attempt to adapt the story, not just marching in lockstep with the book's events. The screenplay is sparing, leaving out or simplifying loads of details not directly relevant to the plot. But it captures much of the book's delight and humor. The first two films fell short in this regard, because they lacked the guts to tinker with the details, even though that was the key to condensing the story while staying true to its spirit.

The movie is still faithful to the book, of course. Many of the scenes are exactly as I had imagined them. When it deviates, it does so based on an understanding of the story and characters. This is evident in the way they show, for example, the Knight Bus; Hermione's overstuffed schedule; and the introduction of the Marauder's Map, a scene that captures the twins' mischievous personalities. The changes are clever and funny, and they help compensate for the movie's loss in other areas.

Certainly this has something to do with the new director. Columbus's approach was to stick to the books as literally as possible, often draining them of their subtlety. For instance, where the books only hint that Dumbledore can see through the invisibility cloak, the earlier movies make it unmistakable. The new director never condescends to the audience in that way. This is a children's movie, but it is also a fantasy-thriller that we can take seriously, because not everything is spelled out for us. We're given a chance to think.

But part of what makes the movie work is the book itself. The story is gripping from start to finish, because the threat looming over the school is established early on. Harry's personal life is sharply intertwined with the plot. We feel for him as we watch his disastrous (but hilarious) attempts to escape his uncle and aunt, and his humiliating reaction to the dementors. The story avoids common devices such as the talking killer or deus ex machina, which the other books have in abundance. The ending is nicely bittersweet and ambiguous. The plot is so complicated, however, that the book spends several chapters explaining it all. The movie wisely includes only very little of this, allowing the plot twists to become understood as the story progresses. I was surprised to see certain events that were in the movie but not the book lend support to an important theory some fans have had about what is to be revealed at the end of the series. Of course, it is well-hidden and won't give anything away for those who aren't looking for the clues.

I was so satisfied with the film that it almost seems trivial to mention the flaws, but there are some. The portrayal of Fudge's assistant as the standard hunchbacked dimwit is out of place here, as it would be in anything other than a cartoon or spoof. The most serious misstep, though, is the casting of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. Gambon's face seems frozen in a perpetual nonexpression, and his voice lacks resonance. He compares poorly to the late Richard Harris, whose line readings had gravity, and who played the character with a twinkle in his eyes. It is a pure mystery to me why this actor was chosen as a replacement, especially considering the fine performances from other members of the cast. Even the children are in top form here.

Those complaints aside, this is the movie I was hoping they would make when the series began. If it doesn't live up to the book, so what? What's important is that it lives up to its potential as a movie. Fans who want a carbon-copy of the book are looking in the wrong place, because they're never going to get it here. This is probably the best example of a Harry Potter movie that we're ever likely to see.

Darkest and best one yet

[SnoopyStyle · 9/10 · 22 December 2013]

This is the third movie in the franchise, and it's the darkest one yet. We're introduced to Dementors, vile creatures who are tasked to guard the prison of Azkaban. When Voldemort disciple Sirius Black escapes, Dementors are assigned to guard Hogwarts putting Harry and his friends in danger.

The introduction of Dementors ushers in a new darker chapter in the franchise. These CGI creatures look every bit the evil creatures they're suppose to be. Accomplished director Alfonso Cuarón shows his great skills in creating tension and atmosphere. Even the darken corridors of Hogwarts are more foreboding. Without spoilers, I also must praise Hermione's part of the plot. The story loops created are usually fraught with problems. This one is done with care, and works great. Looking back, the change in tone is what drew me into the Harry Potter franchise. It is the first great Harry Potter movie and in my opinion, the best of the lot.

Abstract and dark themes abound; still the most mature HP entry

[jpoulter11 · 10/10 · 19 January 2011]

Alfonso Cuarón's masterful adaptation does the source material immeasurable justice by exploring its underlying concepts in an intelligent manner. Of course, it certainly helps that the aesthetics of the film are incredible, the acting remains stellar (and the trio of young actors handle their roles admirably), and John Williams offers an amazing (and eclectic) score. Character development is superb - Steve Kloves penned a great script.

First-time and young viewers will likely enjoy the film for its merits based on plot and 'adventure' alone, but it takes multiple viewings and a critical eye to enjoy the abstract ideas and nuances. Cuarón himself credited the source material as being laden with real-world issues: oppression, racism, loneliness, power, friendship, justice and so forth.

This is the Harry Potter film that stands on its own and as a tremendous cinematic achievement. It challenges viewers and yet doesn't patronize them or attempt to offer answers to all of the questions presented. For instance, the ending is bittersweet at best and retains a healthy amount of ambiguity.

If you've never read the books or understood the acclaim of the series as a whole, watch Cuarón's 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and you'll understand why this entry is clearly the zenith of the seven.

A visual feast with bite

[madam_Q · 8/10 · 13 June 2004]

Harry Potter is growing up! The voice is deepening, the shoulders are broadening and...hurray! You no longer feel like a creep for having a little crush on Daniel Radcliffe...whoops, did I say that out loud? Say what you will, I see him making the jump from child star to adult actor in a way that Haley Joel Osment only dreams of.

Appropriately, this third film in the Harry Potter series has matured along with it's young stars. At first glance the storyline itself is relatively simple - Sirius Black has escaped from Azkaban Prison and young Harry is on his hit list. But the reality is that this movie is about being a teenager and all the trials and tribulations that go with it. On one level, Harry is like any other kid at school - he puts up with torment from bullies, gets into scrapes with his teachers and hangs out with his friends. But this is not just any school. This is Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and Harry has a whole OTHER set of problems. Like an escaped madman who may just want to kill him, for example.

The plot contains the requisite amounts of twists and turns. The focus is on Harry's past - Sirius Black was his godfather but just may have been in league with he who's name cannot be mentioned. There is the usual game of 'are they or aren't they?' when it comes to deciding which characters are really the baddies. Alan Rickman continues to walk the finest of lines between good and bad with his marvelous performance as Professor Snape. Has there ever been a better match of actor and character? Snape shows again that, while he may take occasional delight in making his students' lives difficult, he does have their best interests at heart - like any good teacher. Other plot quirks worked well - I enjoyed the way the time travel angle was worked in and the map showing the location of everyone in Hogwarts was a delight.

