More Like 4 and a Half
Added 11/5/2009
They definitely picked up the pacing with this one! In Harry's third year, a deranged murderer escapes Azkaban and is on the hunt for the young wizard. The writers for this one and the director really trimmed the fat of the story and just focused on Harry and the hunt for Black. We quickly get through the Dursleys and the Leaky Cauldron scenes and after thirty minutes we're on the Hogwarts Express. Not even the first two had us on the train after thirty minutes. The cast continues to mature and add depth to the roles and continue to get better. Michael Gambon joins the cast as Dumbledore, replacing Richard Harris and in my opinion is the better Dumbledore, especially now in the recent two where the character's more involved in the action. And he has good comedic timing. Gary Oldman is perfect as Sirius Black, but he's not in the movie enough, in my opinion, to really bring an impact to the character. David Thewlis portrays Lupin as a caring teacher with a dark secret and Emma Thompson is great as the looney Prof. Trelawny. There's a little more tension and action in this one and John Williams score is a great upgrade from the rather drab music of the first two installments.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Easily the finest of all the Harry Potter films
Added 10/30/2009
There are two reasons that HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is the best of all the films in the series. First and foremost, the movie was headed by one of the finest directors working in the world today, Alfonso Cuarón, directed of one of the greatest films of the 21st century, THE CHILDREN OF MEN, as well as the celebrated Mexican film Y TU MAMÁ TAMBIÉN. The first two films frequently suffer from pacing and rhythm problems. Things just frequently feel "off." Too many scenes don't work or are too abbreviated. But the worst thing about the first two movies is that they focus on the most lamentable parts of the relevant books and then drag them out. Cuarón is, unlike Chris Columbus, a genius. Second, THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is the last book in the series that can be moderately summed up in a film. THE GOBLET OF FIRE was the first of the Harry Potter books that could be considered a very long book. So THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN contained most of the highlights of the novel without seriously abbreviating the story. But I don't want to exaggerate things. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN works as a movie less because it summarizes the events of the book than because it gets at the heart of the story and repackages it into a new medium. Ultimately THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN works not because it is a good adaptation of a movie, but because it is a great movie on its own merits.
That really does sum up why this is the best of the Harry Potter movies: it is the only one of the films that stands on its own. All of the other of the movies play as if the director/writer has an eye on the movie from which they are derived. Too their credit, subsequent movies try to follow in the path of AZKABAN and several of them are entertaining. But what is lacking is the great script of this film and the impeccable talent of Alfonso Cuarón.
One of the most impressive things about the series of films as a whole is the extraordinary array of acting talent. The main three improved tremendously after the first two movies and they were constantly surrounded by an amazing group of actors. In this film such excellent actors as Robert Hardy, Emma Thompson, Timothy Spall, Julie Christie, and David Thewlis join the cast. It is amazing that actors of this quality join and already impressive group of performers. Sadly, another great actor, Michael Gambon, joined the cast under sad circumstances. After the death of Richard Harris, who played Dumbledore in the first two movies, Gambon took over as head of Hogwarts. I loved Harris and I regretted his loss, but Gambon stepped into the role and didn't miss a beat.
While I've loved the subsequent Harry Potter movies, none of them have come up to the level of this one. In fact, in an objective list of the great fantasy movies ever made, this is the one entry from the series that could make such a list. By any standard, this is a great movie. Sadly Alfonso Cuarón declined offers to direct subsequent films in the series. Well, kinda sadly. How can you regret that the movie he made instead of THE GOBLET OF FIRE was THE CHILDREN OF MEN, which is quite possibly the greatest dystopian movie ever made? As I said, that movie would feature in any discussion of the very greatest movies made in the last decade. Still, while I love that movie dearly (if you haven't seen it, you should make a point of doing so immediately), I'm sorry that he couldn't have continued with the Harry Potter series. Heck, I wish he could have made all of them. Frankly, I am shocked that they were able to get an actor of his stature involved with this series to begin with. Even though he did not continue with the series, he at least elevated the tone from the first two films. Thanks to him the rest of the series aspired to be more, even if later directors did not always succeed.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A change for the series
Added 9/29/2009
This film is certainly a departure from the first two films. When it first came out, I didn't really like it. But after watching it a few times, I realized it really is the most interesting Harry Potter film. Although I'll probably never forgive the film makers for leaving out the Mauraders subplot, I've still probably watched this more times than either of the first two at this point.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Great Fantasy Adventure
Added 9/17/2009
Excellent fantasy adventure.Can anyone tell me for certain if the original blue versions of these movies are theatrical or extended editions?
