Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban - I was very disturbed when I saw the movie! I was hoping that it wouldn't be too bad since Chris Columbus wasn't directing it, but my hopes were left dangling.

I am a big fan of Harry Potter...the books at least. I loved the last 2 movies, but this third one has destroyed my most favorite book of the whole series.

My parents were confused and they didn't understand what was going on. I had to explain things to them in the car.

Let me say this: Some important details were left out:
-No one revealed who really created the Marauders Map...my parents asked me how Pro. Lupin knew how to use it!
-Sirius B. never had tattoos or symbols on his chest in the book. They added that for effect. Not good at all if you want to take things that far.
-The choir sounded nice, but there was never one at Hogwarts in the book.

The graphics were not good at all. The only things I liked were the Dementors...nicely portrayed.

I do not like this movie and it has discouraged me from watching the fourth one at the movie theater. I do hope the Chris Columbus realizes how bad the movie was and I hope he directs the next ones after The Goblet Of Fire is out in June.

Read the book...of course, it is better than the movie.

Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban - The third book now converted into a serious film is good, although nothing special. The scenes have a noticeably darker and gothic setting, things are certainly more serious as some mysteries are being revealed. The cast and acting is quality as you'd expect. The film is worth seeing, but I don't think much more than a rent.
I definitely think future films are going to be far more exciting than this book as more happens in the next ones.

Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban - The first film was o.k., the second better, and the third even better. Yes, Chris Columbus did instill a sense of wonder and magic into the films but certainly not enough darkness and gravitas. Hogwarts has been given new momentum and I think it is definitely an improvement.

Of course important things are left out which leaves you wishing once again that they had done it as a tv series with each episode as a chapter.

There is the usual over-dramatisation as well to make events seem more exciting than they are.

However sometimes I feel they deserve a little poetic license and I can't argue with the delightful addition to the time-turner scene where Hermione throws a stone at herself.

Overall, I feel the change in director was a good move. Also the acting is much better than in the first two and Daniel Radcliffe is finally getting better.

The thing that brought the score down the most is that of course this film is a tawdry comparison with the books and nothing can compare with your own image of Hogwarts - for example I know that Sirius Black is big and beefy not small and scrawny as in the film. But you can't satisfy everyone.

***WARNING: SPOILER INFORMATION IN REVIEW Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Length of film: 141 mins
Rating: PG
Director: Alfonso Cuar n
Writer: Steven Kloves

"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is a really great movie. It's got loads of great special effects and the actors are really good. I really recommend it. It's really awesome.
The movie's synopsis is about a boy called Harry (Daniel) who's a wizard and his two best friends, Ron (Rupert) and Hermione (Emma). They get up to all sorts of adventures that are really fun to watch. In this movie, there is a new bad guy who is not all he appears to be. Harry thinks this bad guy is out to kill him, but realises at the end of the movie, that this is not the case and that the bad guy is not really a bad guy. He's actually a good guy who's been mistaken for a bad guy all along.
This movie is really great and I would recommend you go and see it. Daniel is a really good actor and he suits the role of Harry Potter perfectly. Rupert is ok as Ron although he can sometimes be a bit annoying. Emma is really good too. The best bits are the bits where the kid wizards learn new magic spells and get them wrong. It's really funny! There are also some scary bits in the film. There are these ghostly creatures called Dementors who show us what special effects are all about! The special effects are amazing in Harry Potter. The bad bits in the movie are the werewolf costumes. They don't look real and it's difficult to take the story seriously during these bits of the film.
Overall, I think that "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is a great movie. The special effects are great and so is the acting. Go check it out now!

Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban - I don't know about you, but when I left the cinema after seeing the third Harry Potter film I was distraught that it was over. It was definitely the best of the three so far! Daniel, Emma and Rupert have improved by huge amounts since the last film - they are becoming very good actors. When the film started I thought that it was going to be terrible, as their acting was very awkward, for example when on the train and it goes dark Hermione says 'ouch Ron that was my foot' when Ron is no way near her! But then I thought it improved as it went on and the best part was definitely the end - the time travelling. When we watched the time travel everything made sense - the howl from Hermione as we didn't know what that was before - and the stone being thrown in through the window. It all made sense and I thought that that was very clever.
Overall I definitely enjoyed the film- it is not as good as the book of course, but they never are, are they?!

Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban - The wonderful magical tingle that Chris Columbus worked so hard to instill into the first two films is completely missing from PoA giving it almost an Enid Blyton-esque feel of "Three Go to Hogwarts". In places important pieces of storyline have been dropped, e.g., Sirius's night-time knife attack of Ron and even complete fabrications - Harry's following of Pettigrew on the Marauder's map.
The settings for Hogwarts are truly beautiful. Unfortunately, they bear no similarity to the book in layout and will cause major problems in future films unless they are discontinued. By way of example, Hagrid's hut cannot continue to cling precariously to a steep mountainside. There has to be a large clear, reasonably flat area of lawn between the main castle doors and Hagrid's hut. It is the stage for several future important events.
It is inevitable that everyone will have their own idea of what should have been kept and what should have been dropped from the book. However, what was dropped from this film could have formed the basis for a complete alternative production. For example, there is more Quiddich in this book than any other. It is Oliver Wood's finest hour! It must have taken great skill to pare it all away with the exception of the match where Harry meets the Dementors. It did rather make a nonsense of Harry's devotion to the game.
Best to put this one down to experience, perhaps, and look forward to 'Goblet of Fire'.

Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban - To tell you the truth, I like the Harry Potter movies and I think this one is the best one yet, although it is a bit short. Based on the book Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, it is a good movie. It is set in the Hogwarts school of magic (as usual), and starts off at the train where Harry mets some Dementors.

Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban (PG) - I enjoyed the first 2 movies, having felt that they held true to the original books. Unfortunately, the third movie lacked the audience empathy of the first 2. The characters are older and somehow have become stale and less believeable (in a fantasy? yes I recognise the irony!). Master of the Dark Arts - well I would not take that position because it is always the one to watch - bit like the old 'butler did it' films. My daughter and I both felt that integral elements of the plot were missing - on the edit room floor maybe? Sorry, but not one I would watch again and has quite frankly taken the edge off number 4 when it may arrive. Sorry Harry, think you've had your cinema day.

Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban - Although I thought personally the movie was good, I also think that it lacked many components, e.g., Harry spending a week or two in Diagon Alley, many Patronus lessons (he did have more than one you know), receiving the Firebolt (it was given to him at Christmas), more divination, etc., etc. The movie was far too short and came to the climax far too quickly. It wasn't thorough enough in explanation of what was happening in each scene. There needed to be more visual effects with the characters, not showing the age difference between the four main students as much (Malfoy, Harry, Ron and Hermione), make Dumbledore's beard white and GET RID OF THE ELASTIC IN IT!!!! Sirius' face needed to be more gaunt and hollow, (he's been on the run for almost 6 months!!) But all in all, it was a pretty good movie and I hope they make all the movies.

I saw the first two movies in the Harry Potter series and liked them generally, way more than Lord of the Rings. I read only the first book and was familiar with the characters. Unfortunately, the movie moves too quickly to explain what exactly is going on with Sirus. I also didn't know what caused Hermione to be late or why she wasn't good at fortunetelling. I liked the movie but I think it should have been longer and more detailed. The suspense didn't build up as in the other two movies. I hope the next one is longer.

