Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: the movie

groverat · June 7, 2004 12:22AM

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.

wrong robot · June 7, 2004 12:28AM

The cinematography was stunning. The setting was brilliant, the mountains and trees and lakes and, yeah that was totally amazing stuff.

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.

chu_bakka · June 7, 2004 12:32AM

Saw it yesterday morning... it was the best one so far.

Less storybook and more cinematic.

New director for the next one, I hope they use the same cinematographer... it just looked so damn good.

dmgeist · June 7, 2004 5:27AM

i liked it as well, i noticed the differences from the previous two as well.

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.

the general · June 7, 2004 6:13AM

Quote:

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.

shawnj · June 7, 2004 6:37AM

I liked Alfonso Cuaron's "Y Tu Mama Tambien." The trailer for this movie looks interesting enough for me to make "The Prisoner of Azkaban" my first Harry Potter movie!

kneelbeforezod · June 7, 2004 9:42AM

Saw it last night. I thought it definitely looked a lot better than the previous two (the CGI was hugely improved, and there was a sense of the vastness / ancientness of the school grounds that I hadn't previously had). I also liked the fact that it was a darker and more open ended film, less "y'know, for kids!" than the Chris Columbus ones...

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...

groverat · June 7, 2004 4:24PM

Gambon is not nearly as good as Harris, but that has more to do with Harris being an amazing actor than with Gambon being inadequate.

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.

aquatic · June 8, 2004 3:24PM

Excellent but too much effects, not enough Gary Oldman. He's so great. I bet he'll be featured heavily in the next movie. They should have showed him as a dog and a fugitive in the beginning, and escaping Azkaban, since then we would know he was not bad guy, as in the book, thus creating another layer of suspense. Felt rushed. But you can tell Hermione will be hot soon.

That was definitely a good punch in the face she gave Malfoy! They shouldn't have used the same effect of the Dementors on Harry's face for the the end scene when he's on his broom. 7/10. Overall not better or worse than previous ones, just different, though I like the new direction.

midwinter · June 8, 2004 11:38PM

Quote:

Originally posted by groverat

And for those who watch British comedies, it was nice to see Dawn French.

The VICAR?!? Who does she play?

res · June 9, 2004 12:59AM

I liked it a lot, but I don' t think it was better than the first two movies. Of course the CG effects get better every year, and the acting might be improving as the kids get older, but this one felt rushed to me. It is 10 minutes shorter than the first one, and a full 19 minutes shorter than the last movie.

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.

dmband0026 · June 9, 2004 1:07AM

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.

shawnj · June 9, 2004 1:20AM

Quote:

Originally posted by groverat

I would really like to know why Cuarón is out.

From an article in last week's Newsweek:

Quote:

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.

wrong robot · June 9, 2004 1:25AM

Quote:

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.

aquatic · June 9, 2004 1:41AM

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!

evantandersen · June 9, 2004 8:55AM

i saw it on monday and the theatre was empty! we ! watched it with only about 10 other people in the theatre! i was great. the only part that i noticed was not ture to the book was the part when harry gets his firebolt. in the book the teachers have to test it for jinxes. in the movie he just gets it. other than that it was great

9/10

wrong robot · June 9, 2004 1:32PM

Quote:

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!

kneelbeforezod · June 9, 2004 1:35PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wrong Robot

OMGWTFBBQ!

OMGWTFBBQISTNAYB

ROTFLMAO

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: the movie

Comments