Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
960x544 | 2770.89 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x292 | 1550.54 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x240 | 740.22 MiB | divx | |
|
480x192 | 625.32 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x132 | 309.21 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Something wicked this way comes.
Have you seen this wizard? Approach with extreme caution! Do not attempt to use magic against this man!
Everything will change
The time has come
Cast Your Spell In IMAX
Mysteries will unfold
Secrets will be revealed
Character will be tested
Darkness will descend
It's Harry's 3rd Year at Hogwarts, not only does he have a new "Defense against the Dark-Arts" teacher, but there is also trouble brewing. Convicted murderer Sirius Black has escaped the Wizards Prison, is coming after Harry.
| Rupert Grint | Ron Weasley |
| Daniel Radcliffe | Harry Potter |
| Gary Oldman | Sirius Black |
| Richard Griffiths | Uncle Vernon |
| Pam Ferris | Aunt Marge |
| Fiona Shaw | Aunt Petunia |
| Harry Melling | Dudley Dursley |
| Adrian Rawlins | James Potter |
| Geraldine Somerville | Lily Potter |
| Lee Ingleby | Stan Shunpike |
| Lenny Henry | Shrunken Head |
| Jimmy Gardner | Ernie the Bus Driver |
| Jim Tavaré | Tom the Innkeeper |
| Robert Hardy | Cornelius Fudge |
| Abby Ford | Young Witch Maid |
| Chris Columbus |
| Alfonso Cuarón |
7.70 out of 10 (104519 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Very disappointing ... (think of 'Batman and Robin')
posted on 26 Aug 2009I went to see the film with five small children (ages 6 to 9) ... while they all quite enjoyed it, none of them enthused about it, which is pretty damning given the huge success of the first two films.My immediate impression at the start of the film was one of poor photography, with all the color knocked back. This was presumably intended to create a gloomy impression, but just made things look less realistic and, because the colour/lighting was the same throughout, any chance of using these to emphasis mood where appropriate was lost.Consistency of settings was poor, in that the settings around Hogwarts used in this film differ quite markedly from the first two films, and seem less faithful to the books. There appears to have been a failed attempt to create the sense of oppression (called for in the story) by making the settings shabby/grim rather than attempting to demonstrate it through the dialogue/acting.The acting generally was fine (I particularly liked professor Trelawny, but Sirius Black was also good, even if a more haggard appearance would have helped) ... but the actors were not given much of a script to work with, character and tension building conversations being omitted in favour of quick jumps between action sequences, leaving the audience uninvolved/unmoved by the special effects. This omission of psychological depth in the scripting in favour of action, to the point where the action becomes meaningless, is the reason that the awful 'Batman and Robin' film springs to mind. The attempts to show the psychology of the story were generally heavy handed and perfunctory and thus counterproductive. Some elements made no sense unless you had read the book (in which case they served as reminders to threads of the plot left out of the file), while others were actually wrong (eg. Harry seeing the Grim in the clouds) in that they created a different impression from that in the book.After the reviews I had read/heard, this film was very disappointing. The impression most reviews give is that the film is dark and scary, but the darkness is just in the photography, not the atmosphere, and the uninvolving nature of the script/production prevents even good special effects being at all scary ... the kids watched it pretty impassively ... no jumps or clenching of tightly held hands etc.
This is what bugs me most (spoiler)
posted on 26 Aug 2009And don't you dare tell me that if I wanted it to be like the book I should get an audio book - there are some things that shouldn't be changed!Sirius was supposed to be handsome! Or at least resemble a man once handsome! Lupin was supposed to be a cool teacher - and wear shabby robes, not ugly, crusty pants that my boyfriend's DAD wouldn't even wear!And I realize for time management they can't make things exact, but adding that blabbering head was just completely pointless. The scene was difficult enough to follow with the speed - you don't need that making things worse!Hermione is supposed to have flaws. ALL of the movies had made her too perfect - she takes all of Ron's lines making her a Mary Sue - and they turned Ron into a total coward. There's no need for that. For those who don't know - RON tells Sirius even with his broken leg that to get to Harry they'd have to kill him first. Ron saved Hermione from that Troll without her dictating to him how to use it from under the sink in the first movie - HE was the one that didn't freak out and lose it when that plant was strangling them and same for Chamber of Secrets Hermione had no idea what a MudBlood was. The girl needs to have a few imperfections and they may as well call it "Hermione Grainger and her sidekick Harry and his cowardly sidekick Ron"Back to the current movie: It's titled the Prizoner of Azkaban. Why is this prisoner only getting 10 minutes of screen time?
