Although I liked the film overall it was a shame about the firebolt not playing its true part. It almost seemed to me like they got to the end of the film and thought "oh no we havent given Harry his new broom stick how are we going to manage that" - and then stuck that bit on at the end.

I also wasnt sure about the bit where Professor Lupin was telling Harry what a wonderful person his mother was. There is nothing in the books to say that they were particularly close and it was actually Harrys father that was Lupin's good friend.

As I say though these are just minor incidents and overall I thought it was great , and I thought it captured the atmosphere really well.

I went to see the movie last thursday, 1st day, even though my exams are on right now . I liked the way the new director made use of the time element, and added clocks to nearly every scene. I also liked the cinematography, especially Harry's first ride on Buckbeak. I think the Dementors were potrayed quite well, wonder how they will look in the fifth book's movie.
The opening scene with the lines from Macbeth was quite unique.
I agree with the fact that in this movie most of the other characters have been sidelined. However I would give it an overall thumbs up.

Yes, the choir was good! I would give the film a definate 8 out of 10!

I saw the Prisoner of Azkaban last week, and I have to say that I was pretty disappointed with it overall. Of the three movies made thus far, PoA is by far the worst adaptation from its book. While PoA is my favourite HP book, they left everything out of the movie that made it so. They give you the very skeletal plotline of the book and left out (for example) Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs' relationship to Harry, and the other animagus, Rita Skeeter. They didn't hint enough at Herminoe's time-altering device, beyond a couple of occasions where Ron looks surprised and says, "When did you get here?" They also didn't explain WHY the "shrieking shack" was so named.

I'm really glad this director has declined to do any more of the HP movies... one was enough for him!

As for the good parts... Buckbeak was AMAZING! Lupin's werewolf self was really well done, I thought, too.

I liked the movie. I just didn't understand the need to change so much of it. My favorite parts were the time turner parts and the nightmare part. I agree that the Firebolt should have been played out a bit more accurately. Overall, I liked it.

Quote:

---

They give you the very skeletal plotline of the book and left out (for example) Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs' relationship to Harry, and the other animagus, Rita Skeeter.

---

I might be mistaken but I think Rita Skeeter appears in Book 4 for the first time? It was disappointing that they left out things which are very important, not only to book 3 but for the later books too But I really enjoyed the film. Maybe because I knew the story!

the biggest problem for any book to film
is the need to write a screenplay
and since the Potter books are huge
it takes quite a bit to get them down so that
they don't bust your bladder in the movie theater
although I think it would be cool for a six hour Potter movie with intermissions
however, this is financially unfeasible.
movies need to be around 2 hours...this ensures maximum showings during a day
so that maximum revenue can be derived
Movies that are longer and make big bucks are rare and carry great risks for the studios
for every Lord of the Rings...there is a Waterworld

this is a big debate...which is better?
should directors stick to the original material?
or should directors have their own vision and just stick to the spirit of the material?

Potter, like all others, raises this question

right, she was there to cover the tri-wizard tournament

stinking paparazzi

As much as I love Harry Potter, maybe a six hour movie would be just that little too long. Maybe a hour longer, the next one?

J.K Rowling really must be disappointed with this effort (although she won't admit to it publicly of course). I watched it last night and the whole 2 hrs 15 mins was a huge let-down. This has nothing on the book, which was an excellent read,
and if I wouldn't have read the book beforehand I would've virtually been at a loss to what was happening in the film. But maybe the film-makers knew that the audience for this had also read the book so they wouldn't be confused at all. Faults?..no suspense, no excitement, a confused narrative and Gary Oldman was criminally under used. This film i'm sad to say is the worst of the three so far. The next one,'The Goblet of Fire' is the best book of the lot but i'm afraid after HP3 don't expect too much from HP4. I'm certainly not getting my hopes too high on this one. For anybody who hasn't read the books, then please get reading. The three films so far have fallen woefully short. I'm speaking here as an adult but maybe for the kids the films are great, so sorry to all the younger members!

They did leave a AWFUL lot out of the film, and the book is 100% better than the film (Again, speaking as a "Adult" ) but I am going to look forward buying the DVD when it is released. I believe it is on Tuesday 23 November 2004

Not wishing to sound rude JM but I couldn't really care about the DVD, unless of course they release an extended version, and who knows, the story then just might make some sense, but don't count on it. This film, the cinema release version, has obviously suffered from lots of cuts and the whole experience of watching this feeble effort was..well..flat. The next film can only improve.

No problem Mexico, some people must be disappointed in the film!

I imagine it must be tough for a director/screenwriter to convert a story, especially a beloved one, into a film. The myriads of fans will always have an issue about an item being excluded or something else being included. Look back at all the books that have been made into movies both bad and good. "Gone with the Wind", "Wizard of Oz", "The Godfather", "The Lord of the Rings", even the "Shawshank Redemption", which is one of my favorite movies, was a Stephen King short story. One of the main character's Red was supposed to be Irish (hence the nickname Red), and was played by Morgan Freeman. A singularly wonderful portrayal and yet a huge modified take on the story.

So yes I was a wee bit disappointed in some of the changes made, or parts left out, but was still happy with the movie. And JK Rowling gets all finalsay on the movie. It was reported that the director wanted teeny little people jumping around on a piano and she nixed that idea. For better or worse, JK Rowling approved the movie.

I thought this movie better than the other two but I was disappointed with certain things.
I didn't think Gary Oldman's portrayal of Sirius Black any good at all. Firstly he was too old, Sirius is James's age and in the first movie James was shown a lot younger than what Siruis is in the third. And why did Sirius have all those tattoos on his body?

The explanation of the happenings in the Shrieking Shack was cut terribly short and I can see why people who have not read the book could have got lost in the story.

I agree that Buckbeak should've been bigger and so should've the werewolf. It didn't look much like a werewolf to me.

I didn't like the choir, and did anybody else notice that the line 'Something wicked this way comes' was taken directly from 'Macbeth'.

Daniel Radcliffe can't cry either. He is good at acting anger and frustration but the scene where he is crying is unconvincing. At first I didn't know where the sound was coming from.

The movies won't live up to the books (they haven't so far anyway) but what I did like in this movie is the time turner scenes, the better acting of Emma Watson, Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe, the black dog version of Sirius and the Marauder's Map.

Yes, the time turner screnes was excellent. I couldn't work out the significance of all the clocks in the films until near the end! I liked the Maureders Map too. I thought the choir bit was good too, personally