The Prisoner Of Azkaban is the WORST of the three movies. I don't know what I expected, but this rubbish was NOT IT! The movie skipped many points, and tryed to make it MUCH more funny than J.K Rowlings intended it to be. Yeah, there were some funny parts in this book, but the movie tried to make it into a comedy/action movie, and failed miserably. I don't know about you, but Aunt Marge looked WAY different than I expected, same as of Prof. Trelawny, Sirius Black, and Lupin was a HUGE dissapointment. They made it look like all Lupin taught was Boggarts, and his looks were extremely dissapointing. I, and I am guessing you also, didn't expect Lupin to be in somewhat decent robes, be clean shaven, and have red hair. I expected shabby, patched robes, a "trying to look clean" look, and greying hair, that was originally black. The leaky cauldron was VERY stupid looking, and Tom (I think that was his name) in my mind, was not a dumb, slobbering hunchback. And I thought that Cornelius Fudge would very much resemble Bilbo Baggins, but no. This movie was a horrible interpretation of the book, and if the title were different, I would have thought it was a completely different movie altogether. DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE!!! This was the worst of the three movies, and if the movies keep going downhill, I swear I'm gonna buy 'm just to stick 'm in the microwave, and let them spark, like AOL CD's.

I should start by saying I went to see the Prisoner Of Azkaban as a none Harrry Potter fan. I went merely to stay friends with my girlfriend and earn the right to watch as much football as I want for the following month. I have already seen the other two films and wasn't that impresed and haven't read any of the books so I was scetical to say the least and wasn't really loooking forward to it. However I enjoyed this film much more than the other two. I think It's got a bit more adult now. There are still a few to many really annoying kiddie bits (I do realise it's ment for Kids) like the parts when he's in his uncles house and a few bits of unnessary explination. But the acting alround was pretty good, I do have to credit Rowling with a very clever plot. The effects are good as well but then you'd expect that nowadays. The people I went with who had read the books complained at plot changes and edits but admitted it would not be possible to make the film the same as the book. While I wouldn't be bothered to watch the film again and won't be rushing out to see the next film I think I'll probabley protest a little less when the next film comes out.

NB, (Value for money wasn't good at Vue cinema, formerley Warner Bros it cost £11.20 for 2 people! I could buy a DVD for that, no wonder the cinema was empty!)


NB2, I've given it a 7 bearing in mind this film isn't really for me and will be enjoyed much more by Potter fans.

I was ecstatic that I was going to see Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban, I love the books and was not dissapointed with the other two movies, however with this one I was dissapointed. For anyone who hasn't read the books the movie doesn't make a lot of sense. No reasons were given as to why certain things happened. e.g. Why Sirius black was a dog. Main parts of the plot were missed out. e.g. Harry recieving a permission slip off of sirius black allowing him to go to hogsmeade. Parts of plot were added in that were not included in the book. Eg: Hermione hugging ron. My last points are that characters were missed out. e.g. Oliver Wood. And that the film was less magical, Mr Weasley wasn't his normal Mr Weasley self and where was Paul Whitehouse?!

Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban is a fast pace depiction of the book of the same name. It continues the tale of Harry and his friends through mystery of how he became a legend and the truth behind the death of his parents. New characters include professor Lupin, the newest defence against the dark arts teacher, and Professor Sybil Trelawney. Lupin is a pivotal part of the story and a welcomed addition to the movie. Trelawney in hated in the movie and really besides one scene adds nothing to the film. In short this film was suppose to be about Sirius Black's escape from Azkaban prison in hopes to seek revenge for his imprisonment. This in fact was nearly completely overlooked in the film as Sirus was given nearly 20 minutes of air time. In reality the film plays out how powerful Harry and Hermione have become and how we all want a Hippogriph as a pet.

While I'd like to keep in mind this is a children's movie I can't help but realize that the fans that pay to see it are far more mature and deserve a movie that reflect the complexities of the book and not one that's fun for the kids. Remember when your favourite band got too famous for their own good and people started calling them a sell-out? That's kind of what the new director did to Harry Potter. The one thing I most missed in this film, was the long and detailed complications that the first two movies took the time to spell out. Oh sure the first two could drag a bit but this one flew by so fast I never had time to be drawn into the new characters or even the intense sequences. I was told by all to read this book as I was thoroughly lost during the 2nd film. So I took the time to read it and really enjoyed most of it. I realized that even in the book the 1st half was rather boring but it set up issues Hermione had with getting to classes and the problem with Crookshank and Scabblers. And the scene with Peter Pettigrew was intense in the book and totally over looked in the movie.

