|
Directed by: Alfonso Cuaron Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson The biggest flaw of the latest Harry Potter film may be JK Rowling's own source material. Though it's one of my favorite books in the series with it's dark, scary, and brooding tone, the third installment really doesn't translate as well to the screen as the first two books have. The trailers certainly get you psyched up enough if you're in to Potter, with great scenes and the creepy Dementors, but the most glaring thing about the Prisoner of Azkaban, when watching it in a 2.5 hour sitting on a big screen, is that there's really not much story to it. Sirius Black escapes prison, apparently wants to kill Harry, and really doesn't want to kill Harry after all once they meet. Throw in an incosequential side story about Buckbeak the Hippogriff and Hermione's ability to be more than one place at the same time, and there's really little else to see. The first two films were near literal adaptations of the books, and were fantastic stories on top of it, but so much of Azkaban is about personal fear deep down inside of Potter that simply doesn't work well when you watch it. In the book, a Demontor touches Harry and it drains the soul out of him, you get inside of his mind and you can feel the sheer horror he's going through. On screen, you just see him faint. This is a sign of things to come for the rest of the Potter franchise in which significant portions of the book are cut to make the story fit into a feature length film. For example, we're told Azkaban is a scary place to be and that Sirius Black "is a killer", but we're pretty much expected to take these claims at face value as the fearsomeness of both are never actually demonstrated. Even the misunderstood incident where Sirius was believed to have killed Peter Pettigrew and several Muggle bystanders is missing from the film. The scene where we first see The Dementors is executed well, but that's about the only time they are ever actually fearsome. Ultimately they're not much different in appearance than the Ring Wraiths from the Lord of the Rings saga, so seeing them fly about enmasse loses its shock value rather quickly. So is the film a bomb? Hardly...Daniel Radcliffe gives his best and most complex performance as Potter in the series to date, and Emma Watson appears more confident and is frankly a better actress in this installment. Alan Rickman is sadly only used sparingly in this film as my favorite character, Professor Snape, but David Thewlis as Lupin is a nice addition to the cast. The big surprise was how good Tom Felton has become as Draco Malfoy. While he comes off as a spoiled annoying rich twit in the first two films, he's gained about a foot of height on Harry and has matured considerably since we've last seen him, which helps him to actually come across as menacing for a change. Ruper tGint doesn't get to do much but whine as Ron Weasley again, but the dynamic presence of his older brother characters works very well, and makes you eagerly await the 4th and 5th movie where they should be given significant and hilarious things to do if you've read the books. The most noticeable absence is the lack of Richard Harris as Dumbledore. Michael Gambon tries, but his take on the bearded professor is a sour and mostly humorless man that lacks the fatherly charm and sarcasm of the previous portrayal. It's rather funny to see how the other Hogwarts students have evolved. Matthew Lewis who plays Neville Longbottom has turned from a dumpy overweight kid to a rather stretched out and awkward looking boy. An even funnier change is from Jamie Waylett who plays one of Draco's lackeys, Crabbe. A big hulking moose in the first two films, he's gotten taller, skinnier, and in the process, more intelligent looking as a result. The big change is the new director, Alfonso Cuaron, who handles the maturing Potter franchise with a decidedly more mature approach than Christopher Columbus has. One only can wonder what this great artistic visionary could have done with the first two films if he had the chance. He takes the subject matter seriously, and is more than competent with his first mega budget film. The CGI is hit or miss here, with the home run being from the hippogriff creature, Buckbeak. His movements and rendering are beautiful, with each feather animated to perfection. The same can not be said, however for Lupin's werewolf alter ego, that ends up looking rather ridiculous, as an anorexic weird short haired gangly thing that my daughter mentioned reminded her of a molerat. Oldman works wonderfully as Sirius Black, but unfortunately, just as in the book, really only pops up in the film's end. And you'll likely have to wait to Part 5 of the series to enjoy any substantial screen time from him at all. Hopefully he'll have the time to visit a dentist during this layover, as his teeth are horrible to look at, even by British standards. Seeing this makes me a bit concerned for the future of this franchise. If Azkaban felt heavily edited for time, then what on earth are they going to do with the next installment, Goblet of Fire, which is about twice as long of a story? Goblet was originally rumored to have been made in 2 parts, but recent news suggests it will just be a standard length affair. It would serve the filmmakers well to reconsider this and let the stories be told properly, or at least save up a gob of extra footage for the DVD release. It's not as if they'll have try hard to convince anyone to see these movies, good review or not. I'd rate it 3 and a half out of 5 stars. RATING: 3.5 PROS: Great effects and lots of good spooky fun CONS: Not much of a story, and the new Dumbledore sucks ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
|
#
?