Visually, this is a much darker film and it is a sumptuous treat for the eyes. There is so much incredible detail in the sets that it's impossible to absorb it all in one sitting. All the staples from the other films are there - the paintings talk, the staircases move, ghosts roam the halls - watch out for the knights on horseback crashing through windows! The special effects are all top notch. A word of caution for any parents - there are some genuine scares here. The Dementors are particularly nasty, and I would certainly think twice about letting very young children watch this film. This is without even considering it's running time - two and a half hours - which is a very long time to expect some children to sit still.

One of the most impressive things about this film is the way that the young cast are more sure of themselves. As Hermione, Emma Watson grated in the first film with her occasional woodenness. Pleasingly, she has grown into herself as an actor and her performance here is much more mature. A leading lady of the future, perhaps? Hermione is growing up and is tired of being taken for an irritating goody-two shoes know it all. Rupert Grint provides comic relief and Daniel Radcliffe gives an outstanding performance, considering the whole film rests on his shoulders. Harry is the hero - the audience needs to identify with him. By the end of this film teenage girls will want to take him home to mother, while their mothers will just want to take him home and adopt him!

New cast members acquit themselves well. The role of Sirius Black was tailor made for Gary Oldman - he has a requisite creepiness with just a dose of humanity to bring the character to life. Daniel Thewlis is good as Professor Lupin, the new Defense Against the Dark Arts master who takes Harry under his wing. Emma Thompson is amusing as a Divinination professor with bad eyesight. She can see into the future but can't tell which students are falling asleep in her class!

Many have criticised Michael Gambon's performance as Dumbledore. While it's true that he is no Richard Harris, I personally was pleased that he didn't attempt to imitate his predecessor. Gambon is accomplished enough a performer to stay true to the character while at the same time putting his own stamp on it.

Take away the magic and monsters, and what you have is a coming of age movie. Harry is forced to grow up and confront both his past and his future, and come to terms with the reality that he is no ordinary wizard. With the spectra of 'you know who' continuing to loom on the horizon, roll on film four!

Best Film of the Series; One of the Best Films of All Time

[joshuafagan-64214 · 10/10 · 4 September 2015]

I wish Alfonso Cuaron would come back to the franchise. I know that he probably won't, but I still hope. After all, as we float through this empty, depressing world, sometimes all we have is hope. He detached this film franchise from its safe-as-a-CIA-file roots and allowed it to grow wings and fly into a silver ether. To anyone who thinks franchise films cannot be art... check out LOTR. But once you are done, check out this film. It is both ironic and darkly appropriate that this is both the lowest grossing Harry Potter film and the one that many film critic types, such as myself, say is the greatest of the octology.

The film starts off like do all Harry Potter books and most Harry Potter movies. Potter is at the house of his over-the-top, abusive, Muggle adopted family, getting tormented like he always does. Yes, I know it is explained in detail why he needs to stay with them, but such doesn't make it any less of a poor writing choice. But, when and if I do a full review of the Potter series, I'll go over those kinds of decisions.

I only bring this up because it is a base line for these movies and such something I can use to show why this is the best one. In the Columbus films, it is played with a cheerful exaggeration that reminds me of many of his eighties movies. This is not a bad thing, but it is not brimming with greatness either. In the Yates films, it is downplayed as just a backdrop, a facade, if you will, to more serious matters. Cuaron manages to combine these approaches, which is expected, as both this and GOF are the 'transition movies', while adding both sophistication and a level of charged rawness, which is not expected.

We get to see Harry's emotional landscape. Fragile but potent, unstable but unyielding, it is a sight to behold, one that belies the simpler character that we got in both the earlier and later movies. If Harry Potter developed along these lines, he might have actually been a great character instead of the flattest one among a crowd of interesting people.

The scenes are magical, but not in the try-hard way of the first two films. Around the time that I first saw them, I declared myself a true blue of the series. I haven't looked back since. The shots are magical in a way that is both wispy and intense. This is the tone that these movies should have taken, and if they reboot them, something of I am not in favor but something that is a conceivable possibility in today's Hollywood climate, this is the tone I would like them to try to take. Just the thought of that sends chills down my spine. It might even be able to challenge LOTR for the crown of best fantasy series of all time.

After that virtuoso opening, I kept waiting to be let down. I never was. Every new character introduced was interesting and every old character they excluded was not missed. The pacing is the best out of the movies; the first two were too slow and the other five were too fast. The plot was more personal to me than the other movies; this is the one movie in which Voldemort does not appear in some form or another. There is no direct end boss and so the plot has to be more creative. And so it is.

Of course, more of the credit for this has to go Mrs. Rowling for writing the book on which this film was based. But the cinematography is all the work of Cuaron's team. And it is the best in the series by far. Not to say that the other movies are poorly shot; this is Britain, after all: things may be bad, but they are never badly done. But while the cinematography of the first few movies would perfectly fit a kid's fantasies, the cinematography of the fourth movie would perfectly fit a high class ball or gala, and the cinematography of the last four movies would perfectly fit a nature doc, the cinematography of this film perfectly fits the franchise.

It is artful and well-done, but it is not show like an Oscarbaity period piece. The camera feels alive and coated with magic powder. It is exactly how I imagine the heartbeat of a troubled magic society to feel like. The music helps it out. If you listen to Window to the Past and are not sucked into the world Cuaron made for this film, then you just don't have a soul. It is introspective, ambient, immersive, and coated with the kind of cerebral wonder that I think makes life worth living. It is the best tune in the franchise. But do not think it is the only good tune in the movie. Buckbeak's Flight is a good second.

While the characters in the series may never be willing/able to turn back time after this movie for reasons cheap and nonsensical and borderline nonexistent, I hope that you will be wiser. Come back in time with me to 2004. And let the emotional waves of this picture overtake you.

Charming and Extraordinary

[moongear · 9/10 · 7 January 2005]

As with previous Potter films, this one is wonderful. The mischievous trio are back in their third year at Hogwarts.

Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is a slightly different character in this film as the anger inside of him for what happened to his parents has grown over the years. This made, for me, the film much more enjoyable than the first and second.

As one would no doubt assume, Gary Oldman's portrayal of the character Sirius Black is nothing less than perfect. However, Sirius Black seams an unlikely roll for the talented Oldman. I enjoyed him more in other films, such as 'The Professional' and 'Immortal Beloved'. Let us hope he has had the chance to 'play it up' a bit more in the much anticipated 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire'.