The whole thing was so rushed even the actors seemed like they were told "we've got to film this while you're still young" and he wasn't joking cause boy they have grown up quick. And I've heard that this one was closest to the book but I just wished things like Dursley's house were completely removed in favour of the real issues in the movie. Like the history of the Marauders' map or Harry's image's of his parent's and how they haunted him during the dementor's attacks. Instead there was Malfoy blowing a paper crane or Harry flying over the castle on a Hippogriph, the nightbus, the monster book? Really I didn't get the same feeling in this film as the rest I just wish more time was put into plot development. But also there may just be the point why people hate movies that were books. Too much is left out and it doesn't tell the whole story. I've heard though that this was the most honest translation yet, but that's why it's a sell-out too. They crammed so much of the wrong parts into the movie that it lacked all the depth.

Having thoroughly enjoyed the book I was looking forward to the movie with keen anticipation. The new director makes the whole magical world of Harry Potter darker than Chris Columbus's first two movies and much more in line with my mental image from reading the books. I was a little surprised by some of the changes the new director brought to Hogwarts such as the addition of a huge clock to the main entrance to the school, the mysterious relocation of Hagrid's house and the Whomping Willow not to mention the change of 'The Fat Lady' to Dawn French (not that she gives a bad performance it was just a surprise to see her after establishing another actor in the role for the last two movies).

The actors, in particular the kids, all turn in fantastic performances and the casting of new characters is highly effective and very sympathetic to Rowling's original text (personally I was almost expecting to see Francis De La Tour as Prof. Trelawney but, while not quite fitting my mental image, Emma Thompson does a fabulous job). Michael Gambon seems to have been born to play Dumbledore and brings a sense of mischievousness to the role that I hadn't got from the late and much missed Richard Harris, although Gambon's Irish lilt did come as something of a surprise.

As we have come to expect the special effects are superb throughout the film, highlights being Buckbeak (the hippogriff), the Dementors and the scene with the Boggart is an absolute hoot (Rickman must have had a ball in the shooting of that scene). The Hogwarts ghosts have increased in number and the addition of 'The Headless Hunt' was a nice touch - although I don't remember reading anything about giant giraffes walking through the pictures in the school!

The plot is, as one would hope, reasonably true to J K Rowling's original text although, as with the previous two movies, there is so much to cram in that much of the detail and subtlety of the story is glossed over or left out all together. I know that this movie is aimed at a young audience who may get fidgety after a while. I would have hoped that the director might have stretched the movie by 15-20 mins and taken a little more time over the story and taken the opportunity to include some more of Rowling's expertly crafted detail.

When all's said and done these are really just knit-picking comments about what is generally a fantastic movie - It's packed with action, magic and is a great story. If you enjoyed the first two films then you're going to love ..The Prisoner of Azkaban - as was the case with the book it's so much more than the two that came before. That said if you came to love Harry Potter through the books the amount of detail that has been glossed over or simply omitted may disappoint, but not as much as it did with the first two films as this is just so much better a movie than we have come to expect from the previous two films.

I had heard from friends and family that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was the best book in the series so far so I had high hopes for the film and I wasn't disappointed.

The plot is superb and both the cast and crew do an excellent job in telling this great story. This film is darker than the previous two with some genuinely scary moments, the dementors in particular. The film is shot beautifully and Michael Gambon does a good job of replacing the late Richard Harris. All of the young actors do a great job but it is a bit weird seeing them all looking so old-I was genuinely shocked by how much Neville Longbottom has changed.

The special effects are mixed in with the live action shots beautifully and do not detract from the film in any way, which can be the case in some films that rely on them to much. Hagrids Hippogriff Buckbeak is very believable and could with a bit of imagination even be real!

Although not a comedy there are plenty of laugh out loud moments in this film and from an audience of about 300, including small children, teenagers, adults and grand parents I didn't see one un-happy face when leaving the cinema. This film is fantastic and in my opinion would be great for people of any age, Role on November 2005 and the Goblet of Fire.