May 24, 2004 07:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
I see someone else here got to go to the premiere too  (or not).Anyway, it's an alright movie, and explores a lot more of the HP universe than many others. The acting isn't particularly amazing, and neither is the story, but overall it is well done, and one mustn't forget that it is based on a kid's book. My friend who was with me said the books are always better (shes read all of them).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2004 20:57
|
|
|
Just saw this movie last night at some fancy to-do they had at a nearby theater. As far as the plot goes, this Harry Potter installment is the richest, as it develops the story of escaped prisoner Sirius Black stalking Harry while simultaneously divulging information very stingily about Harry's parents and their friends. Gary Oldman as Sirius Black is great, looking very dangerous and slightly mad after his escape from Azkaban. But the textured story made for a longer book, and fitting the longer book on screen demanded some sacrifices. The new director, Alfonso Cuaron, cleverly uses scenes of the Whomping Willow, important later in this story, moving through the seasons to portray the passing of time. Through this, the viewer is aware that time is passing, but just wonders how. While the film captures all the important plot points, and I have very little problem with what was left out here, it just becomes hard to believe an entire school year has passed. I don't recall the specifics of the usual winter break in the book, but it is completely skipped over here, as we go from the Whomping Willow in the snow to, shortly later and much to our surprise, the Whomping Willow budding for spring. There is only one quidditch match, and I am not sure what happens with the House Cup or any of those aspects of the story. Each of Harry's classes is also only shown once, if even that. Professor Snape and especially Professor McGonagall see very little time in this incarnation. Hagrid does manage plenty of screentime, although the Care for Magical Creatures class he has taken over likewise is only shown once. Another new professor, the phony mystic Trelawney is very well done in this movie. I had no complaints about the new Dumbledore, who looked almost exactly like Richard Harris, although he sounded a bit different. Cuaron makes this film a little darker than the previous ones, and the Hogwarts grounds to me also looked a little different, as the school's environs seemed more rocky and rugged, while at the same time maintaining the beautiful green landscape and forest. Thankfully, the romantic tension between Ron and Hermione is not as overt as the trailer leads us to believe. A few odds and ends: Malfoy was always a wimp, but he was really a pushover in this movie. I would have liked to have seen a little more of Hogsmeade, although we were able to see some. And of course, the story involving time travel has its logical holes and deus ex machina. As liquorhead said, the CG werewolf that appears in this film looks rather grangy, almost like a cross between Gollum and what you'd expect a werewolf to look like, while the hippogriff Buckbeak looked great. Also, the plot point that liquorhead claimed in spoiler tags to be omitted from this film I thought was included effectively. All-in-all, this is a good film, and probably the best adaptation of a Harry Potter book yet on top of drawing from the best source material so far. The problem of the longer books does loom large though, and I will be surprised if they can make a fourth movie without splitting it up into two screenings. I originally gave this a 4, but since I do think it was a bit better than the last two films, I nudged it up to a 4.5. Fast Luck fucked around with this message at 15:37 on May 26, 2004 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2004 15:20
|
|
|
Less feeling, more rushed story. That pretty much sums up my feeling on this movie. The first two had a much slower pace, and could actually drag on in specific parts. This one seemed to try to hit on many more things from the book, but not devote enough time to any of them to give the viewer a chance to care or understand what was happening. I found myself thinking several times during the move that, if someone had not seen the first two movies or read the books, they might be a bit lost. Being one of my favorite books in the series, and one of the books where the characters really start to develop, I was disappointed by this. There's the obvious cop-out by saying that it's more difficult to express all the internal dialog and feelings from a book to the big screen, but simply by slowing down the pace and emphasizing just how much of an effect the dementors have on Harry would have been a big help. There were some other minor points that somewhat bothered me, such as the patronus only showing the stag when Harry sees it from across the lake, but it not being visible once you see Harry conjuring it. Buckbeak was done very well, and it made it very easy to see just how majestic the creature is. Overall, I still had a blast watching this fun for all ages series come to life on the screen, and I'll still own the DVD and probably see it in the theater again - but I felt it lacked feeling which made it more difficult to empathize with the main cast. I give it a 4/5.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2004 15:31
|
|
|
