Rate Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (spoilers)

[Desdichado]

Berandor and stevelabny:

I also thought the first two movies were fun, but a little too dry to really represent the books well - flat, if you will. Harry's character in particular comes across as flat and boring in the movies relative to who he is in the books. (Although I haven't seen the third movie -- got another six hours or so until the showing I bought tickets for...)

I also initially enjoyed PoA the best as a book for quite a while, but have more and more been aware of the plot holes in it. For instance, if all Moony has to do to keep from transforming is not go outside in the moonlight, why's being a werewolf such a problem?

I still like the mystery, I like the twist of the book and the implications it has for the next one, etc. but I think GoF is my favorite book at the moment. Although another recent rereading of OotP has also raised it in my esteem as well.

BTW, any word on when the sixth book is to be expected? I know the 5th one only came out a year or so ago, but I'm a little out of the loop and don't know what to expect for no. 6.

 

[Ferret]

JK's publishers have foregone a deadline because of the pressure it put on her. www.jkrowling.com has some more info on that topic, somewhere.

 

[kingpaul]

Well, I just saw it. I thought it wasn't as well done as the 1st 2 were. Granted, because of the length of the movie, they had to cut stuff out, but I wish they hadn't. They also rearranged some events as well. I am, probably, being over-picky.

I have to agree that

Spoiler

the werewolf wasn't done all that well...but that may be from being spoiled from the Van Helsing werewolf

.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Enjoyed it, didn't like the amount of stuff they left out though. I thought that created some story problems with the movie. I'd say I don't like it as much as CoS, but better than SS. It felt rushed as one who has read the book a few times.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

The Whomping Willow ruled.

 

[Tiberius]

I found it to be enjoyable, but was a little disappointed with what was cut. While I understand the rationale of "Pick one theme/plot and stick with it", I was really looking forward to seeing

Spoiler

the members of House Syltherin being attacked by Harry's Patronus after they dress up as a Dementor

and

Spoiler

Professor Snape bellowing about how Potter must have been involved with the escape of Black, despite the fact that everyone knew he was in the hospital wing

. I was also surprised that

Spoiler

Sirius didn't deliver his "I want to commit the murder I was imprisoned for!" line. Perhaps it was thought to make the character less likable?

(shrug)

 

[Crothian]

the movie was pretty good. THe sets and backgrounds were as great as ever, but the story itself seemed lacking. I know they had to cut a lot of the book (and I mean a lot) but I'm not sure the movie holds the story together that well at all. Haveing read the book, its hard to tell if the movie works by its self.

 

[Umbran]

I saw the movie this afternoon. It is clear the kids have learned a good deal about acting over teh course fo the previous two movies, because they are doing a pretty good job. The visuals, as others have said, are very good. I liked the cinematography. The casting was excellent - Mooney, Sirius, Trelawny, Pettigrew, and the new Dumbledore all did excellent work.

I wasn't so pleased with the editing. A few things that I feel are pretty crucial were left out. Many of the scene changes seemed forced and ill-rationalized. I fully understand that they are trying to cut down a long book into a movie, but I simply disagree with many of the cuts. I expect the movie to be able to stand alone, without having read the book, and some of the wrong things ended up on the cutting room floor, IMHO. If there's an extended edition someday, it might do a better job in that sense.

Oh, and as for

Spoiler

the werewoolf

, I thought it was well done. I am glad it didn't look exactly like those seen in other movies.

To address somethign Joshual Dyal said -

Spoiler

I don't recall the book closely enough, do they actually say that it is direct moonlight that causes the transformation? In the movie, it can be seen either as moonlight, or moonrise.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I saw it this afternoon as well. I thought it was a brilliant adaptation, where I felt the first two were flat. As for things that were cut, I didn't really miss them. I thought the pacing of the film was more fluid and natural than the other two, which bored me dreadfully.

A couple of reviewers (Roger Ebert and Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe, maybe? Or maybe just one and not the other?) have said that the film lacks the amusement park feel of its predecessors. I agree, and, what's more, really liked the way it was shot to give the world a little bit more of a real feeling. It felt more natural when the kids arrived at Hogwarts to me than it had before (which very much had a Magic Kingdom vibe going on IMHO). I don't want to go so far as to say that it's the darkness of the film, as that sort of thing can be bad, too, but it's not quite so bright and picture-bookish as the first two films. It just looks more like a film.

In the end, I felt that Cuarón made a film, rather than filming a book, if that makes sense. Which, for me, was good, as out of all the HP books, Prisoner of Azkaban was my least favorite. This does put me in the minority, at least according to some stuff I've been reading.

As for the

Spoiler

werewolf

, I was underwhelmed by it -- something just didn't feel right to me. I liked the

Spoiler

whomping willow

, though -- it just worked really well for me.

Best,
Nick

 

[LightPhoenix]

I thoroughly enjoyed it, and thought it worked well. Contrary to many people here, I thought the editting of the book to fit the movie medium was fine.

Now, the makeup department needs to be shot. Watch the movie again, and pay attention to Harry's scar. Not only does it change color, but also dimension and position... in one spot very noticeably, where it's practically in the middle of his forehead.

An amazing thing I noticed is that a lot of people in the audience were confused at the end, regarding

Spoiler

Hermione and Harry's time-travel

. Unfortunately I don't know how confusing that was, since I have already read the books, and obviously there for knew what was going on already. I don't think a lot of the people in the theater had even read the books. Then again, maybe people in Syracuse are dumb, because the whole thing made sense to me, and seemed like it would even if I hadn't read the books. I don't know.

If nothing else this third movie has made me realize even more why I'm not fond of the first ones. Of course, I don't particularly like the first two books either, so it makes sense story-wise. From a simple cinematography standpoint though, I think Cuaron's version just looks more realistic... the previous two made the whole thing just look... plastic, I guess. Especially the "exterior" shots.

Oh, and to add me to the list of people with weird HP opinions, I think the fifth has been the best by far. In fact, I would put them in the order of five, four, three, two, one. (contact! )

What I think is beginning to happen, now that Harry Potter is such a big name, is that fans' expectations are starting to reach the unreachable by anyone. I'm not saying they don't have a right not to like the movies... I prefer the books as well. However, I think there's not going to be any way that directors are going to be able to be living up to these expectations, especially given the length and complexity of the fourth and fifth books. I'm noticing it already, in my circle of people... my friends and acquaintences who didn't like it much are all terrible fans of the books. On the other hand, the people who seem to like it more are the casual readers, who have only read them maybe once or twice. Of course, that's just my own experience, and not necessarily indicative of... well, anything.