Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

[Guest croweater]

Hey guys, I just got back from seeing Harry Potter 3 and it is much, MUCH better than the first two movies.

 

I live in Tasmania in Australia, and because our school holidays don't equate with the rest of the world's we got to see it early.

 

Well,

Firstly let me say that whoever the guy who is cast as Dumbledoor is needs to be shot in the head with a gun. He is absolutely awful, has no presence on screen and acts pretty much like a goofy old wizard.

Infact, most of the characters that were added in this movie were dub par, the divination teacher ( you know, the "seeing into the future teacher) is especially crap.

 

Thankfully Daniel has learnt how to act. Which does pick the movie up quite a bit. It's easy to empathise with his character, although instead of character development they try to plainly spell out how his character is feeling, which you always expect from a kids movie. Although this is barely a Kids movie. It's much, MUCH darker than the first, and apart for some extremely lame puns and some stupid characters it is obvious that this movie has been built for older audiences.

 

Special effects are great as usual, and direction is also fantastic. From the opening sceens you can tell that this will be a very differently paced and shot movie. It is much better timed than the first, developing the plot much sooner than the first two and having much greater continuity throughout the movie.

 

Overall a great movie. It's easily enjoyable and unlike the first two it can hold your attention for the duration.

 

BIG THUMBS UP.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

I think it's the age thing again, but there's something that's turned me off thos movies - maybe being forced to watch the second in a class especially for it that I was put into against my will in bits and pieces makes them seem not to exciting.

 

Or that I need to reread the first four books after purchasing the fifth, when I just can't get around to it.

 

croweater, Richard Harris died recently, so he was replaced - Harris was an excellent Dumbledore, and I think it would be a crime to choose such a role without the utmost care.

 

I guess Daniel Radcliffe's shoddy acting in the first two was another factor that turned me away - how did the other two go?

 

And the special effects improved in the second from the first - Quidditch looked pretty bad in The Philosopher's Stone.

 

And the fact that you mentioned it being able to hold your attention for the duration makes me consider seeing it. But the books' quality increased as they went along, so the films only can too.

[Guest croweater]

I know he died and was replaced, but his replacement is HORRIBLE......really the only thing that detracts from the movie.

 

The other two, who's real names I can't recall, were also improved. Both are much more comefortable on the screen, and thankfully, they don't use Hermonie as Jail bait.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

On TV tonight I caught a glimpse of Rupert Grint and Emma Watson (Ron and Hermione, respectively) on an E! commercial or something signing autographs somewhere - I thought they'd replaced Ron too. He just looked so different.

 

I don't know whether he did a Fred Savage when puberty hit him or what happened, but yeah, definitely different.

[Guest croweater]

Emma was much, much better than she'd been in the past two movies. She'd always just been anoying and put on the same whiney voice for everything that she said. She's much better now and showed a fair bit of emotional range.

 

Special effects were all really smooth also, Dementors were frickin' cool, and thankfully looked nothing like the dudes from Lord of the Rings.

 

There's barely any Quidditch because of the plot interfering with it (explained in the books, not in the movie...... probably because they wanted to limit all of the shithouse dumbledore sceens)

[Ravenbomb 0]

I'm pretty sure it's gonna suck just like the first two. I hope they stop getting actors that I like in them (they've already got Rickman and Oldman), or I might actually start watching them.

[Mecha Mummy 0]

I'm pretty sure it's gonna suck just like the first two. I hope they stop getting actors that I like in them (they've already got Rickman and Oldman), or I might actually start watching them.

This insinuates that you've never seen the movies, yet you still state that the first two suck. Brilliant.

[Ravenbomb 0]

I'm pretty sure it's gonna suck just like the first two. I hope they stop getting actors that I like in them (they've already got Rickman and Oldman), or I might actually start watching them.

This insinuates that you've never seen the movies, yet you still state that the first two suck. Brilliant.

I saw the first two once.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I'm going to see the midnight showing tonight. The first movie was OK, but it seemed like a lot of wheel-spinning and character intros leading up to a weak ending. The second one was definitely better. I'm expecting this one to be better still, especially since Chris Columbus isn't in the director's chair.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

I went to the movies and saw the first film with someone who hadn't read the books, and they loved it. I enjoyed it, but it didn't live up to the story, as most adaptations don't.

 

I watched Misery before reading the book, and I loved it - but if I'd read it first, probably not so.

 

In fact, even if the adaptation was exactly as the book, there'd still be disappointments.

[Guest croweater]

I'm pretty sure it's gonna suck just like the first two. I hope they stop getting actors that I like in them (they've already got Rickman and Oldman), or I might actually start watching them.

As I said, it is a completely different movie. All the cake and fairy floss of the first two have switched to a running theme of death and suffering, which continues in a downward spiral over the next couple of books.........

I'd love to see how they get the ending of the next one past the censors with a PG rating.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

How many books are left in this thing?...

[Superstring 0]

There's going to be 7 books eventually so we've got 4 more movies to go.