The original music of John Williams is more than I could ever hope to hear. It is absolutely splendid, making the film worth a listen even if you do not watch. Williams has created memorable compositions such as the theme music to 'Star Wars', 'Jaws' and 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.

Overall, any age should enjoy this film. The visual effects are not the most spectacular I've seen, but fantastic enough to take your imagination away from the real world for 141 minutes. Even the closing credits are kind of cool.

Now, go watch the film. You'll be glad you did.

A new director who proves equal to the task.

[BradBate · 2 July 2004]

Director Alfonso Cuarón has taken the images conjured by J.K. Rowling's magical words and created from her book, 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,' a film rife with visual symbolism and alive with inventive images beyond those established by the first two films in the series. Cuarón, a native of Mexico City and the acclaimed director of the completely compelling, frequently hilarious and sexually explicit coming-of-age film, 'Y tu mamá también,' was seen by many as an odd choice to follow heartland American Chris Columbus into the Harry Potter director's chair. The selection has resulted in a film darker and more mature than its predecessors, just as was the book, but it is also as approachable for young people as Cuarón's other internationally heralded work, 'A Little Princess.'

It is late in the summer. Harry (a decidedly more assertive Daniel Radcliffe, making his third appearance in the leading role) is at the Dursleys in Privet Drive, preparing for his third year at Hogwart's, when an obnoxious relative demeans his father's memory, causing Harry to lose his temper. As a result, Harry violates the rules of student witches and wizards, causing the offending aunt to inflate as a dirigible and float away into the night sky on an stream of invectives. It is a delightful opening to a film with far more serious issues to explore and frightening obstacles to overcome. Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), imprisoned at Azkaban for complicity in the murder of Harry's parents, has escaped, and is looking for Harry. The soul-stealing prison guards called 'Dementors' (Latin for mind-removers) are searching for Black everywhere, but when he and Harry meet, there are revelations which change everything.

The symbolism in the film is fascinating. Rowling is responsible for a lot of it, but Cuarón has used symbolism as a visual tool to alert the audience to impending danger and to keep tensions high. Traditionally, black-feathered birds such as ravens, crows, and vultures all have negative images associated with them; they are usually used to represent carnage, bloodshed and battle; they are thought of in terms of scavengers, messengers of the dead, and evil. Crows abound in this film, but Cuarón has extended their traditional roles, turning them into symbols of the Dementors, which fly around menacingly in black garments with feather-like hems. Even when the Dementors are out of sight (they are not allowed on the grounds of Hogwart's School) you can feel their presence in the crows.

Rowling's most obvious use of symbolism is in the name she gives the escaped prisoner Sirius Black. Sirius is a star in the constellation Canis Majoris (in mythology, Canis Majoris is one of Orion's hunting dogs; the Greater Dog), the brightest star in the sky. So, Sirius is also called the Dog Star, and everyone knows that the dog is distinguished above all other inferior animals for intelligence, docility, and attachment to man. Would she give such a name, with all its implications, to a villainous character? Not likely. But she would give it to a wizard who could change into a dog.

Among the new visual images are animal ghosts which wander the halls of Hogwart's Castle and the film's realization of Buckbeak the Hippogriff, like Sirius, falsely accused and condemned. Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and all of the established characters return. Led by Harry, all the students have matured considerably, as you would expect of 13-year-olds; they are more independent and self assured, more emotionally developed and far less childlike in their reactions and bearing. Michael Gambon is new and effective as Aldus Dumbledore, following the death of Richard Harris. Emma Thompson is wonderfully wacky as Divination Professor Sybil Treelawney; who leaps from the pages of the book and onto the screen as if Rowling had written the character specifically for Thompson. Also new is Defense Against the Dark Arts Professor Remus Lupin (David Thewles), who comes to Harry's aid in ways that might befit his Latin name. Remus was the brother of the founder of Rome. In mythology, he was nursed by a she-wolf; Lupin means wolf-like (wolf is Canis Lupis).

The unheralded thread of creative continuity in this marvelous series, as it moves from Chris Columbus to Alfonso Cuarón to incoming director Mike Newell (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, now in production) is Screenwriter Steve Kloves. He and the producers have been true to Rowling's works and to Harry's fans, in ways that have always enhanced, not diminished, the author's incredible achievement.

a mixed review

[nzlegend · 7/10 · 9 July 2004]

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a "fan film". By this I mean the makers have made the assumption the majority of viewers, the core audience - are fans of the Potter series. As a stand alone film would leave a viewer confused by a fast moving plot devoid of a lot of detail contained in the original book which the film quite closely follows. To fully appreciate the movie, prior knowledge through reading the book would be most beneficial, it would allow you to fill in the many blanks.

Concepts, background, and explanations are skipped in the movie, which gives it a rushed, incomplete feeling, even for a Potter fan. Users have commented the movie is darker, this is somewhat true, it definitely has a different feel from the first two films, much of this can be attributed to the new director. He has changed the sets considerably, to the point where they barely resemble the first tmo films. The fine cast of adult stars is under utilized throughout the film. Maggie Smiths role could be considered a cameo for the limited screen time she got.

Overall the rest of the film is acceptable. If I didn't previously know the plot I would rate this film lower than I did. Though this IS Harry Potter and he still has the midas touch.

Creepy, quirky and utterly gorgeous - Spoilers

[Chandler81 · 9/10 · 8 December 2004]

If you're anti-Potter you owe it to yourself to see this film. Get past the issues you might have with the immense hype around the franchise and sit down for two hours to be captivated by this creepy, quirky and beautiful film. If you're a Potter-fan and you're unhappy with the film, the novel is probably on the table in front of you and you're better off reading it again. This is a wonderful film despite your expectations or opinions as to how it 'should have been done'.

This review contains spoilers pertaining to the novel version of The Prisoner of Azkaban; if you haven't read the book, you have been warned.

What makes this film work far more than the previous films are three key aspects - the acting, the screenplay, and the production design/cinematography - and all of them I credit directly to Cuaron's new vision. Suppsedly it was Cuaron's work on A Little Princess that won him the gig to direct this film, but I would honestly say that Y Tu Mama Tambien is equally if not more to credit. While he doesn't get the caliber of Tambien's performances in the young Potter stars, Cuaron does far better than his predecessor Chris Columbus. Most importantly, this film features a far more relaxed performance from Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter. His confidence, surely thanks to Cuaron's demonstrated ability to direct young actors, lets him speak and react in a far more genuine manner than we saw in the previous films and helps the film enormously. Hopefully Dan continues to improve with each film.

