Movie: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

[whisperer]

...but honestly it really comes down to how the author feels about it.

I have to say that I disagree with you kerowyn, if the Harry Potter series is to be successful then it really comes down to how the fans feel about the film. JK needed the fans harry potter has to be (as she is) richer than the queen, I think they're important.

Brightest Blessings

 

[h_carnahan]

The new dumbledore isn't right...not as mystic as he should be and I dont think he exudes great power (like the other one did). The dumbledore in the first two movies was perfect for the role as he was exactly how I'd pictured him while reading the books.

I couldn't agree more. It seems to me that his presence is lost. Instead they placed a person who instead of having the presence and energy and knowledge surrounding him. Feels a need to show it i guess. In his welcome back speech at the beginning of the year it seemed almost as though he was 20 years younger, without as much knowledge and instead of having a hidden amount of energy, he feels a need to show it all. I think the one thing that the movie did really well was the whole timeturner thing. For some reason it was really hard to understand how it all worked when you read the book (at least for me). But when I saw it in the movie, it was like a big light bulb went off. It suddenly seemed to make perfect sense. It looked really neat in the movie though, you have to give them at least that.

 

[Richard Rahl]

anyone notice that they never wore robes? ever! hermoine wore the same clothes for basically all of the movie!!!! though i cant say they didn't look good on emma... jk, anyway, the point is that they completely ignored the telling of the secret-keeper's charm, and didn't explian who moony, prongs, padfoot, and wormtail were!!!! they never explained how lupin, out of the blue, knew exactlyu what to say to hide and reveal the marauder's map! although compared to the other movies it was better...

 

[VTChEwbecca]

anyone notice that they never wore robes? ever! hermoine wore the same clothes for basically all of the movie!!!! though i cant say they didn't look good on emma... jk, anyway, the point is that they completely ignored the telling of the secret-keeper's charm, and didn't explian who moony, prongs, padfoot, and wormtail were!!!! they never explained how lupin, out of the blue, knew exactlyu what to say to hide and reveal the marauder's map! although compared to the other movies it was better...

Those were my complaints as well....I really think they needed to go further into explaining the Moony, Prongs, Padfoot, Wormtail connection, as it is rather important. The thing about the map was very cool, and I wished they'd kept it in the movie. THey also explained the time turner very poorly, it was a rather rushed explaination. I'm not sure how I feel about this one compared to the other two, as far as how closely it resembles the book. If you didn't know the book, I reckon it would be a great movie, but knowing all the extra history and storylines from the book made the movie seem highly incomplete.

 

[booksblog.co.uk]

Cinematically speaking, Azkaban is far superior to the first 2 films. There are some just breathtaking sequences, Buckbeak trailing his claws in the lake as he is flying along for example. The CGI is also very good, and the score is fantastic (I would recommend buying the soundtrack, it really is John Williams at his best).

However, like most people I felt they left too much of the plot out. I know that when you're working with a children's film you have time constraints (I think the runtime was 2hrs 40mins - they should have bumped it up to 3hrs). But they really rushed most of the ending with Sirius, and they completely left out the explanation of Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs, which I think is pretty key.

I don't think you can make all HP fans happy when adapting the books, and overall I think Cauran did a good job.

I am however very worried about the 4th film. The studio apparently suggested it be made into 2 films because the book is so long, to which director Mike Newell responded - "Nah, I think I can cut out enough of the subplots to make it into one film." Eeek!

 

[Oberon]

Well, heres finger-crossed that Daniel Radcliffe has developed slighty more acting range than 'wondering round looking amazed at everything'.

This is much more the director's fault than the actor's. Whether from a lack of confidence in the actors or lack of talent, Columbus really loads up the first two movies with "reaction" shots, your list describes them perfectly. (In the second movie, the sequence of reactions during the flying car is particularly appalling.) It didn't really bother me the first time I saw the movies but subsequent viewings have really taken the luster from them. But blame Chris Columbus, not the kids--everyone "reacts" rather than acts.

The "Prisoner" is much better due to having a director who has more cinematic tricks in his quiver and more confidence in the actors. The camera doesn't cut back and forth, but stays on the kids and allows them to exist beyond a particular reaction. I must say, tho, that young Malfoy comes off poorly, while Ron and Hermione shine--Radcliffe comes through very well, his character being more complicated to portray.

O

 

[Oberon]

One thing that really disappoints me about this series of movies is the lack of confidence in following Peter Jackson's lead and filming an Extended version for DVD. I really hope they attempt this for Goblet and Phoenix where there is so much going on ...