I love this movie. The first two films were the straightest, blandest adaptations possible, 99% faithful to the books but with an overly episodic structure and a look that was too...vanilla as a result. This film is the exact opposite, with more style and wit and panache in single scenes than Columbus mustered in two entire features. The first scene has HANDHELD SHOTS for god's sake, something Columbus never would have done. It diverges a bit from the source which may upset the hardcore nerds, but most of us shouldn't have a problem. If you hated ROTK because there wasn't any Shire-burning action, this film may not be for you. Even when the story is a retread of material we've seen before, it's portrayed with freshness and vitality. We've seen a million werewolf transformations before, but this one still manages to scare. Even the time travel sequences, which I never liked in the book, are suspensful and exciting here. The whole movie is chock full of little details and touches that make it all the more interesting - the irising in and out, the changing of the seasons, the giant gears of the clock tower. The performances of Harry and co. are exponentially better than last time around. Daniel still isn't too good at emoting, but Emma in particular is absolutely note-perfect. She has a lot of moments like swatting away Harry's hand that ring true for anyone who's dealt with a teenage girl. All of the creatures and minor characters ring true in a way that the clunky CG creations of the earlier films never quite managed - everything from Buckbeak to Professor Trelawney's trance are portrayed with just the right mix of wonder and danger. One minor complaint is that the pacing at some points is a little too fast, especially at the beginning - Aunt Marge is barely on screen for five minutes before Harry's had enough of her. I could have done without the shrunken head as well. My only real complaint is a complete lack of any explanation to Harry about who the Marauders were. This is a HUGE plot point in later installments so I'm genuinely curious how they're going to do without it. Sorry I'm not very eloquent, it's 3 in the morning and I just got back from the theater. Edit: On further thought, there were a few other important plot elements that were missing, and some sequences (like the pivotal Harry and Sirius confrontation) felt rushed. In addition to the Marauders scene we don't get Dumbledore telling Harry that Trelawney's prediction is likely true. The new Dumbledore also isn't as good as Harris - I know some people didn't like Harris's old and haggard performance, but his voice was full of whimsy and his eyes practically twinkled with mischief. The new guy is pretty dull by comparison. Horseface fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Jun 4, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 08:24
|
|
|
I gave this film a 3 out of 5. I have to agree that it is pulled off in a much maturer and "darker" fashion than the first two films and the actors having mostly gone through puberty now are showing off what we can only hope to be a continuing trend of more adult performances and you can just about get a grasp of the characters they are portraying. (I have a long standing dislike of most child actors due to them just being crap mostly) However if you aren't a Harry Potter fan - IE haven't read the books - this film will make little sense plot wise. It jumps from scene to scene without much sensible linkage and misses so much of the background information its almost worrying - As has been said they don't explain the Marauders or the Map or how Lupin knows exactly how to use the map at all... You only understand if you've read the book. Still a decent movie however, and was bizarre going to see a packed out 10pm screening and still be sururrounded by dozens of kids and mothers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 10:41
|
|
|
I was very disappointed with the film. I really liked the first two movies, they kept well to the books, and although i dont mind making changes to create a better shorter story, this one added too much for me to really see it as good changes. The plot was Very lacking. They failed to explain some of the points in the movie (i.e. how did Sirius Black escape from Azkaban; how Lupin knew how to use the map; Hermionie's classes; etc.). It seemed to me that Alfonso Cuaron tried to create a legacy for himself, rather than for J.K. Rowling. Unlike many other people, i found the new Dumbledore to be very good. I was impressed that they didn't cast someone to play Richard Harris, but for someone to play Albus Dumbledore. I rated a 2 of five because the film was a hijacked travesty of the potential for a great film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 11:25
|
|
|
After seeing this i was greatly pleased with it. It did alot of things i've wanted to see in a Harry potter movie. And Buckbeak looked amazing, absoluley amazing. I agree with the already mentioned facts that the confrontation between sirius and lupin and pettigrew seemed a bit rushed, yet i guess reading the book helped me know what was happening during that scene more than people who were hearing this for the first time. The acting was good, and alot better than the other two movies in regards to the three main actors. And i thought it was a great role for David Thewlis as professor Lupin. I'm not sure how exactley to explain my some what over-exaggerated approval for this film, but during the entire thing i was mesmorized by what was on the screen, and was extremly happy with what i saw after it ended. Sure its not spot on with the book but it summed it up well for a 2 1/2 hour movie. If you have any questions after seeing it then go out and read the book, hell i think the audiobook is in BTB for those too lazy. final thought : Great movie that goes above the first two in my mind, highly recommnded. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 14:49
|
|
|
Went to the opening show... and I would say I did enjoy the movie. I have not read any of the Potter books, so I can give an untarnished review of the movie as it is. There ARE a few points that are unexplained, but I don't feel like they detracted from the movie per se (granted more fleshing out is something a book could and should afford to do) but I don't think it suffered because of it. The plot seemed fairly simple to me- I had seen no commercials or trailers for this beforehand, so I had no idea that werewolves were in the movie. Even so, I pieced it all together pretty quickly, there are many many clues as to what lies ahead in the story. The only thing I didn't figure out beforehand was the time travel bit; but even then once she pulled out the timepiece, I realized they'd go back and save the hippogriff. Even things like character names are obvious to what their purpose/fate may be, but I do realize this is meant for children to read and that they may not pick up on such things. The 'confrontation' did seem a bit rushed, and I agree that we should've seen the incident that put Sirius in prison in the first place, it would've made Harry's moral dilemna all the greater (assuming we saw it from the "false" perspective.) It moved at a decent pace, and for some reason I felt more of a "presence" of the school this time around even though they spent less time exploring it? All of the kids do well in their parts, although Ron still hams it up a bit too much with his despair and shocked outbursts. I also really liked the new mystic professor, she's handled like a crazy aunt like I think we all have. An enjoyable movie. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 16:59