With the more assured Radcliffe able to hold a scene together, Rupert Grint matches him admirably. Having been relieved of the Culkin Syndrome he was afflicted with in the first two films (the fault of Columbus, no doubt), he brings a more entertaining and believable Ron to the screen; both a joker and a noble soul as he is portrayed in the novels. It's wonderful to see that Grint has a genuine sense of comedy about him, and has made Ron more than the one-dimensional, face-pulling joke Columbus would have him. Emma Watson holds her own with the boys, giving a fantastic performance, and importantly bringing a lot of needed emotion to the central characters. Hermione now feels like the glue in the trio rather than the outsider.

The new Dumbledore is a little uncomfortable, simply for the fact that he has a very small role in the film, and we don't have enough time to entirely digest this new portrayal. Richard Harris brought a wise kind of grace to the character, but perhaps in his physical state the character did come across as a little too frail. There is nothing wrong with Michael Gambon in this role, and I believe with his increased parts in the next film he will prove to be a satisfying replacement. I was wary of casting for Remus Lupin, one of my favourite characters of the novels, but David Thewlis makes this role his own with a delightful portrayal. Likewise, Oldman is perfectly cast as Black.

There are edits and reshuffles with regard to the Azkaban's story compared to the book, both in terms of how the story fits together, and what information from the overall seven novel arc is in the film. I don't see how these changes matter much, the identity of the Marauders will undoubtedly be revealed, and potentially in a fashion that has a greater impact than it did in the novels. The reshuffling improves the pace in a huge way compared to the Columbus films which were quite plodding in parts because of their tenacious grip on remaining accurate to the novels. The dialogue is similar to the previous films. The "sudden" ending is satisfying enough; there really isn't any need for the over-done end of year banquet scenes, and seeing Harry happy at the end of the film is all I think we need.

Some have complained that the continuity between the first two films and the third one has been spoiled by changes in the production design. I really can't see the problem here, the look of Hogwarts is far more immersive and emotive in Azkaban than it was in either The Philosopher's Stone or The Chamber of Secrets. Cuaron brings a twisted visual style to the screen and draws on his Mexican heritage to add further layers of interest to the look of the film. He could be called overly indulgent, but rather than being distracting, these additions simply bring more life to the screen, making Azkaban a gorgeously vibrant film. The production design is simply oozing with the filmmaker's obvious delight in creating the creepy magical atmosphere that this darker story requires. If after all that you still can't accept the changes to the production design, think simply of this; "The stairs like to change". If the stairs at Hogwarts like to change, why not the rest of it? It is a magical place, after all.

The cinematography though, is what makes the film so beautiful. There's barely a shot in the film which isn't utterly gorgeous. The scenes of the Dementors floating outside Hogwarts are inspired, the moonlight scene after the return from the Shrieking Shack, the flight scenes with Buckbeak, the first Dementor scene on the train; all are captured beautifully and put Columbus with his squeaky clean vanilla take on everything in first two films to shame.

This film was one of the highlights out of Hollywood in the last year. It's, dare I say it, compelling and well acted in a beautifully realized and shot fantasy world. You owe it to yourself to see it once; and if you're a fan holding a grudge, maybe you should give it another try.

And pray to your Gods that George Lucas never gets his hands on the reigns to a Potter film.

Dissatisfied (some SPOILERS ahead)

[has_no_pseudonym · 6/10 · 6 June 2004]

Comparing this movie with the previous two might seem a little ludicrous considering the different director and the general tone of the movie and book, but after seeing this you can't but long for the bustling hubbub of The Sorcerer's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets.

I have read all the books, reread the Prisoner of Azkaban most recently, but I'll try to leave off comparisons for now.

As a movie itself it was unsatisfactory, and when you've read the book, it makes it that much worse. The scenes were rushed and felt contrived. No sooner where you emotionally in a scene then it hopped to another one with nothing to bridge that emotion. In what appeared to be an attempt to instill the darkness of the third book the director, and everyone else, accidentally left all the emotion behind. I felt no true sympathy for the tense and constant fear of his life that Harry had to go through during that year. It didn't seem at all apparent that he was. Though Rupert, Daniel and Emma have grown physically and as actors their performances felt wasted because of this rushing desperate need to pack as much of the action of the latter part into the book into the movie.

I think one the biggest flaws was the movie was not grounded. Since this is the third movie in a series it was a ghastly mistake to introduce so many new sets and change the location of previously fixed items. However beautiful they were, it caused confusion. Very little of the movie was set in familiar scenes. A lot of what should have been crucial dialogue was set in random locations out of doors, which made little sense. With the change in location of the Whomping Willow, Hagrid's hut, the change in actress and location for the Fat Lady, with new courtyards and other new sets, if felt like a whole different place. And when you throw in the abruptness of scene transitions, it gives you a very strong feeling of being lost. There was no "home again" feeling upon returning to Hogwarts. It barely felt like Harry was at a school at all with the time they spent inside the school itself. That was one of my bigger disappointments with the movie.

If they had stuck a little more to the castle and tried to instill some of the darkness there I would have felt better about it. Otherwise I was left being confused with the changes and where they were, and trying to keep track of the plot, which was not strung together well or edited. There was also little sense of time. They used the owl and the Whomping Willow to great effect to show this, but it didn't seem to "effect" much else. The whole passage of time was streamlined and gone through with a quickness that boggled the mind and made it impossible to understand where the plot was heading. There were no key ups or downs in the plot since so much was cut out that was present in the book.



((SPOILERS))



The Dementors, I went into this movie hearing how frightening they were. I was not frightened nor even moved. Dementors can't fly...yet they do in this movie and that steals away much of their looming, glooming, happiness sucking fear. Having something on the ground looming in closer and surrounding you, leaning over you, unable to escape by foot, then yes that would have scared the heck out of me. But having them fly made them comical in my eyes. It also causes changes to the end of the movie. Since the Dementors can fly then Harry's stag patronus has to pulse out light rather than charge them. Which steals a lot from that scene that they could have had if they had stuck a little closer to the book.