Shockingly different...
posted on 26 Aug 2009The first two HP films are children's fairytales, but part three is a dark,mysterious thrill ride.[possible spoilers]The Good:--Daniel, Emma, and Rupert are great. They were charming kids in the first two
films, and they are fascinating teenagers in this film.--More scenes with the "other" kids, notably the Weasely twins.--Alan Rickman gets a bit more to do as Snape, to great effect.--Gary Oldman is well-chosen to play Sirius Black, although the role is small.--The visual effects are brilliant, particularly the Dementors and the Hippogriff.--Lovely score by John Williams.The Bad:--Minerva McGonagall is largely absent.--The Quidditch is chopped way down.--Richard Harris' Dumbledore is sadly missed.--No explanation of the Marauder's Map's creators, or the significance of Harry's
Patronus.The Ugly:--The opening scene resembles a home movie, with camera wobbles and unpleasant
swoops, although Aunt Marge blew up quite nicely.--The film ends on an artificial "happy" note (as did Chamber of Secrets), strangely
lacking in gloom and foreboding of evil, considering the dangerous events of the
previous evening.All in all, it's entertaining and bears repeat viewings, despite the missing chunks of
the story. I'll rate it 8 of 10, with a strong recommendation to read the book.
My Favorite Harry Potter So Far
posted on 26 Aug 2009This is my favorite Harry Potter movie so far. I have to admit I only read the first book. And I read the first book after I had already seen the first movie. So I think it kind of spoiled it for me. So I haven't read any of the other books.But I have made a point to see each movie that has come out. And I think the Prisoner of Azkaban was better - and more scary - that the first two.I also liked the addition of Gary Oldman and David Thewlis to the cast. And I think Michael Gambon does a wonderful job taking his role over from Richard Harris. The only cast member who bothered me was Emma Thompson - she didn't seem to fit it. The minute her character came on the screen I thought "Oh, theres Emma Thompson" - I came out of the fantasy and into reality. And I think Director Alfonso Cuarón did a wonderful job with his direction.My favorite special effects were The Dementors, who are pretty dern frightening just in themselves. They are pretty ugly scary creatures, enough to give small children nightmares.But all in all, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite Harry Potter movie so far.
Alfonso Cuarón ruined this movie!
posted on 26 Aug 2009Book 2 is my least favorite of the books, but this Azkaban was completely ruined by Alfonso Cuarón. He has characters acting out of character and crammed the movie together without sufficient explanation or character development. Most of his "cute" bits were just plain stupid.I read that he got the director of the fourth movie to do the entire book in one movie. If this is true, then he not only ruined the third movie, but the entire rest of the series. Boiling in oil would be too kind in this case.Oh well, give it a decade and the remake will be out. With this dog, it almost certainly has to be better, even though Cuarón had almost the perfect cast to work with. What a loser!
Almost there...
posted on 20 Aug 2009Well... For starters: I liked it very much. It has a kind of darkness to it we haven't seen in a Harry Potter movie before. The only reason i give a 9 instead of 10 is because you notice certain changes. Perhaps because there a new director... But you still use the first 15 min. to find the spirit of the film. I'm sorry that A. Cuarón does not hit the same stile as the first 2 Harry Potter films, but it is a fresh new angle and whether you like it or not IT WORKS. That said... Enjoy the best Harry Potter movie to this date...