|
|
|
There was only one serious problem with this movie: it's pacing. It was in a huge rush from beginning to end. Sometimes, cinematic shorthand is necessary, and even welcome. For instance, we don't need to see someone turning a door knob in order to know how they opened a door. However, it's use in this movie is excessive. Cuaron puts a lot of faith in the audience that they will understand where the story has been before. Anyone who hasn't seen the first two movies will be totally lost upon seeing this one. Every scene is rushed through, and very little explanation is given in what is happening and why. Still, as a fan of the series, I like most of the things Cuaron has done here. The cinematics are much improved, and the acting is as well. When coupled with its predecessors, it shows an exciting new direction. It is the shortest of the three, and it seems like it could have taken it's time some more, but fans should get it, and hopefully Cuaron will be given some more time if he makes the next one. Also, Did anyone notice that Neville Longbottom looks like he aged about 5 years from the last one? He looks completely different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 21:33
|
|
|
I didn't care for this movie much. Most of it seemed very choppy, too much was left out and your probably better off just reading the book. High points would be the special effects with Buckbeak. Hopefully their are a bunch of scenes to be added to the dvd. If they had done a three hour movie they could have gotten alot more emotion out of the quickly fliped through parts. I still recommend seeing it, but I hope they do a better job with #4. I wonder if the latter movies will play better for the people who don't read the books.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 22:27
|
|
|
I thought the first HP movie was OK and the second one was awful, so it's not too hard for the third installment to become my favorite so far. This is the first movie that actually feels like a "movie" and not just a recap of the book, although I'm not sure if that's due to the structure of the story itself or something accomplished by the screenwriter and director. Once again I was pretty lost at moments having never read the books, however those instances were few and far between as opposed to the first two movies where a bunch of random poo poo happened and then Dumbledore appeared at the end to explain everything that happened and why. I agree that the movie could have done well to be 20 or 30 minutes longer. When the "villain" finally appears the entire scene feels like it's being done in fast forward, with us meeting the bad guy and then the big plot twist happening in the space of about a minute. If this is the big thing that the whole movie turns on surely they could have devoted some more time to the whole thing. It would be like if we had never seen Darth Vader until Luke runs into him on the cloud city and then after fighting for a minute Vader tells Luke he's his father. Not much emotional resonance when we are given so little to go on. Still I think it's easily the best Potter movie so far, although there were plenty of places it could have improved. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 23:51
|
|
|
I just got back from viewing this. I enjoyed it, expecting it not to translate well to screen. The fact is there really isn't much to book 3 accept filling some holes and back story. I think they did a good job of that, I loved seeing a petronis cast. I also enjoyed the fact that it made more sense to me this time aorund because I skipped around when I read the book and this cleared up a few things. 4.0 Good effects, fun story, fun movie. Would of been 5 but there was a screaming child behind me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2004 04:19
|
|
|
The movie seemed very fast-paced. It moves along at a breakneck speed, trying to tell its entire story in just over 2 hours. The problem is, though, that this speed doesn't work well for the plot of the movie. You don't find out that there was a hearing about Buckbeak until after it happens, and then it's a "How did it go, Hagrid? Buckbeak's hearing?" line. Admittedly, that's a minor subplot, but it's something that seemed, to me, to be mirrored in the main plot (The scene with Sirius, Lupin, and Pettigrew in Hogsmeade is no more than 3 minutes long, with little explanation other than "Pettigrew sold out the Potters and so we should kill him") Aside from this, however, I thought the movie was decent. The CGI was pretty good - the Dementors really freaked me out, and Lupin's werewolf transformation is awesome, even though the finished product left much to be desired. Buckbeak was very well done, coming off as a very graceful yet extremely dangerous creature. As liquorhead mentioned, a lot of the characters have changed, notably Neville, Draco Malfoy, and Crabbe. Malfoy is a bit more intimidating, being much taller than Harry, and Crabbe seems to be less of "the big fat oaf that follows Malfoy around" and more of "the tall skinny oaf that follows Malfoy around". Neville's change is for the better as well, I think - he looks a lot more like I'd pictured him from the books. Obviously, there are a lot of things missing from the books. The entire quidditch season is cut from the movie, save for the scene where Harry falls off his broom because of the dementors. Hell, the event that caused Sirius' imprisonment in Azkaban is not even mentioned once in the movie. Things like this make me wonder if, had I not read the book first, if I would understand what was going on in the movie. Compounding this difficulty is the fact that Prisoner of Azkaban is only about 350 pages long (give or take). The next book in the series, Goblet of Fire, is about 800 - and I worry about how much of that will be able to be adapted into a 2.5 hour long movie. The good news is that Goblet of Fire has a very strong and driving plot, whereas I believe the plot of Prisoner of Azkaban was the weakest of all the books. Overall I'd give this movie a rating of 2 and a half stars out of 5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2004 04:46