((End SPOILERs))



It seems the moviemakers went out of their way to be different from the first two and thereby stripped it of all the charms the book and the previous two movies had. They added in their own material, and considering the bountiful detail that Rowling instills in her books, leaving out so much original material and adding in so much new was rather inconsiderate to the fans. The more new you add the less time you have for the little things that fans of the book were hoping to get a glimpse of and never did.

I've heard Chris Columbus criticized for being so slavish in keeping close to the book, but I see no fault in this. Though not perfect, by no means, he managed to capture Harry Potter in a way that Alfonso Cuarón failed miserably at. I've heard Columbus lost the subtleness of the undercurrents in the books, but now that I look back on it I think that's wrong. By recreating the books so closely those undercurrents were created as a side effect, they were not affected or forced. Cuarón's method seemed to be the opposite and it didn't work. All the whimsy of Rowling's story telling was completely and utterly lost in this new addition. Which is a sad loss for those fans who so looked forward to The Prisoner of Azkaban.

The Chamber of Secrets and its themes and events (both book and movie) were dark, much darker than The Prisoner of Azkaban in truth and done to greater effect by Columbus. I think Cuarón and Steven Kloves latched onto the darkness that was present in the book and blew it out of proportion and to the detriment of the film. They also seemed to have forgotten they were making a child's film...and more disturbing yet, that they were making a Harry Potter movie...

As a film: 7/10

As an adaptation: 5/10

As an interpretation: 1/10

The best of the Harry Potter films so far

[colettesplace · 8/10 · 17 December 2004]

This third Harry Potter film is the best one yet. Director Alphonso Cuaron (Y Tu Mama Tambien, A Little Princess) has taken over from Chris Columbus and has stuck less slavishly to the original JK Rowling Books.

Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are back as Harry, Ron and Hermoine, with Hermoine in particular getting to do a lot more. There are less Quidditch matches, and more menace, in keeping with the improved complexity of Rowling's third novel. Hogwarts is not safe, Draco Malfoy is no longer a menace, but just a pain in the ass. And the new CGI-scripted character Buckbeak the Hippogriff (half eagle, half horse) looks fantastic and has personality.The kids are all supposed to be thirteen but look older - hey we'll forgive them. Neville Longbottom has lost so much weight he's almost unrecognisable.

Great performances from Emma Thompson hamming it up as the ditsy professor of foretelling, Prof Trelawny, Michael Gambon as the new Professor Dumbledore (not as magical but good), David Thewliss as Prof Lupin, and Gary Oldman as the Prisoner of Azkhaban.Thrilling, complex, menacing, ****/***** stars.

While still a good movie, it's the worst of the series.

[theshadow908 · 6/10 · 14 January 2006]

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is the worst film in the series, because too much of the style has been changed. Chris Coloumbus set a standard for how the Harry Potter universe should look. He had everything done a certain way, and it was perfect to the Harry Potter mythos. Now, a new director has come aboard with a completely different vision, and he did it his way.

The story and the settings are dark, which is accurate to J.K. Rowling's book, but the style of everything seems off. In the first two movies, they wear their wizard robes through the whole film. In this, they wear their normal clothes. There's no reason given, and this isn't from the book. The story seems to rushed because the director cut so much out of the book, and then didn't come up with a way to connect everything that's in the movie. This movie just isn't as enjoyable as a Harry Potter film. It still provides a fun time of course, but it just doesn't feel the same.

As always, the performances are top notch. Gary Oldman is perfect as always in the role of the wicked Sirius Black. David Thewlis is great as the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher with a dark secret.

6/10.

Good but disappointing

[Jonny-ironica · 5/10 · 7 June 2004]

I have read all 5 Harry Potter books that are out at the time and so far, number 3 is my favorite. You can imagine my excitement in wanting to see this movie. The first one was okay and the second one was much better. Learning a new director was behind this one thrilled me even more, thinking 'Excellent, it'll appear new and be the best movie too'. Wrong. Very wrong. *May contain Spoilers after here* Okay, what enraged me the most was the sudden handgrabbing with Hermione and Ron. That was never even thought of in the book because they fought through almost the entire thing! How dare the stupid movie makers/writers even try to give people that haven't read the book that idea! Another quality I disliked was that they rarely showed teachers from previous movies, it showed not one Charms, Transfiguration, or Potions class. Find that alittle odd? You see Professor McGonagal and Dumbledore maybe three times throughout the film. Next, I must be angry with the wardrobers! Why were they in normal clothing almost throughout the entire thing! We even saw before that outside of classes they still had to wear uniforms! Another thing is the explanation of things. The pace of this movie was too fast and they never explained that Moony was Remus Lupin, Wormtail was Peter Pettigrew, Padfoot was Sirius Black, and Prongs was James Potter. They also didn't explain how Sirius escaped from Azkaban. Other various things were left out. The ending, which usually has Harry leaving the train was left out completely(I mean, all the books ended that way, the movie should've too). Instead we get a shot of Harry trying out his Firebolt...

Overall, this movie was worse than the first two but, thankfully, the idiot director will not be returning for the fourth, they've gotten someone else.

There were some good things in the movie but not enough to save it overall. Buckbeak was cute and real looking which gave the film a bonus of noncrappy special effects. The dementors were awesome even though I never pictured them flying but that made it scarier. As usual, the use of magic was good and the acting improved.

I give the film a 6 out of 10.

last of the really sweet episodes..

[A_Different_Drummer · 10/10 · 21 November 2015]

.. and near perfect film making.

Why does every major fictional story that starts off so light end up so dark? Sorry, rhetorical question. The answer is that we live a polar world, light and dark, night and day, positive and negative.

So this may well be the last episode in the series which is both exhilarating and innocent.

Especially if you compare it to the last two in the series, which I suggest you do not do because you will lose your lunch.

The cinematography does not get better. In the winter scenes you can feel the chill and in the flying scenes you get airsick.

And the story includes a "time loop" twist which is handled so perfectly that you want to see the film a second or third time to make sure you got it all.

Wow.

So dark, I love it

[dskywalker0 · 9/10 · 5 March 2021]

This is one of my favourites of the franchise because I love Sirius Black and time travelling. Harry Potter's universe was still full of surprises at this point and the films never failed to impress. I also noticed a better soundtrack as well - not that it wasn't already pretty good in the previous ones, I just liked this one better. Oh, and RIP Richard Harris (this is the first one with Michael Gambon).