Almost Brilliant
posted on 20 Aug 2009Personally for me the third movie was definitely the best out of the three. I think it also helped that the third book was my favorite. It also helped me understand the movie a lot more although if you haven't read the 3rd book then i suggest you do after or before you see it, because it helps you to appreciate the story more. There are a lot of people complaining about the acting which i did not have much of a problem with. Rupert(Ron) was there for comic relief, did not do much other wise, but that was his main outline in the book as well so i thought he did fantastic. Daniel(Harry) has definitely improved a lot from the first two films, he has learned to put a lot of emotion but not over the top. Emma Watson(Hermione)has developed the most since the first 2 because b4 she was over exaggerating her acting in her words and actions which now seemed to have diminished. Rickman(Snape),Smith(Mcgonagall),Coltrane(Hagrid) had minor rolls in the movie but they were the same as the first 2. Although Rickmans part has evolved.The new additions of Thewlis(Lupin), whom i thought captured Lupin very well with his weird hand gestures to his slow,calm tone.Oldman(Black), Very well done at making him look gross and scary.Spall(pettigrew),excellent, really did disgust me!!Gambon(Dumbledore), looked almost exactly like the late Harris, except he was more mysterious. Thompson(Trelawney),done well she had the whole appearance of the crazy,weird divination teacher.Felton(Malfoy), I found he did an excellent job but i don't think his character's emotions were right.He came across as a scared little sissy,who seemed to run away screaming in most of his scenes, like when he's attacked by the hippogriff(though very comic scene)and when Hermione went at him and when harry through a snowball at him. Yes he should have been scared but he is a Malfoy,he's supposed to act like nothing scares him,especially not girls!! The CG effects i thought were well done especially, Buckbeak he really looked as though he was real. The whooping willow was done a lot better in this movie, definitely more effective. I really like the look of the werewolf as well, very eerie glad they made him thin and hairless unlike most werewolves you hear about.As for the set i thought is was very realistic, didn't like the fact that the most of the grounds had changed. I wish they would have used the same location for the first two.During the film i also didn't like how the movie kept fading to a black screen for scene change!!Overall the movie was enjoyable, excited to see the next one since there will be a new director as well. If you haven't seen it I suggest you do, it is a lot darker and has more emotion than the first two!! It is also less like the book than the first two, but so far this movie has been my favorite!! Hope you enjoy it!!!!!!
The Best of a Great Series
posted on 16 Aug 2009Harry Potter 3 is the best of the series as it, like the book before it, takes on a much more darker tone as Harry finds himself the target of one of Voldemort's loyal supporters, the evil Sirius Black.This more than any in the series before it had the potential to go seriously wrong as this is the first of the Potter stories to really have more threads than the obvious ones of Harry's immediate quest. However Alfonso Cuaron has done a great job of making sure that these endings are ( mostly ) tied up while at the same time making sure that the main story is not slowed down or lagging.The performances of all of the children actors are good, but it is the supporting cast of the adults that really makes this shine. Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane are great in their return as the vindictive Snape and the rough diamond Hagrid respectively, while Michael Gambon, while not having the same presence as the late Richard Harris in the role of Albus Dumbledore, adds something of a twinkle that Harris seemed to struggle with in number two, perhaps because of his illness. Out of the newbies, David Thewlis is fantastic as Remus J Lupin and Gary Oldman is also very good as the enigmatic Sirius Black.Perhaps the last thing that lifts this movie over the others is the special effects, or rather the lack of them. Cuaron has made the use of magic in this one less like a laser show and it gives the whole thing a more intimate atmosphere instead of the slight heavy-handedness of the first two.Prisoner of Azkaban is a movie that is inundated with great performances that, coupled with great, subtle directing lifts it above the other two. I just hope Goblet of Fire is just as good.