|
|
|
I saw this with some friends in between work shifts this afternoon. I am a loving huge Harry Potter fanatic. I'd been keeping up on this movie for a while now, and everything I'd heard along the way was great. Then, it started getting great reviews, and I was pumped. And it definately didn't let down. Yes, it was very fast (I noticed this, but I think they handled plot changes/important points in the movie well enough that someone paying attention could follow along). The acting in this one is fantastic. The scenes with David Thewlis (Lupin) and Dan Radcliffe (Harry) were the best out of the series so far. Thewlis was amazing as Lupin. The script for this movie was 20 times better than the first two. And they added a lot of the humor that is in the books, the style of writing that JK Rowling uses. And the directing was at least 100 times better than the first two. It's such a relief to see a real director at work, and you realize that it does make a huge difference. There were so many times when I thought "Wow, that scene was done extremely well." Alfonso Cuaron is a genius. Mike Newell better not gently caress up the next one. I give this a 5/5. I will go see it probably another time or two in the theatre.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2004 05:11
|
|
|
I agree with everyone who said it moved quickly, but as a rule of thumb, I would rather something move too quickly than too slowly. I share the opinion that the first two movies were weak: too episodic and not centrally focused enough for my taste. They were literal translations of their source material and not interpretive translations (like, for instance, the LOTR movies were) and thus came across as fairly unremarkable or uninteresting. However, I found Prisoner of Azkaban to be compelling since it was driven by one major plot thread and only a couple minor ones. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2004 06:11
|
|
|
Prisoner is my second favorite of the books (with OOTP being my favorite) so this movie really disapointed me. I know its unrealistic to expect the filmakers to fit the whole book in 150 minutes of film, but I think they made poor choices on what to cut. These are the two ommissions that really bothered me. -Obviously, the whole Peter Pettigrew backstory is key. I didn't feel the same hatred for him at the end of the movie that I did at the end of the book. In the book he is painted a hero. The person who stood between Voldemort and the Potters and payed for it with his life. In the movie the story is just kinda dropped in your lap. -The fact that Harry's Mom, Dad, Peter and Sirius all are animagis and that they are like that because they cared for Lupin so much. This was one of my favorite portions of the book and one of the important points in the book. They loved Lupin so much that they all took part in his affliction in order to make him feel less like a monster. You really get a sense for the kind of people Harry's Parents were. It also makes you hate Peter even more. It's a loving double kick in the balls when they show the loving patronus that Harry conjurs (His father's animagis form). This was a serious ommisssion. There are others (Buckbeak and the Snape/Lupin side plot), but those didnt bother me as much as these. Goblet is my least favorite of the series; and, if I remember correctly, it seems to me the easiest to edit down. Nothing besides Voldemort's Return really happens in that book. There are the usual side stories, but nothing that will impact later years (or it would seem anyway, but I thought the same of COS), so I think it will make a good movie. OOTP however is all story. If this movie is any indication of how the editing process will go, I am really not looking forward to it. Also, Dumbledore was all wrong. Im not sure if this is because I associate Harris with the part, or if it really just wasnt right. Also, was it me, or was his wardrobe terrible this movie? He struck me as someone who should be in a tent, in the desert, selling genie lamps. 2.5/5 EDIT: Almost forgot. The one thing I really enjoyed this movie was the look of it. The set design and general atmosphere was really loving cool. That, to me, was the best part of the movie. The Jesus Fish fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Jun 5, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2004 06:36
|
|
|
Good movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2004 06:37
|
|
|
Just got back from seeing it tonight. I liked it alot, thought it was pretty darn good. It was very fast paced like others say, but considering that they left out many things from the book, they really had to scoot the movie along to have it finish in somewhat a reasonable time frame. Kinda similiar to the LOTR movies in that respect, the books have to be skimmed down a bit for a big screen adapation, so if it doesn't advance the main plot line, likely it's gonna be left out. All three of the main characters are worlds better now than they were in the first movie acting wise. (Although someone tell Ron he needs a new "scared" face.) If you are a Potter fan, you are sure to enjoy it, if you are not, theres a good chance you will anyways. Gave it a 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2004 06:40
|
|
|
For me, this one is 10x better than the first two combined. I absolutely loved all of the Harry Potter novels, but the first two films bored me almost to death. It was as if Chris Columbus was directing a staged reading of the script, with a few special effects inserts thrown in. All of the beauty and fantastic, whimsical nature of Rowling's prose was gone. THANK GOD FOR ALFONSO CUARON. The camera work was so beautiful and visually inventive that I think the film could have been played without sound and people would still find it interesting. John William's score has improved greatly. All of the kids' acting feels much stronger. The effects are so much more seemlessly integrated (no more talking-cut to static shot of the effect-talking). More of the book was cut out than in the previous films, but I think it was all necessary for the cinematic transition, and the essence of the story was much better captured than before. Finally, a Harry Potter movie that feels like a real movie. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2004 06:41