Best of the Harry Potter film series

[Leofwine_draca · 9/10 · 3 August 2016]

The third HARRY POTTER film (still gotta get round to reading the books) and definitely a step in a different direction, with more unpredictable narrative – thank god Harry doesn't have to fight a clichéd monster at the end – and better direction by Mexican Alfonso Cuaron, who makes it look darker, gloomier and more magical. It's just as great as the last two (if not better – I think this is my favourite of the three) and despite the over-lengthy running time, the interest doesn't let up.

Things I noticed in this film were improved acting all around and plenty more humour than in the last two, but thankfully the humour is actually funny for a change. Hats off to Rupert Grint's Ron, the most hilarious character on screen and a wonderful acting performance. Seeing how the kids have grown up is a little alarming, however! Things are pretty unpredictable, with Harry fighting off the monstrous (and excellent CGI-animated) Dementors, wraith-like ghosts which literally suck your face off. Meanwhile there are all sorts of new and weird things happening, like Pam Ferris turning into a balloon and books that bite your fingers off, pretty much like the Luggage from Pratchett's DISCWORLD series.

Added in for good measure are some excellent bonding scenes, tons of humour, a little romance here and there, and some wonderful new creatures animated by computer. The hippogriff and the werewolf, in particular, are fine. The returning actors are fantastic as ever and newcomers Gary Oldman and David Thewlis are very good indeed, although the former a little underused. Thewlis puts in his best turn yet I reckon. Enough action, hijinks, cool effects, and twists (including a little time travel thrown in for good measure) to last any film fan. Here's looking forward to the next one!

Best of the three

[cosmic_quest · 8/10 · 31 May 2004]

Although this film isn't all that I'd hoped it would be, I believe that it was the best of the three 'Harry Potter' films so far, thanks largely due to director Alfonso Cuaron. In 'Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban', the trio are now thirteen and beginning their Third Year at Hogwarts, under the fear of an escaped criminal who played a part in the deaths of Harry's parents and seems to be stalking the school, preying on Harry.

The child acting in this film has improved slightly with Emma Watson and Rupert Grint probably faring the best in comparison to their young co-stars. Although he is lumbered with a Ron who has once again been reduced to a comic character, it's a sign of Grint's abilities that he does well without looking embarrassed or too clownish. Dan Radcliffe was still very poor, obviously struggling to portray Harry's darker emotions in a manner that isn't wooden and awkward and and this was very apparent in the scene where he makes an atrocious effort to cry when he finds out his godfather had betrayed his parents to their deaths. while Tom Felton was let down by poor scripting of Draco.

The adult cast were excellent. Remus Lupin and Sirius Black were perfectly cast. Lupin was soft yet stern when needed and you could feel there was a parental rapport between him and Harry, and I couldn't imagine anyone other than David Thewlis in the role. And Gary Oldman was great in depicting Black's determination, mingled with an hysterical madness due to his incarceration in the hellish wizarding prison Azkaban. As for Michael Gambon, who was recast in the role of Dumbledore, I felt he was an improvement. Richard Harris was a gifted actor but his Dumbledore had a cold, aloofness to him whereas Gambon was able to portray the warm, eccentricity of the character without diminishing the power and wisdom of Dumbledore. And the rest of the regular cast, such as Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith, were perfect although we expect no better from them now!

One of the best aspects of this film is how it no longer pandered to kiddies like the previous two films did. There was a darker, moodier edge to the story and the characters. The wizarding world no longer seemed like a perfect haven and the characters had grown beyond being innocent children; this reflected the book itself since many feel PoA was a turning point in the series where it finally felt like Harry Potter- boy and book- were growing up. The Hogwarts' setting differed from the previous films yet not only was it definitely more faithful to the books but finally it felt as if the castle was in Scotland rather than perpetually sunny Disney Land and this enhanced the mood being set in the film. The clock was a nice touch, linking to the theme of time in the actual storyline, as was the bridge in being a place for Harry to mull over his problems. Also, in many ways, this film could have ended up a muddled mess in regards to the ending but Cuaron handled the Time Turner scenes well.

However, there were flaws to the film, which let it down. The characters of Hermione and Draco were poorly scripted so they seemed like two completely different characters from the ones we know and love in the books. Although Watson as an actress has improved since CoS, the main problem with the script is that Hermione is being portrayed as being too cool and cocky compared to the bookworm who has no interest in fashion that we know Hermione to be in the books. Steve Kloves, the scriptwriter who admits he's responsible for the change, really needs to learn heroines don't need to be cool Buffy types to be admired; part of why Hermione is so popular as a character in the books is that she appeals to girls who are bookish themselves and easily identify with her. And as for Draco, he comes across as too much of a cowardly, weak girlie-boy rather than an insidious, vicious brat who can be a threat to Harry when he chooses to.

Also, there was no telling of what Black did to Snape in school that left him so bitter in his hatred and I wished they'd included the scene where he let slip what Lupin was, especially as this animosity between him, Black and Lupin plays a larger role as the books go on. And speaking of Lupin, the werewolf CGI was atrocious. He looked like an emaciated rat rather than the wolf-like creature who leaves even the more powerful wizards quivering in fear. I wished there was more in the ending too as I would have loved to see Vernon's face when he found out who Black was. Kloves needs to learn how to round the Harry Potter films off properly as this was also a sticking point in CoS.

At the end of the day, there were scenes left out, some of which we didn't mind skipping but others (an explanation to Harry of James Potter's friendship to Black and Lupin) were sorely missed. It was a great film but it could have done with being made longer or skipping on non-essential scenes (less of the Knight Bus and Hermione punching Malfoy in a manner that makes her out to be a thug) to make way for scenes which are more important. I think I was disappointed because I was expecting something along the lines of RotK but it's still great viewing. I'd give it a seven-and-a-half out of ten with the hopes Cuaron will return to the helm again although preferably not with Kloves as the scriptwriter. I think Cuaron would be excellent working with a script produced by someone who has a better handle on the darker aspects of the books and a deeper understanding of the HP characters.