The Film maker's aspect of the wondorous world of Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban
posted on 16 Aug 2009The mise-én-scene of Harry Potter Happiness can be found, in the darkest of times, if one simply remembers to turn on the light. Welcome to the magical world of Harry Potter! Our feature presentation is Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban, directed by Alfonso Cuarón. It is Harry's third year at Hogwarts school of Witchcraft and Wizardry. He is a thirteen year old boy, shaping his future while learning more and more about his dark and heroic past. "A true kid's classic is just as magical for adults. " Says Peter Rainer of the New York Magazine. But just how was it created so that adults sit spell bounded in their seats. Enchanted….... Charmed….... Bewitched….... If it weren't for the excellent use of mise-én-scene, it probably wouldn't be the same. No, my fellow Harry Potter fan, mise-én-scene is not a spell, nor is it the name of a character or actor. It is the thaumaturgy of the director and the Director of Photography; it is the sum and substance of the directors' wits that draws you attention to the screen. Mise-én-scene was originally a French theatrical term that meant "placing on stage". It is the use of many different elements in movies, kind of like painting a picture on the closed space of the canvas and placing objects appropriately where they belong. Some elements of mise-én-scene amongst the hundred of others used on the set of Harry Potter are composition and design, territorial space, and the superb use of proxemic use of proxemic patterns.Composition and design refer to the systematic placement of people, places, lights, camera, and objects. The human eye attempts to harmonize the elements of a composition into a unified whole. The director takes advantage of this fact by strategically lighting different parts of an image, guiding our eyes to the dominant, which attracts our eyes with its compelling contrast. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson), embark upon a journey neither one wished to take, leading to their finding out more and more about Harry's "criminal, murderous" Godfather, Sirius Black (Gary Oldman). In one of the final scenes, the audience's eyes are carefully guided from Harry's face of shock, to Hermione's face of absolute fear, to Ron's face of mingled pain and surprise and finally to the cause of their reactions --- Sirius Black, who wears a maniacal glow and a wicked smile on his unsightly face. He really does look like a murderer! How close should the camera get to the subject? Or how close should we get to the subject, since our eyes identify with the camera lens. Space is one of the principle methods of communication in all films. The way people are arranged in space tell a lot about their emotional, social, and physical relationships. Harry has yet to find out who his Godfather really is; he thinks or rather the whole world knows his Godfather to be a murderer. The first time Harry meets, or more exactly encounters his Godfather, they keep quite a distance. Harry stands at on end of the room while Sirius stands at the other end of the room. The spacing suggests a distant or scared relationship between the two main characters. Harry is positioned, standing in a quarter turn, with a high degree of intimacy but less emotional involvement. Sirius is shown with his back towards the camera, conveying a sense of mystery and concealment.Harry stands ten feet away from Sirius at their first meeting; both look hateful and full of vengeance. Neither knows why the other hates him, but the rest of the movie makes us understand Harry's anger. Sirius remains a complete mystery until the end, where he and Harry find out and clarify the truth about their odiums. As the movie ends, Sirius and Harry stand beside each other, exchanging words of comfort and relief. Harry has just rescued "an innocent man from a terrible fate", and their two-minute talk ends the tension between them. Harry now regards Sirius as a mix between a father and a brother and comes to love him like no one else. The proxemic patterns or relations of organisms within a given space, give us a commentary on what each character feels, without them having to tell us anything. Harry and Sirius start from being bitter enemies in a public space, to uncovering their true relationship as Godfather and Godson in a personal space.Mise-én-scene ……. Harry Potter……. Director Alfonso Cuarón enchants us, bewitches us, charms us by the use of mise-én-scene . We see Harry's point of view and then Sirius's. When they become Godfather and Godson again, we feel happy and elated for both of them. We witness and feel the human trials and triumphs that they go through. We watch Harry turn into a true hero despite the "Double, double, toil and trouble." Get ready for a bumpy ride!!!
Better mood, less story
posted on 14 Aug 2009Warning right away that I may say something that might reveal plot. Overall, though, I think that this third installment was a good installment.I agree with a lot of the criticism that I've heard in person. I think there is too much background missing from the movie. I've read the book twice and if I hadn't, I know there are places I would not have understood. However, if you can get past the stunted moments where you feel like great long scenes are missing, you'll find a gem of a movie. The new dark style is right for the introduction of the dementors. All of the effects are awesome and the overall feel of the movie is consuming and interesting. The new director doesn't tell the story with the same finesse as Columbus did, but he does accomplish a style that compliments Rowling's original copy.
Best adaptation of the spirit of Harry Potter
posted on 14 Aug 2009This movie was most clearly better adapted from the previous Harry Potter films not because of being true to the book, but the spirit. What struck me the most of what was wrong with the first two were that they were *too* close on following JK Rowling's Harry Potter, and left the wow factor at that, save for the pause-to-awe of the awesome magic that really made the films too childish and stupifying. This film weaves the magic throughout the experience and causing wizardry to be more normal and casual, helping to add to the darker, more adult act. I was especially pleased by Gary Oldman's Sirius Black, in fact most out of the new characters added to Harry Potter. The actors for Peter Pettigrew and Prof. Trelawney was passable, and the acting for Prof. Lupin was a good choice. This was definitely the best of the three so far, but unfortunately I will be happy to see the director skip HP 4, because of this history that he would go over many of the very significant plots of the book.