|
|
|
quote:The Jesus Fish came out of the closet to say: I agree. This Hogwarts was closer to what I imagined. The previous two were very clean and pruned, this one felt very much alive. The editing of this film (story-wise) was atrocious. You essentially have two and a half hours of bare plot points, with the occasional piece of real story. So much is missing from this movie that I honestly wonder how they expect GoF to be one film. There is a movie before Harry even GETS to school in that book! Overall, if you hate book to movie translations that aren't direct copies, I would avoid this. If you never read the book, or you don't care/understand why things are missing, I would go see it, maybe even twice. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2004 07:00
|
|
|
I agree with so many of the things said here, but it can't be stressed enough: The main problem with this installment was the editing. I think the editor (or director) need to learn that it is OK for people not to always be in some sort of dialogue or action. Sometimes just a bit of static can really build up emotion. An extra 30-40 minutes would have really helped this out. I still enjoyed it though. Great special effects (excluding Lupin, Acting was better but Dan still can't act for poo poo. I'm sorry, but all of his lines seem wooden and unemotional. He is supposed to be this confused, angry, trouble-making adolescent; instead he comes off as a whiny, bi-polar, static character who never seems very genuine. Like when he was riding Buckbeek. It seemed too much like Titanic when he put his arms out. His facial expressions didn't give the impression he was having a good time, he wasn't smiling and it looked like he was just not having a good time.. Emma was better, came off less snobish and Rupert was the nice comic relief he always was, with slightly improved lines. So there ya have it. The film was rushed--I don't know why the best book of the series (IMO) movie translation ended up having the shortest screen time, it can't possibly be for budget reasons and I don't think fans would mind at all sitting in their seats for another half an hour to get a more enjoyable experience out of it: 4/5. I'd like to give it a 4.25 because its just so close to being a very strong movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2004 08:03
|
|
|
I haven't read any of the books, so came to Azkaban, as with the previous installments, considering it mainly as a film franchise. The "spirit" of Hogwarts is still captured here, but is on display to a lesser extent that the first two films; whilst this is an area of contention for some HP fans, it's a necessary evolution of the series. We can't continue to go over the same old ground, and it's good to see that this movie is more structured than previous efforts. I don't agree with the original reviewer's complaints about the plot; I felt the pacing of the film moved things along well, and developed a richer, more complex storyline than the first two ever tried to approach. Much of the improvement must be laid at the feet of the new director. Columbus tended to go for the "safe" directorial style, whereas Cuaron isn’t frightened to take risks with the material. Of the three leads, Radcliff is hit-or-miss - he comes across as wooden much of the time, but I can see improvement. Emma Watson is the best thing going for the series; I can see her developing into a very good actress indeed. As for Grint, he again doesn't get anything particular meaty, so it's hard to judge. All in all, a great improvement over the previous two films, and Cuaron has shift the focus of the franchise in a new direction. I’m suddenly feeling compelled to pick up the books… 4/5. macman fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jun 5, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2004 21:06
|
|
|
The books are getting longer, the movies are not. This leads to alot of important details, events being left out, and gives the movie too fast a pace as they try to get everything left in (The last being the most important, as the dark feel of the movie is not supported by the pace). Also, the kid actors are not getting any better, they seem to be getting worst. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2004 21:31
|
|
|
I really did like the movie, I found it to be more artsy and the quality of the cg was stepped up quite a bit. Though, I must say that nothing beats the books.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2004 23:04
|
|
|
Cuaron was great. The movie looked and felt much better than the previous two. I am not a huge fan of the end of this book, but the movie was an excellent adaptation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2004 05:26
|
|
|
I never was one for Harry Potter. Why I've seen all three movies is beyond me, I couldn't even really make it far after the first book (I just wasn't that interested). The first movie was okay, but sort of dull, and the second was terrible, just simply awful. That's why I'm so suprised that I enjoyed this movie. Heck, I might go out and buy the book. Gone from the movie is the sort of static nature that Columbus had in movies. This movie is far faster paced, which, while some people see it as a flaw, I see it as much better. While some moments seemed like it was a bit rushed at points, or too long in some others, it seemed fine. The movie itself looks much better than the last two. There is a much more distinct and dark look to the movie. Its not Burtoneque, but it is far closer to Burton than it is to Columbus. It makes Hogwarts look far older in this one, and there is a larger focus on the lands surrounding. There's little Quidditch in this movie. That's good, because as much as it was a plot point in the book (as a friend said) in the movies the games weren't really that interesting. Maybe its just something far more interesting in the book. Acting has gotten better for the kids, though Harry is a bit too squinty (instead of acting). The adult cast is excellent, as always. This movie is far funnier than the other two, with sort of silly moments tossed in. A better script was made for this (or better source material). Overall, a 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2004 05:30