Way to go

[morf_enimsaj · 15 December 2004]

Wow. I love the new direction. The style fits the movie perfectly. I also think the kids acted much better in this one. I really hope they don't get rid of Daniel Radcliff, even if he does get too broad in the shoulders. You can't swap horses mid-stream. Also, did anyone recognize the kid who played Neville at first? The biggest problem that I had was that there were a lot of things the movie didn't explain, such as "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs." I think that it may have been hard for those who hadn't read the book to understand. It also didn't show that Harry's Patronus was a stag, which I thought was important. And Harry's eyes aren't green (which is mentioned at least once in each book), but that's a minor thing. I felt that the style fits the book well. I go back and read the first book and think "Wow, how young they all are, how naive." The books age, and I think that comes out in this movie. I hope they continue to follow the same path.

All in all, I loved the new direction and the movie itself. I can't wait 'till the next one comes out.

awesome special effects, decent plot

[MLDinTN · 7/10 · 10 June 2005]

I think movie wise, this was the best of the Harry Potter films. The story was OK, but of course the books are better because they have so much more detail.

The special effects are incredible. At times, it looks realistic. Like when Harry is flying on the half bird/half horse creature. The animal looks like it has depth. Another example is the extremely fast bus Harry catches a ride on at the beginning. It's refreshing to see a film with good effects that don't look like they belong in a video game.

The acting by the kids has gotten so much better than in the first film. Too bad some of the teachers aren't featured more like they are in the books.

FINAL VERDICT: If you have watched the first two films, then I'm sure you'll be watching this one. But, if you have never read the books are seen the other movies, then you best not start off with the third film because you will be lost.

Expect(o) to be let down by future installments

[illyria-4 · 10/10 · 18 December 2005]

Prisoner of Azkaban is the only installment of the Harry Potter series to stray from the formula "Voldemort is trying to kill Harry". That's one of the reasons I liked this movie so much. It lacks the sense of impending peril present in "Sorceror's Stone" and "Chamber of Secrets" and the lack of oppressive atmosphere allows for the most complete (as of movie 4) character exploration of the entire series.

I think Alfonso Cuarón is the perfect director for this type of material: this movie is so well-handled it makes Chris Columbus' and Mike Newell's efforts look like amateur productions. It is really a shame that he didn't sign on for the fourth movie.

This movie also contains some of the finest performances from child actors I have ever seen. I must have watched this movie thirty times by now, and not only because it's picturesque, with wonderfully shot scenes and seamlessly integrated effects; not only because of the enchanting music chosen, which adds tremendously to the sense of immersion in the movie. No, I watch this movie over and over because of the master performances put in by Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and Daniel Radcliffe. They're very likable people, and they're charming in every scene, whether they're trying to dodge unfair punishment from Snape or saving themselves from Dementors. They're so charming, you actually feel like you're there with them.

Animagus!?!?!

[scarlett_thered · 6/10 · 2 September 2018]

This is probably my favourite book in the series. I read the books late and after I had watched the films (I recommend reading them first). One of the reasons that it is my favourite book is because this is one of the most least explained films. Why the hell would they not explain why Sirius and Peter are able to be an Animagus???And also in NONE of the films do they ever explain that James Potter is also an animagus and transforms into a stag, hence the reason Harry's patronus is a stag. They also haven't shown they form of Harry's patronus at all in this film. There are loads of other reasons why I have this film a 6/10. It's not awful, like I said I really enjoy watching all the films, but this particular one really gets on my nerves in terms of content from the books.

Writing in character again --- on Prisoner of Azkaban

[pirate1_power · 9/10 · 15 January 2005]

Well, once more we have another journey into the struggle for the future of Hogwarts. This time, the quest involves the saga of Sirius Black. Who is he? Why is he on the prowl for young Harry? And what, ultimately, is the truth behind the murder of James and Lilly Potter, Harry's parents? The tale opens with yet another killer title sequence, this time bringing the familiar Warner Bros. shield to light in spurts before focusing on Harry's 'homework assignment,' if you will --- the Lumos Maxima spell. After this, we come to the first segment of the story proper. Now aged 13, Harry is angrier, and more unsure of his destiny than in his previous adventures at Hogwarts. His rage against one of the Dursleys' relatives intensifies when he finally decides it's not worth it to remain there ("Anywhere's better than here," he complains to Uncle Vernon).

A few moments later --- the Night Bus. What a ride, especially with British veteran comic Lenny Henry contributing the voice of the manic Shrunken Head! The film reaches its most beautiful moment, however, as Hagrid --- newly installed as Professor in Charge of the Care of Magical Creatures --- introduces his class, and us, to Buckbeak the Hippogriff. The haunting flight of Buckbeak, with Harry on his back, is complimented by a new theme from John Williams; and yes, Harry does the 'king-of-the-world' thing a la Leonardo DiCaprio (but that, of course, we can forgive).

Director Alfonso Cuaron, who makes here a return to making films from family stories, provides us with as unexpected an ability to play mind games with the Potter legend's staunchest supporters (us, the audience) than even Chris Columbus did, when we discover at last what is really going on. That Sirius Black is Harry Potter's godfather, and would willingly sacrifice himself for Harry's honor, brings more sorrow than joy to our hero's emotional psyche, setting the stage for the major payoff sequence.

How horrifying it is to learn that the rat you have loved and cared for for all of 12 years is no less than the traitor who brought Voldemort the means to slay James and Lilly! One can imagine what's going through Ron Weasley's mind as he, Harry, and Hermoine witness these bitter revelations.

And finally, we have the theme of expressing freedom, as Harry sees himself, changed into a glowing stag, giving the evil Dementors what for, thus freeing both Sirius and Buckbeak --- two innocents who, like Hagrid himself, have been falsely accused and condemned. Alas, Sirius' destiny, as we know all too well, is to be a short-lived one.

So, what did you love about the movie? I hear you asking. Well, aside from the usual smokin' performances from our regulars (and a jolly toast to Michael Gambon who, one hopes, will be given a bigger, cooler beard once Order of the Phoenix goes into principal photography), there is also the delightful spectre of darkness surrounding the story, and a ferocious bid for battling against revenge. And, for the first time, the inclusion of the Marauders' Map is not only emphasized, it also serves as the inspiration --- and literal setting --- for the movie's end-credit sequence.

All in all, Prisoner of Azkaban brings the darker Potter power to light in ways one would not dare expect out of screenwriter Steve Kloves. Alas, they're saying that Steve will be leaving the production team after having completed the Goblet of Fire script; if another writer does Order of the Phoenix proper justice, they'll be hard-pressed to take on the search for one. That being the case, I sincerely hope our legions of fans will enjoy our film. Who knows? I may have to do this again three years from now when Half-Blood Prince gets the movie treatment! (Heh-heh!) Faithfully, Albus Dumbledore

The good and the bad...

