Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: the movie
I saw this last night with friends and the fiancee, and it is much better than the first two. Light years better. The CG is infinitely better and it plays more like a movie than a staged reading of the novel (like the first two).
I actually kind of want to go watch it again.
I actually kind of want to go watch it again.
Comments
The direction, was, interesting, I liked parts, but I didn't really like how the whole thing was compartmentalized into these little segments, like, each scene had a fairly long opening bit, and then sometimes they did that fade to black, and it made it feel like I was watching a TV show without the commercials. \
But, that said, the whole movie had a much cooler vibe than the previous movies, And I did enjoy watching it, though I think that it suffered pretty greatly from "converting long book to 2:30 hours" syndrome.
The very last scene was pretty silly though.
But I liked the credits.
Less storybook and more cinematic.
New director for the next one, I hope they use the same cinematographer... it just looked so damn good.
Prisoner of Azkanban had a realistic feel to the cinematography, like a
better perspective. Maybe they left out some steady cams in some of the scenes. I was disappointed that the actor for Prof. Dumbuldor was changed. The movie defiantly had a darker feel to it, and i was surprised how much older the kids looked. Was expecting some aspects of The Order of the Phoenix, but maybe it will be in the net movie. Having never read the novels i don't know, but i was told that each movie spans two novels.
Originally posted by dmgeist
I was disappointed that the actor for Prof. Dumbuldor was changed.
That is because the actor who originally played him(Ricahrd Harris) DIED.
Buuuuut. I didn't enjoy it as much as I had expected to. The casting was great, but I felt that David Thewlis was too restrained (or rather, the role he was playing didn't play to his strengths...he's at his best in a role that calls for a little mania) and there certainly wasn't nearly enough screen time given to Gary Oldman. Michael Gambon is a good replacement for Richard Harris, but didn't communicate the same wisdom / gravitas.
All in all though, I reckon it's a shame that Cuaron's not going to be doing the next one...
I was very sad when he died and I really miss him as Dumbledore, but nothing can be done about it.
Oldman will get more screen time in future, no worries, kbz. The movie was shot in the foot from the beginning because you know the twist from the outset. Everyone sitting in the theatre knows what is coming so it is impossible to make Black as menacing as he was when reading the book. No one's fault but Rowling's.
I did feel robbed of Maggie Smith, though, I love her (in all her movies) and I really like her McGonogall, and while Emma Thompson was a welcome new addition as Trelawny, I would've liked more McGonogall (though I do not know where).
And for those who watch British comedies, it was nice to see Dawn French.
I had no idea Cuarón was not going to be on for #4. That really really sucks. He did a fantastic job, a lot better than the hokey material Chris Columbus put up there. Hopefully Mike Newell will keep the series going on a good note.
I would really like to know why Cuarón is out.
Originally posted by groverat
And for those who watch British comedies, it was nice to see Dawn French.
The VICAR?!? Who does she play?
I think Alfonso Cuarón tried to streamline the story and just left too much out of the movie (or it could be the editors fault - I don't know if Cuarón had final cut for this film). I would have liked the movie better if it were longer, with more screen time for the interesting characters to interact with each other.
However, as I usually do, I enjoyed the book more. This movie suffered from it not being able to hold the entire book in the alloted time. I would love to see a directors cut and catch what was left out.
Overall, excellent move.
Originally posted by groverat
I would really like to know why Cuarón is out.
From an article in last week's Newsweek:
At the moment, Radcliffe and friends are shooting "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" with director Mike Newell ("Four Weddings and a Funeral"). Cuaron loved making "Azkaban," and might come back to direct the fifth or sixth film, but right now he couldn't bear it. "I'm tired," he says. "I can't imagine how Chris Columbus or Peter Jackson did it." When the movie opens on June 4, audiences will be wondering the exact same thing about him.
Originally posted by DMBand0026
I saw it the day it came out, 12:01 in the morning, Chicago time. I enjoyed it quite a bit. It was shot brilliantly, the acting was superb as usual....
However, as I usually do, I enjoyed the book more. This movie suffered from it not being able to hold the entire book in the alloted time. I would love to see a directors cut and catch what was left out.
Overall, excellent move.
It's going to get increasingly harder for the directors to fit the books into the standard movie time.
The last HP book was what? 800 pages?
This is a saga that could benefit greatly from taking a page out of Peter Jackson's book. It would be great if they edited the theatrical release for ~2:30 hours, all the while planning a ~3 hour Extended edition to be released on DVD.
9/10
Originally posted by Aquatic
Res I agree!!! And the third book was the shortest but with the most action. It could've been so much better. There was just so much suspense and action. The third book really is the best IMO, the fourth book is really good but three is just so dark and my fav. I wonder when CG will completely replace actors...It's already starting. Look at the Polar Express. They even make Tom Hanks' character look like him. I've noticed they do that a lot these days in movies. In Toy Story II Wayne Knight's character looked like him. There are other examples I can't think of off the top of my head. CG can be good or bad. Look at Star Wars as the prime example. It should just be used wisely. In I they tried to make the movie with CG. In three they used it to in most cases just accent the actors. And II was good, almost up to standard with the other three. Whoever edited 3 did a terrible job by cutting Gary Oldman. Also the ending didn't have that feeling of Harry Potter books where everyone gets together in the Great Hall for a last feast and review of the events and then Harry goes home. Meh. Still great, still Harry Potter. The bus was cool at least!
OMGWTFBBQ!
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
OMGWTFBBQ!
OMGWTFBBQISTNAYB
ROTFLMAO