|
|
|
I've never read a Harry Potter book, don't intend to either. Out of sheer curiosity I decided to watch the first movie and really enjoyed it. The third installment, however, I did not. The into didn't really contain any of the cool Hogwarts tricks that past movies have except that lame bus. There was none of the background Hogwarts actions, like each of the houses goings about, or any decent quidage (spelling?) action. I could nit pick at all the little things that bothered me for hours, but once it got to the time travel sequence I just gave up. No real villian. No real conclusion. Too many cliches. I give it a 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2004 07:38
|
|
|
Solid adaptation, good acting, pretty good CGI, and all over entertaining. However, the fast pacing left me a bit dazed, and as mentioned before crucial plot points were either cut totally or glossed over. Nevertheless, I give it 4/5 stars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2004 16:15
|
|
|
It isn't the book. Even the first two were pretty cut up in places, due to time restrictions, and this time around it's twenty minutes shorter, where the book itself is longer. Cuts, changes, and all that were to be expected. That being said, it's still a good movie. I enjoyed it; my sister did not, but we both had very different expectations. If you want it to be the book only on the silver screen, you'll be very disappointed. I didn't really care much for how identical the first two were to the source material--what's the point of going to a movie if it's not going to be any different from the book? Where's the tension and suspense going to be when you already know every step of the way? I think that's really the key to this one. Don't expect an exact representation. Don't go in waiting for your favorite scenes because while some of them are there, some of them aren't. (The big flaw that really can't be overlooked, though, is the lack of explanation about the map and its connection to Harry's past. I'd rather have had that than the jive-talking shrunken head.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2004 17:36
|
|
|
quote:Kayumi came out of the closet to say:
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2004 20:32
|
|
|
You have to see this movie sans any expectations. Face facts, movies rarely if ever mirror the book you read, so either stop going to these movies or stop complaining. The movie's style was really appealing to me, it was a little darker, the characters being more mature. Some may criticize and say this film has moved away from the other two's more lighthearted style. I didn't really find it that long or that short, it seemed to make a nice concise story (for those of you who just had to have the book in movie form, you will undoubtedly be disappointed, things were removed). A good movie in itself, maybe not better than the former two, definitely still on the most part a kid's movie (duh) but worth seeing in theaters or renting when it comes out. Decent acting much like the last two, the story is interesting although maybe not as much as the first where things are new and unexpected. Great use of cg (womping willow shakes snow seemingly onto camera) and soundtrack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2004 20:58
|
|
|
As a huge fan of the books I am extremely disappointed at what Cuaron did to the series. hosed with the clothing, story, and created a retarded romance that is written nowhere in the book between Hermione and Ron. Still, I'll give it a 3.5
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2004 05:12
|
|
|
I went in expecting that the story would have been messed with. I honestly don't give a gently caress about that, it's not as though the story is GOSPEL. In fact, it was better because it wasn't so faithful. Few people seem to understand that interesting books don't necessarily translate into screenplays well, and Harry Potter is definitely an example of that. The largest problem with the first two movies was really the script, in my opinion. What counts is the fact that this movie completely made up for the first two movies. The script is far better, the acting is far better, and they got a decent director this time around. The general feel of this movie was so much better and it seemed to capture the essence of the book despite omitting a few "significant" plot points. 4/5. I'm not optimistic about the other movies, something tells me this is as good as it's going to get.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2004 05:29
|
|
|
I liked it. I thought it was a big move for the Harry Potter series. I have some beefs though on the placement of injuries. Harry's scar often changes places from the right side to the left side. Very stupid. Also Ron's injury to his left leg by Sirrus's bite, gets bandaged on his right. Very strange. I also do not like the yuppiness of the acters. It just gets on my nerves. Overall I'd give it a 4.5. Not groundbreaking and the events are a bit out of place but none the less entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2004 07:19
|
|
|
I went to the theater for Chamber of Secrets, which was an exercise in excruciating pain. Whatever the name of the second one it was so intolerable I shut it off after twenty minutes. I just remember being so annoyed by that lovely looking elf thing after being spoiled by Gollum. Mostly I was interested in seeing Prisoner of Azkaban because of director Alfonso Cuarón (loved Y Tu Mamá También), positive buzz, Gary Oldman, and it just seemed like it would be an entertaining fantasy film. I was not disappointed. It's been said before but the first film seemed like Disneyland. A bright, intense carnival with no purpose than to overwhelm you with bells and whistles. It put you in the mindest to where if you saw anything less than a massive firework show ending in a phoenix rising from the ashes it would be a major let down. Azkaban succeeds because Cuarón expertly crafts a world grounded in reality with lingering drifts of the supernatural, so when