 

Good movie by the way.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Ebert didn't like it as much as the first two, although he still gave it ***1/2, but from the way he described it, it sounds like I will end up enjoying it more. The big reason that people like Ebert isn't that his opinions are always right, but that you usually can figure out whether a film is for your liking or not from the body of his reviews.

 

I'll be seeing it tonight.

[buffybeast 0]

I didn't like this HP movie. There are major pieces of information that are critical to the book that were either altered or omitted. I did not like that. The movie is darker and grittier because the book is that way.

[Tawren 0]

I didn't see the first two movies, haven't read any of the books, and have purposely avoided everything Harry Potter since it came out. However, some friends convinced me to go to the movie tonight and boy howdy did it fucking suck. Pointless twists and really gaping plot holes I mean, they can go back in time - why not just go save Harry's parents or kill that Peter Potengill guy before he escaped?. Shitty acting too.

 

Bad movie, and if this is better than 1 and 2, I feel terrible for people who saw those.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Let's see....you haven't seen any of the movies, haven't read ANY of the books, and generally have no idea how shit works.

 

Really, you just killed off any credible hate.

[Tawren 0]

Let's see....you haven't seen any of the movies, haven't read ANY of the books, and generally have no idea how shit works.

 

Really, you just killed off any credible hate.

Not really. It isn't hard to be familiar with everything. I wasn't confused about the characters at any point as they were easily definable.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I saw it tonight in a packed theatre. Busiest its been since Return of the King. Finally after two good, not great summer flicks (Troy & Shrek 2) and two sins against film (Van Helsing & The Day After Tomorrow), we get the first great film of the summer. Classic stuff.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Let's see....you haven't seen any of the movies, haven't read ANY of the books, and generally have no idea how shit works.

 

Really, you just killed off any credible hate.

Not really. It isn't hard to be familiar with everything. I wasn't confused about the characters at any point as they were easily definable.

No, but from your post, it sounded like you hated the shit without seeing or reading it before, and only went because a friend talked you into it.

 

BTW, were you reffering to how Hermione was able to attend two classes at once (the go back in time comment) or something else? I haven't read the book in 2 years, so I'm a bit rusty on the entire thing.

[Tawren 0]

BTW, were you reffering to how Hermione was able to attend two classes at once (the go back in time comment) or something else? I haven't read the book in 2 years, so I'm a bit rusty on the entire thing.

That's part of it. I was referring to her and Harry going back in time to save the big ass bird-horse and Syrius and all that at the end. If they can do that, why not just go way back and save his parents? Maybe there is something about a time-limit in the book, but nothing mentioned in the movie.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

IIRC, it's only a spell that allows someone to be in two places at once, not go back 20 years into the past.

 

Edit:

I think it allows traveling to the recent past

[Tawren 0]

Maybe in the book (again, haven't read nor do I plan to) but in the movie she whips out a pocketwatch and they just go back in time. That is probably the actual explanation - I wish they had explained that. Kinda stupid not to.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

I edited my last post, but I'll just say it again because its coming back to me very slowly.

 

I think it allows traveling to the recent past as well

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

I didn't like this HP movie.  There are major pieces of information that are critical to the book that were either altered or omitted.  I did not like that.  The movie is darker and grittier because the book is that way.

Yeah, they did this in the first two. For instance, in The Philosopher's Stone, the potion spell by Snape on the way the Stone was left out.

 

They do have a time limit, especially seeing as the films will attract younger children, but what I noticed (yeah, just noticed) left out probably wouldn't have affected that much had it been left in.

 

And then you have to argue whether or not 1 or 2 big bits taken out is better as opposed to about 50 little things. But if those bigger parts are critical and could affect someone's viewing interpretation, having read the books or not, that's idiotic.

 

And Tawren, the name is Peter Pettigrew.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Plus the fact the new Dumbledore (the original past on last year) completely sucks, so they had to alter a lot of parts he's in as well.

[Vyce 0]

Excellent film. Easily the best of the HP films thus far: the acting was good, the SFX was good, the direction was good, and the film was more dark and grim (which is a plus in my book) AND, thankfully, they focused almost exclusively on the plot in this one instead of, like in the two previous films, focusing on some of the little tidbits about life at Hogwarts that were everywhere in the first two films.

 

VERY big thumbs up from me.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

Great movie, but would confuse people about a couple of vague things that weren't hinted on. Ah, well. Still, great visuals, great effects, great characters, great twists.

 

Tawren, your credibility has reached further negative depths after your little admittingly biased "review". Stick to bashing Monday Night Raw.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

On the quality, I'd expect the movies to increase as they go on - after all, the books do.

[CanadianChris 0]

I edited my last post, but I'll just say it again because its coming back to me very slowly.

 

I think it allows traveling to the recent past as well

The whole point of the Time-Turner is that they can't use it to alter the past in any way whatsoever. They made that very clear in the book, just before Harry and Hermione went back to rescue Buckbeak.