[ladypythia · 7/10 · 6 June 2004]

Like most Harry Potter fans, I found this movie disappointing. I felt that Director Alfonso Cuaron choose style over substance, which is never a good thing in a movie.

Some critics say that the previous movies were too stiff in how they stuck close to the book. THAT IS THE POINT!! If I want to see a Harry Potter movie, I want to see the book, the plot, brought to life. I don't want to see the plot changed.

However, I must admit, I loved the darker, more Gothic look of the film. The books are taking a turn for the darker and this movie sets that tone.

But there was so many plot holes, so much left out. It was hard for this HP fan to ignore. This book, while the smallest of the 5 out there is crucial. This is my main complaint with the movie.

It introduces Lupin, Black, and Pettigrew, all of which are important to Harry, as they fill in the gaps of his past.

In this book, you discover why Snape hates Harry, Lupin, Black, and James Potter. This is important later. The relationship between Snape and Harry is important to the Order of the Phoenix.

Who is Wormtail, Prongs, Moony, and Padfoot? What is and who created The Marauders map. And why is Black an Animagus?

The above are all questions that the movie leaves unanswered (but are in the book).

I would have sat through another hour to hear the explanations and see the full story. Instead, plot points replaced by unnecessary (but yet funny) cut scenes. Not a good thing.

Buckbeak looked great; the CGI was very well done. The time warp effect was also cool. I was disappointed in how Lupin looked as a Werewolf, I thought they were more hairy.

The best part of this movie - the acting. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson are growing into their roles and as actors. Although Radcliffe could have actually shed some tears during the Hogsmade visit. Tom Felton was great as Draco, who tries to be brash, but is really a coward under it all. He played it excellently.

The adults were also fantastic. Maggie Smith was the stern, yet almost motherly Minerva McGonagall. We needed to see more of her; she only had about 2 lines. Robbie Coltrane comes back as Hagrid and he plays the part perfectly. Emma Thompson plays a wonderfully flaky Sybil Trelawney. Michael Gambon had a tough role to fill by following Richard Harris. Gambon brings his own slant to Albus Dumbledore, which in this movie was a bit off-kelter, but I think as we get used to him in this role, it will seem more natural.

Alan Rickman.... He is the most underrated actor in this movie. The critics seem to ignore his astounding acting in these films. He is absolutely fantastic in his role as the sharp, harsh, angry, but troubled Severus Snape. Any lesser actor would have made Snape flat, but Rickman gives him life and dimension. Also, he has some of the greatest lines in this movie. "Revenge is very sweet..."

Gary Oldman was good as Sirius Black, but we didn't seen enough of him. His confrontation with Rickman was emotion filled and was one of the best parts of the movie. I wish it had gone on longer.

Timothy Spall plays a disgusting and revolting Peter Pettigrew. He looked the part and played it well.

Remus Lupin was played by David Thewlis. I was not sure what to think at first; I was hoping Anthony Stewart Head (Giles from Buffy) was going to get the part. But Thewlis was excellent, he made Lupin a character you liked and cared about, a feeling you didn't get from the book. But Thewlis makes you feel that for the character. He got a fair amount of screen time, but I wanted more. Fantastic acting. I can't wait to see him come back in the next few films.

All in all, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is an good movie, as long as you don't compare it to the book or other HP movie. The plot holes really damage the film. The acting and the feel of the movie are great, but still don't quite make up the difference.

A hacked job - a sequence of scenes that tell no story.

[germanman · 5/10 · 6 June 2004]

From the beginning, I felt as though I'd come in 5 minutes into the start of the film; as if I'd missed some beginning section, thought I was there from the previews on. This film never got to telling a subset of the story of described in book 3, but rather was a collection of scenes depicting parts of the book, but never evolved into a coherent plot-line that one could follow or feel. I'd read the book; all the books, in fact. That did not help and so I feel those movie goers who had not read, but mearly came for a good film were even more confused and disappointed.

Clearly, there was too much material to cover in the 2hours 20-something minutes of the film (does that count the last 10 minutes which is all credits?). As to be expected, some of the story had to be left out for the sake of brevity. However, this, being my favorite of the books, resulted in my least favorite of the films. And its not even related to the new, leather-cap wearing Dumbledore, whom I could get to like, despite the drastic change in appearance that was not necessary. No, its either the direction, but surely the editing or production thats too blame.

For one, the scenes didn't seem to flow into a store that brought the viewer in. Then, the look of Hogwarts was totally different than the previous films. Sorry, when you are part of a series, you MUST stick to those things that have been established in previous films. Hagrids house is not down a rocky slope from the school and the whole thing is not on a mountain side as depicted... at least not from the previous films. To that I say BOO! Bad job on all responsible. Thanks for ruining a promising and wonderful world. Get off your high 'my artistic vision' horse and do the damn series the way the fans and the previous films and the books have set it up. No one gives a 'wormtails'-arse what your artistic vision of the story is. Really, we don't.

Where did all of these 'standing stones' come from? Nothing of the sort was ever mentioned in the books, neither was Lupin having a mustache. If there had been a mustache - Rowling WOULD have mentioned it. Which, by the way makes me wonder, what the hell was J.K. doing other than making sure the director and producers didn't bugger up the film?

In stead of wasting time on a needlessly long bus sequence and pointless whomping willow vs bird encounters, they could have spent more time telling vital story elements. A few mentions of Hermione showing up to class in the middle of it all doesn't cut it for setting the stage to her actions. Snape making 'one' mention about the 'potions' Lupin should have been taking..., if thats it, you chould have left that out since the director/producer didn't bother to develop the whole Snape-Lupin-Potion situation at all.

The film felt rushed and cramped. Knowing the story, I barely could follow the events. For those not readers of the book, I feel pity for what is surely total confusion.

If there is extra footage on the floor, I pray they do put it into an extended version for DVD ala Lord of the Rings.

Learn your lessons and don't fudge up the next film, "Goblet of Fire", which is to already be shot and I'm expecting in the editing process now.

If this is the vision of the current director, I say, bring back Chris Columbus as soon as possible.