Family movie with guts? Oh Oh, things look brighter...
posted on 12 Aug 2009I've read and heard many stories about Rowling wanting, before Columbus took charge, Gilliam as a director for a Harry Potter movie. Sure it would have been great... but didn't come true (as many dreams about the movie industry..).But hurray, miracles happen! With Alfonso Cuaron we have here the closest possible thing to a Gilliamesque version of HP given the circumstances. And the funny thing is it's not even with Gilliam's cinematographer Roger Pratt (who was actually responsible for the second HP's wonderful visuals, contrasting with the poor storytelling and awkward direction common to the first two movies). Michael Seresin (Alan Parker's cinematographer) was an excellent choice, and was quite up to the task. I was glad to see what he did with all these ambitious complicated "dancing" steadycam shots (very similar to Gilliam's and Jacksons') that Cuaron threw at him and the operators... The visuals are splendid. So is the pacing, which is the very best I've seen in a long time in a "commercial" movie. This pacing is like music. So much that Williams gives what may be his best work ever, probably because the editing had already done half the job for him... Excellent humour, too. This housekeeper at the door really got me, so did the "book of monsters", with a nod to Evil Dead III's "flying Necronomicon"... Actually nods to cult movies are everywhere if you take the time to look for them (noticed the character out of "Young Frankenstein" for example?)...All in all a very, very enjoyable movie for almost everyone, pop-corn eaters and (non-snobbish) cinephiles alike.Are these cynical executives actually learning, at last? The mass-consumption movie production seems to make sensible steps towards a reasonably intelligent and tasteful approach of cinema for the masses... Jackson hired for LOTR, Raimi for Spiderman, Singer for X-men, Cuaron for HP, Gilliam for Brothers Grimm... signs of the times? I certainly hope so.It was more than time that real storytellers and real movie makers get these "big money" jobs. Now there is a -tiny- chance that the movie industry starts producing blockbusters with taste and brains.Cuaron, my god, such a gift for pacing and liveliness, for energy and precision, bravo, bravissimo, I'll go and rent every movie from this guy. Now to be a GREAT director, he should get more involved with the inner world of the characters... Here, only Thewlis really "gets through" (sorry: Pam Ferris does too actually). The rest of the cast, well, look like.. well... actors doing their job. Could be on purpose, though. I'll have to look at Cuaron's previous works to know for sure.8/10
At last, a Harry Potter movie
posted on 06 Aug 2009I have to confess that when my three young sons insisted on taking me to the latest Harry Potter incarnation, I thought it would be a good opportunity to catch up on a bit of sleep. Having read the two previous books and endured the subsequent films, an afternoon of shopping would have even sounded more appealing. So imagine my surprise when I left the theatre having thoroughly enjoyed this most recent episode. Now I don't care that it didn't follow the book exactly, this was a movie. It had a decent script, developed the characters so that I actually cared about them and moved along at a pace that didn't have me reaching for a pillow. Sure there are flaws, Daniel Radcliffe will not win an Oscar and Michael Gambon, though good, did not have the same presence or charm of Richard Harris. However, it is rattling good entertainment and when the time comes for me to shell out £15 on the DVD, I shall do so with a bit more grace.
Best of the three made so far
posted on 06 Aug 2009While I would have liked to see better explanation of the Marauders, I really think this one is a superior movie to the first two. The kids are all getting better, and the CGI this time was wonderful. Buckbeak was breathtaking. The patronus was so well done, and the imagery was just beautiful.Whoever's responsible for casting is to be commended. Gary Oldman, Emma Thompson absolutely wonderful in their roles, but David Thewlis just blew me away, he was ..I'm at a loss for words... stunning, perfect and amazing don't cover it.