something magical does happen it's truly enchanting but at the same time believable. It's the same balance of the real and surreal that Peter Jackson so deftly handled with Lord of the Rings. Azkaban's true magic are the special effects. Never grinding the movie to a halt because of a poorly composited shot but always radiating that extra bit of otherworldiness crucial to the film's believability. The hippogriff takes a place next to Gollum as the most impressive computer generated character to ever grace film. Only with the werewolf and Sirius Black's canine form do the seams ever show. Even still the two creatures are realistic enough to keep the film working. The best special effects are the ones you never notice and Azkaban leaves me wondering how many of the beautiful vistas are the work of Cuarón's brush or ILM's brush, nonetheless gorgeous cinematography. The different locations shown throughout the film are particularly impressive. From high contrasted, jagged edges to vibrant forests and back again to interiors lit by soft, warm light the cinematography is a character unto itself. Cuarón effectively uses his environments to set the mood throughout the movie. His frequent use of the wide angle shot keeps the world of Harry Potter vast, and the feeling of Potter being stalked continuous. The kids give strong performances all around, including Radcliffe. Thewlis works well, as does Gambon. Oldman had the trickiest part to nail. His screen time is so limited he has to pull off a double back flip with a twist. Firstly he has to get the audience to fear his character, confuse the audience with his intentions, then finally land an exit as a likeable addition to the cast. He pulls that off well in the five or ten minutes he's in the film. Didn't get much of a feel for Thompson other than a bumbling, kook professor wearing comically huge glasses variating between comic relief and creepy. Overall a very enjoyable, enchanting tale I would recommend to others. Even has me interested enough to actually go out and read the books now. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2004 07:24
|
|
|
The movie started off very well. A darker mood was being set and the characters and plot seemed much more complex as was the case with the book. This is pleasant when comparing with the first two movies which seemed less complex as the the movie went along more like "this happened, then this happened, then this happened" rather than providing any depth. After the first half disappointment began to sink in. The scene in the Shrieking Shack terrified me in the book; I was extremely nervous while reading. This fear did not translate well in the movie. I felt the entire scene to be extremely anti-climactic. I was most disappointed with the fact that it was not explained who Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs were. Lupin just "knew" what the Marauder's map was somehow; this was never explained. I also thought it was incredibly stupid that it wasn't mentioned that Harry's patronus being a stag was significant. I was annoyed with the liberties he took with the dementors and their movements. They hovered in the book as though they were evil and ethereal creatures, whereas in the movie they flew. The Quidditch scene in which Harry was chased by the dementors was ridiculous. It would have been much more appropriate to stick to the book having Harry fall off of his broom only later to discover that the dementors had come onto the pitch. As I said, to its credit, the film took on a much more complex plotline and eerie, foreboding mood, though this seemed to have been lost toward the end. The characters have matured and the acting has improved exponentially. I give the movie a 4. I rather hope that the Goblet of Fire will be much better. Renegade Crisper fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jun 7, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2004 21:28
|
|
|
As befits the best of the first three books, this movie is the best directed one so far, in acting and imagery. The twinkly, shiny novelty of the settings are finally, finally played down. The area around Hogwarts is explored, making it feel like a real location with real topography around it. The main actors are, thankfully, aging really well. Cuaron creates a realistic milieu for the story to take place in by, among other things, often dressing the young actors in their own clothes. The story has a very accessible 'mystery' feel to it instead of being dominated by a 'magical hijinx' aspect like before. The downside to the movie is that we completely speed through the ending- everything should have been explained at a nice, leisurely pace. Things are missing and glossed over- even the pretty important plot point of Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs is just not explained, even though there were at least two perfectly good chances to do so. It made me think that there is an Abyss-style extended cut that we don't know about (even though that's kind of a silly idea since the first two movies were longer than this one- there's no excuse).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2004 05:29
|
|
|
I watched it Sunday, it's a great film. It holds the first two down and rapes them in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2004 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
In my opinion, they could have easily cut out pointless parts of the movie (the scene where the bus squeezes through two larger busses in traffic) and added more into the story and pacing (explaining the relationship of lupin/pettigrew/black/potter). By ending the movie without the customary awarding of the house cup, it didn't really feel like the school year ended. Although there were a lot of things that were done well in this film, it tried so hard to break from the mold of the other two, that a lot of the time it didn't feel like harry potter. It also seems like they made this movie for people who havent read the books. Building up to a climatic plot twist that people who read it already saw coming. Thats not neccessarily a bad thing, just something to keep in mind if you have read it. It was rather boring for me because of this. Nonetheless, it was by no means a bad movie. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2004 20:15
|
|