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
great book
Added 9/13/2009
I'm very happy with this transaction. The book is as stated and came within the time period.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
More Like 4 and a Half
Added 11/5/2009
They definitely picked up the pacing with this one! In Harry's third year, a deranged murderer escapes Azkaban and is on the hunt for the young wizard. The writers for this one and the director really trimmed the fat of the story and just focused on Harry and the hunt for Black. We quickly get through the Dursleys and the Leaky Cauldron scenes and after thirty minutes we're on the Hogwarts Express. Not even the first two had us on the train after thirty minutes. The cast continues to mature and add depth to the roles and continue to get better. Michael Gambon joins the cast as Dumbledore, replacing Richard Harris and in my opinion is the better Dumbledore, especially now in the recent two where the character's more involved in the action. And he has good comedic timing. Gary Oldman is perfect as Sirius Black, but he's not in the movie enough, in my opinion, to really bring an impact to the character. David Thewlis portrays Lupin as a caring teacher with a dark secret and Emma Thompson is great as the looney Prof. Trelawny. There's a little more tension and action in this one and John Williams score is a great upgrade from the rather drab music of the first two installments.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Easily the finest of all the Harry Potter films
Added 10/30/2009
There are two reasons that HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is the best of all the films in the series. First and foremost, the movie was headed by one of the finest directors working in the world today, Alfonso Cuarón, directed of one of the greatest films of the 21st century, THE CHILDREN OF MEN, as well as the celebrated Mexican film Y TU MAMÁ TAMBIÉN. The first two films frequently suffer from pacing and rhythm problems. Things just frequently feel "off." Too many scenes don't work or are too abbreviated. But the worst thing about the first two movies is that they focus on the most lamentable parts of the relevant books and then drag them out. Cuarón is, unlike Chris Columbus, a genius. Second, THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is the last book in the series that can be moderately summed up in a film. THE GOBLET OF FIRE was the first of the Harry Potter books that could be considered a very long book. So THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN contained most of the highlights of the novel without seriously abbreviating the story. But I don't want to exaggerate things. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN works as a movie less because it summarizes the events of the book than because it gets at the heart of the story and repackages it into a new medium. Ultimately THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN works not because it is a good adaptation of a movie, but because it is a great movie on its own merits.
That really does sum up why this is the best of the Harry Potter movies: it is the only one of the films that stands on its own. All of the other of the movies play as if the director/writer has an eye on the movie from which they are derived. Too their credit, subsequent movies try to follow in the path of AZKABAN and several of them are entertaining. But what is lacking is the great script of this film and the impeccable talent of Alfonso Cuarón.
One of the most impressive things about the series of films as a whole is the extraordinary array of acting talent. The main three improved tremendously after the first two movies and they were constantly surrounded by an amazing group of actors. In this film such excellent actors as Robert Hardy, Emma Thompson, Timothy Spall, Julie Christie, and David Thewlis join the cast. It is amazing that actors of this quality join and already impressive group of performers. Sadly, another great actor, Michael Gambon, joined the cast under sad circumstances. After the death of Richard Harris, who played Dumbledore in the first two movies, Gambon took over as head of Hogwarts. I loved Harris and I regretted his loss, but Gambon stepped into the role and didn't miss a beat.
While I've loved the subsequent Harry Potter movies, none of them have come up to the level of this one. In fact, in an objective list of the great fantasy movies ever made, this is the one entry from the series that could make such a list. By any standard, this is a great movie. Sadly Alfonso Cuarón declined offers to direct subsequent films in the series. Well, kinda sadly. How can you regret that the movie he made instead of THE GOBLET OF FIRE was THE CHILDREN OF MEN, which is quite possibly the greatest dystopian movie ever made? As I said, that movie would feature in any discussion of the very greatest movies made in the last decade. Still, while I love that movie dearly (if you haven't seen it, you should make a point of doing so immediately), I'm sorry that he couldn't have continued with the Harry Potter series. Heck, I wish he could have made all of them. Frankly, I am shocked that they were able to get an actor of his stature involved with this series to begin with. Even though he did not continue with the series, he at least elevated the tone from the first two films. Thanks to him the rest of the series aspired to be more, even if later directors did not always succeed.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A change for the series
Added 9/29/2009
This film is certainly a departure from the first two films. When it first came out, I didn't really like it. But after watching it a few times, I realized it really is the most interesting Harry Potter film. Although I'll probably never forgive the film makers for leaving out the Mauraders subplot, I've still probably watched this more times than either of the first two at this point.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