horrible...below my expectations
posted on 06 Aug 2009not at all like the book, why does harry use magic in the beginning of the movie?, why doesn't the new Dumbledore actor at least act like dumbledore?, why does snape use an electric projector?, why are they always in muggle clothes? AND TOO MUCH INFORMATION WAS LEFT OUT, JEEZE, if you haven't read the book you wont be able to follow it at all, so if u haven't read the book, don't waste your time and money with this movie. i prefer christopher columbos more than the new guy, i mean seriously, hes changed the WHOLE story around. it barely looks like harry potter nemore. he wears goggles for the quidditch match...seriously, MUGGLE goggles...and they're in the forbidden forest so often. i think the new director alfonso should have at least looked at the 2 previous harry potter movies to KNOW what the harry potter storyline is. um what else is there...oh ya, the scene where daniel radcliffe was crying, possible the worst crying scene i have seen in my...past 2 weeks.
liked it better than the first two movies ** slight spoilers
posted on 02 Aug 2009The first thing I'd like to say is I'm a huge fan of the books and after viewing the movie more than once, I am so happy with the final product. Prisoner is my favorite book our of the whole series. To be honest, I read everyone's review of the movie before actually seeing it and the basic message I got was to enjoy the movie as a movie and leave out all comparisons from the book. This worked and made me enjoy the movie.*On Acting* There were so many things to be happy about. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson did an excellent job portraying Harry, Ron and Hermione. They were better this time around than in Sorcerer's Stone or Chamber of Secrets. I could feel the angst coming from Harry. I was surprised and glad with Radcliffe's screaming "He was their friend!" scene. Superb acting from David Thewliss and Gary Oldman - they nailed their parts down. Sirius's speech in the Shrieking shack was intense. I was glad the new Dumbledore was a little more "mad" this time round. Alan Rickman's Snape of course was true to form. If given a chance to show how unfair Snape really is in the books on screen, the audience will probably hate the character even more. Emma Thompson as Professor Trewlawney was perfect. Loved it.*On Directing* Enjoyed the directing. I was left with distinct images - the frozen and dying flowers as dementors passed, the transitions between scenes and the like. I liked the new look of Hogwarts even though it wasn't what I initially imagined when I read the books.On whole, the movie was a lot better than the first two with the directing and improved acting of the main characters. The special effects were average. I was glad everyone was using their wands for light. I was not exactly impressed with the Patronus and I thought the werewolf could have been done better. Perhaps I'm just spoiled with fantastic special effects from Lord of The Rings.I give the movie thumbs up. Looking forward to owning this on DVD as well as the 6th book.
MAJOR plot points left out
posted on 02 Aug 2009Listen, I understand that to make a movie from a book you have to leave things out. However, I believe that if a movie is going to made from a book, it should stand on its own. Meaning that you should be able to follow the movie if you haven't read the book. I have read the book, but I saw the movie with people who had not. And we got out of the movie and they were thoroughly confused. And I don't blame them, because the movie failed to explain (1) how Sirius Black escaped from Azkaban, (2) how he knew that Pettigrew was Ron's pet and therefore at Hogwarts, and (3) who the 4 Marauders were so it was confusing that Lupin understood what the map was and how it worked. This is just sloppy film making. Add a few lines here and there and it's explained. I can live without the Quiddich and the subplots from the book, but when I have to spend 15 minutes explaining things to people after the movie, the movie is a failure.
Disappointing
posted on 29 Jul 2009I was very much looking forward to seeing this movie because, although I haven't liked any of the movies as much as the books, they were still pretty good. However, this one left out too many important details from the book. I sat in the theater, bored and rolling my eyes. They focused too much on things that weren't important to the book and didn't stick to the story enough. Some key elements of the story aren't included in the movie, which was aggravating. I am aware that some things needed to be cut for time purposes, but there were things in the movie that weren't in the book. They could easily have left those things out and gotten the story right. It was pretty disappointing.
