Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - The Movie [ Edited ]

[Amanda_R]

Harry's Third On-Screen Adventure

Many viewers found that this third Harry Potter film -- directed this time around by Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men) -- evokes a much darker mood than the first two. However, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban did quite well at the box office, nonetheless. Harry's third year at Hogwarts introduces the presence of Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), and returning cast members Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, and Robbie Coltrane are in top form. In a bittersweet turn, Michael Gambon takes over as Dumbledore for the late Richard Harris.

What's your take on this, the first "dark" Harry movie?

Did you feel that it stayed true to the book version of Azkaban, or do you think Cuarón took certain liberties for the sake of cinema?

Do you think the film is simply too scary for children? Share your thoughts here.

Message Edited by Amanda_R on 06-29-2007 12:36 PM

[RedRoses2]

I thought that the Prisoner of Azkaban was filmed well except for leaving out the fact that James was an Animagus and that the Marauders were Sirius, Remus, Peter, and James and also not telling us about Snape and the prank Sirius pulled on him. The fact that 3/4s of the Marauders were Animagus is esstential for the plot and Snape's story plays an important role later in the series, especially with books 5 and 6.

Loved the actor choices, loved both Harry's and Ron's hair. Loved the effects. Other than what I've just mentioned, I loved the movie.

[Psychee]

The one thing that really confused me in this movie was the way they had Daniel say "Expecto Patronum!". I can't imagine how a person could be concentrating on a super happy thought while looking so serious and determined. He should be smiling, not frowning...

Message Edited by Psychee on 06-30-2007 03:03 PM

[manga_anime_lo…]

---

Psychee wrote:
The one thing that really confused me in this movie was the way they had Daniel say "Expecto Patronum!". I can't imagine how a person could be concentrating on a super happy thought while looking so serious and determined. He should be smiling, not frowning...

Message Edited by Psychee on 06-30-2007 03:03 PM

---

well, he couldve been smiling on the inside but scared on the outside...u never really know what the actor is thinking. Anyway, I personally think Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was the first "scary" harry movie. they did leave a few essential parts out of the movie but it is my favorite movie [besides GOF] and i think it really depends on how they want to revel what happend to snape [if they ever will]and that the others are an Animagus. But no i dont think its to scary for children. they would most likely be scared at the first sight of Sirius as the dog and the event involving ron and his "rat" but if they pay attention, they should find out its not scary. so no, it isnt to scary for children in my oppinion.

[Ladybuglver8115]

Personally the movie of PoA is my LEAST favorite. If you ask me they totally slaughtered it. The fact that they wore street clothes instead of robes was all wrong along with many other things. I think that they should have made the movie 15 minutes longer and included the fact that Griffindor won the Quiddich cup it is very important. The thing that bothers me the most is the fact that Sirius instead of Hermione is with Harry when the dementors attack. The Dementors would have immediatly given him the kiss no question because it takes Harry a few crucial seconds maybe even longer to produce his patronus giving the dementors plenty of time to administer the kiss. Yes it is scary but I don't think it is too scary.

[GryffindorGing…]

I can't stand the 3rd film. It left out major plot lines and some of the sequence of events were out of order. If you never read the book it was good, but if you read the book it sucked.

[Nerefon]

I thought that the movie totally stunk because some of the stuff that they added was rather strange. I never liked how they did the black lab who was sirius when he was a dog because the book states that it was a bear like dog and it was biger then most dogs and that they, the film makers made the dog look to animated and not look real. like in the first one they showed the transfiguration teacher as a cat and it wasn't animated in the least it looked real. I thought, without all of what I said, was ok and if I had to rate this movie from one to ten I wouldn't have posted even a five i would have posted a 2 or a one for least best movie in the world. The third book is one of my top favorites in the Harry Potter sets and well I was so excited to go see the movie that when I saw it I was upset that the film makers didn't do it right. But they had great actors play in the movies too, that is the only thing that was the best.

[midnite_writer]

---

Amanda_R wrote:
Harry's Third On-Screen Adventure








Many viewers found that this third Harry Potter film -- directed this time around by Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men) -- evokes a much darker mood than the first two. However, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban did quite well at the box office, nonetheless. Harry's third year at Hogwarts introduces the presence of Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), and returning cast members Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, and Robbie Coltrane are in top form. In a bittersweet turn, Michael Gambon takes over as Dumbledore for the late Richard Harris.

What's your take on this, the first "dark" Harry movie?

Did you feel that it stayed true to the book version of Azkaban, or do you think Cuarón took certain liberties for the sake of cinema?

Do you think the film is simply too scary for children? Share your thoughts here.

Message Edited by Amanda_R on 06-29-2007 12:36 PM

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to offend anyone here but I thought the third movie was horrible. They left out so many important details.

* Hermione's exit from Divination was incorrect.
* How Lupin knew about the map.
* Who exactly the Mauraders were.
* The conversation Siruis had with Harry when he told him about the secret keeper and how it was switched last minute.
* The part when Harry tells Sirius he'd love living with him.
* The whole animagus story.
* The odd procession when Sirius, Lupin, Snape, Hermione, Harry, Ron, and Peter left the Shrieking Shack.
* The part when they tie up Snape.
* The story of how James tourchered Snape.
* They messed up how Harry found out Siruis was his Godfather.
I know there are certain things that get deleleted for "artistic" purposes but to me thins is crazy.

Don't get me wrong, I like a couple of thing about the movie. (Hermione's punch, the music) But there was just so much about it that was off. The only reason I am so critical of these particular movie was because I loved the book sooooooooooo much.
Am I being overly dramatic or does someone else feel this way????????

Message Edited by midnite_writer on 07-09-2007 01:50 AM

[dayrenm]

I really enjoyed the movie and even bought it when it came out. But it is true that many important parts were left out of the movie.

[piratelover74]

I couldn't agree with you more!! Not only did they leave a lot of key points out they also i feel portrayed Dumbledore all wrong. To me he is soft spoken and gently but this one was gruff always, like Goblet of Fire, Dumbledore would not have ran and pushed Harry like he did when Harry name came out of the Goblet, Viktor Krum i thought was also wrong. I have been very disappointed in the 3 and 4 movies. Like someone said if you don't read the books then they would be great but for us Book readers nope they are all wrong!!

[PlaySoccer247]

I totally agree that they left out key points and believe the yneed to put more quiddttch in the movies because the y are like a key point of some parts ofthe story and th ey only speak of it briefly and in the movie the yleft out ALOT about crookshanks don't cha think? but then again if they put in everything the movies would be like 20 hrs long...