Feels more like "Three Go to Hogwarts" - no magic.
posted on 29 Jul 2009This film has no sparkle to it. The book which contains Oliver Wood's finest hour has hardly a mention of Quiddich when transferred to screen.The horrifying scene when Ron is attacked in his bed by a maddened Sirius seeking Scabbers/Pettigrew has been dispatched without a backward glance. The knife-slashed curtains have been abandoned as unimportant. Pettigrew never appeared on the Marauder's Map.Hagrid's hut across the lawns at the edge of the Dark Forest somehow manages to cling precariously to the side of a cliff. This will cause MAJOR problems when filming books four and five where important events happen at speed between the castle doors and Hagrid's hut.It must really have taken some doing to make Julie Christie look like a secretary - they couldn't have made Madame Rosemerta look less like a pub landlady if they'd tried. What happened to the 'sparkly high-heels'?! And - for heaven's sake - couldn't some middle ground have been found so that the children could have had a butterbeer in the pub instead of lurking in the doorway?! How are they going to set up the DA (Dumbledore's Army) in 'The Order of the Phoenix' in the 'Hog's Head'? That can't be tampered with - it's a vital part of the plot.And a word about casting - and for this I'm on a planet of my own! Gary Oldman is a wonderful, accomplished actor who puts his heart and soul into everything he does. But Sirius he isn't. Sirius was the last of a long line of aristocrats. He was outrageously goodlooking with easy, graceful manners and abundant self-confidence. Azkaban made him a nervous wreck but it didn't turn the Scarlet Pimpernel into Gary Oldman. It also worries me a bit how they're going to change the nerd in the Mirror of Erised into the Snitch-twirling, show-off James Potter who 'roolz the skool'!I agree that there was a need for a different approach from that Chris Columbus employed - Harry does need to grow up. But he needs to grow up 'magically'. There doesn't seem to be a lot of difference in approach between Uncle Vernon and some of the wizards in PoA the Movie. Lastly, special effects. Why ARE they so patchy in the HP movies? Buckbeak was stupendous - absolutely fantastic. Lupin's werewolf was abominable - it looked like something out of a cheap cartoon. The Dementors are, I think, a matter of opinion. They depend largely on what you saw in your head when you read the book. Personally, I would have found them far more threatening if they had been more like the 'Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come' in the old black and white version of 'Scrooge' (Alister Simm). Check it out if you're under 105 - it's gruesome!
The Best Potter Yet!!!
posted on 28 Aug 2009I am a huge Harry Potter fan and I loved the first two films.When I heard that they got a new director(Alfonso Cuaron) for the third installment I was worried,but I must say I worried over absolutely nothing.Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban begins when Harry(Daniel Radcliffe) accidentally blows up his Uncle Vernon's sister like a balloon after she makes an off-color remark about his parents.Wrapped in anger Harry runs away.Through various trials Harry makes it back to the wizarding world,and is reunited with his friends,to learn that a dark wizard named Sirius Black(Gary Oldman),who followed Voldermort,has broken out of Azkaban(a wizard prison) and is out to kill Harry.When Harry returns to school he meets an old friend of his fathers,while he learns more about Sirius Black learning he is his godfather and that he betrayed his parents,angering Harry.Throughout the film Harry battles these dark,hooded creatures known as Dementors,he prepares for a confrontation with Sirius Black,and battles his own inner demons.Overall this film is much darker,and more serious in tone than the first two,which in my opinion has only made it better.Once more the cinematography,special effects,and production design is superb and definitely creates this believable fantasy world,although the look of the film is different it fits the darker story,and I even prefer this film's look at times to the first two.That isn't all that is different,John Williams is back this time,but tries something that is much more darker and a little less playful,and it works helping to create this amazing fantasy.Once again the acting is great,although their is a new Dumbledore(in Michael Gambon).What really is the show stealer is the directing,Chris Columbus has stepped down as director and Alfonso Cuaron takes his place at the helm of this franchise and he does an amazing job.Cuaron takes the dark tone of the story and sells it to the audience while still retaining much of the look of the first two,just adding on.Cuaron also transforms the three leads into teenagers in this film and expands their characters even further.Cuaron and screenwriter Steve Kloves definitely need a huge pat on the back for the time turner sequence.This third outing in Harry's world is darker,and at times scarier than the first two.I find it hard to believe this got by with a PG rating.The kids have now grown up into rebellious teenagers and are now handling more mature themes and adult problems thus adding to its darker tone.Its darker tone in fact actually makes it better and more enjoyable.With more character development than previous entries,just as many laughs,more emotion,and more heart than the first two,this film is the best entry in this franchise so far.A superbly perfect: 10/10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!