User reviews

I thought this was excellent....better than the first two Harry Potter movies combined and better than what has followed.. That's my feeling, and I'm still sticking to it.

This was just great fun, right from the opening. In fact, the early bus scene is the best in the film. Overall, the movie didn't have as mean an edge to it as the others, although it has a number of scary moments (which might have warranted a PG-13 rating). That was fine with me. I got tired of the dark, nasty and/or annoying characters of the first two films, and especially the irritating blonde wise-guy kid. I give this major points for cutting his role down. Even Alan Rickman's character softens.

In other words, there is no despicable villain to hate throughout the film, which I thought was refreshing. Instead, we just go through one adventure after another until the final surprise ending.

Along the way are a lot of fun special effects and scenery, some humor (Emma Thompson is a hoot as an eccentric tea-leaf reader) and some fantastic 5.1 surround sound. I wish all the Harry Potter films were like this one.

If there's anything this movie proves, it is the difficulty in separating the series from the demands of fans. This is clear just from hearing some of the comments. "Why didn't they identify the names on the Marauder's Map?" "Why wasn't the second Quidditch game shown?" "Why wasn't there more of Crookshanks the Cat?" By focusing on what the film didn't have, fans fail to look at the film on its own terms. I think this is by far the best Harry Potter movie yet.

The only way to satisfy fans would be to include everything from the book, which would require a miniseries. Since that isn't what these films are, the story has to be abridged. The first two films tried to fit everything they could within a reasonable slot of time. The result was a set of films that felt cluttered yet incomplete. Had they continued with this strategy for this movie, based on a much longer book, it would surely have been over three hours long.

The virtue of the latest film is that it makes a real attempt to adapt the story, not just marching in lockstep with the book's events. The screenplay is sparing, leaving out or simplifying loads of details not directly relevant to the plot. But it captures much of the book's delight and humor. The first two films fell short in this regard, because they lacked the guts to tinker with the details, even though that was the key to condensing the story while staying true to its spirit.

The movie is still faithful to the book, of course. Many of the scenes are exactly as I had imagined them. When it deviates, it does so based on an understanding of the story and characters. This is evident in the way they show, for example, the Knight Bus; Hermione's overstuffed schedule; and the introduction of the Marauder's Map, a scene that captures the twins' mischievous personalities. The changes are clever and funny, and they help compensate for the movie's loss in other areas.

Certainly this has something to do with the new director. Columbus's approach was to stick to the books as literally as possible, often draining them of their subtlety. For instance, where the books only hint that Dumbledore can see through the invisibility cloak, the earlier movies make it unmistakable. The new director never condescends to the audience in that way. This is a children's movie, but it is also a fantasy-thriller that we can take seriously, because not everything is spelled out for us. We're given a chance to think.

But part of what makes the movie work is the book itself. The story is gripping from start to finish, because the threat looming over the school is established early on. Harry's personal life is sharply intertwined with the plot. We feel for him as we watch his disastrous (but hilarious) attempts to escape his uncle and aunt, and his humiliating reaction to the dementors. The story avoids common devices such as the talking killer or deus ex machina, which the other books have in abundance. The ending is nicely bittersweet and ambiguous. The plot is so complicated, however, that the book spends several chapters explaining it all. The movie wisely includes only very little of this, allowing the plot twists to become understood as the story progresses. I was surprised to see certain events that were in the movie but not the book lend support to an important theory some fans have had about what is to be revealed at the end of the series. Of course, it is well-hidden and won't give anything away for those who aren't looking for the clues.

I was so satisfied with the film that it almost seems trivial to mention the flaws, but there are some. The portrayal of Fudge's assistant as the standard hunchbacked dimwit is out of place here, as it would be in anything other than a cartoon or spoof. The most serious misstep, though, is the casting of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. Gambon's face seems frozen in a perpetual nonexpression, and his voice lacks resonance. He compares poorly to the late Richard Harris, whose line readings had gravity, and who played the character with a twinkle in his eyes. It is a pure mystery to me why this actor was chosen as a replacement, especially considering the fine performances from other members of the cast. Even the children are in top form here.

Those complaints aside, this is the movie I was hoping they would make when the series began. If it doesn't live up to the book, so what? What's important is that it lives up to its potential as a movie. Fans who want a carbon-copy of the book are looking in the wrong place, because they're never going to get it here. This is probably the best example of a Harry Potter movie that we're ever likely to see.

This is the third movie in the franchise, and it's the darkest one yet. We're introduced to Dementors, vile creatures who are tasked to guard the prison of Azkaban. When Voldemort disciple Sirius Black escapes, Dementors are assigned to guard Hogwarts putting Harry and his friends in danger.

The introduction of Dementors ushers in a new darker chapter in the franchise. These CGI creatures look every bit the evil creatures they're suppose to be. Accomplished director Alfonso Cuarón shows his great skills in creating tension and atmosphere. Even the darken corridors of Hogwarts are more foreboding. Without spoilers, I also must praise Hermione's part of the plot. The story loops created are usually fraught with problems. This one is done with care, and works great. Looking back, the change in tone is what drew me into the Harry Potter franchise. It is the first great Harry Potter movie and in my opinion, the best of the lot.

Alfonso Cuarón's masterful adaptation does the source material immeasurable justice by exploring its underlying concepts in an intelligent manner. Of course, it certainly helps that the aesthetics of the film are incredible, the acting remains stellar (and the trio of young actors handle their roles admirably), and John Williams offers an amazing (and eclectic) score. Character development is superb - Steve Kloves penned a great script.

First-time and young viewers will likely enjoy the film for its merits based on plot and 'adventure' alone, but it takes multiple viewings and a critical eye to enjoy the abstract ideas and nuances. Cuarón himself credited the source material as being laden with real-world issues: oppression, racism, loneliness, power, friendship, justice and so forth.

This is the Harry Potter film that stands on its own and as a tremendous cinematic achievement. It challenges viewers and yet doesn't patronize them or attempt to offer answers to all of the questions presented. For instance, the ending is bittersweet at best and retains a healthy amount of ambiguity.

If you've never read the books or understood the acclaim of the series as a whole, watch Cuarón's 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and you'll understand why this entry is clearly the zenith of the seven.

Harry Potter is growing up! The voice is deepening, the shoulders are broadening and...hurray! You no longer feel like a creep for having a little crush on Daniel Radcliffe...whoops, did I say that out loud? Say what you will, I see him making the jump from child star to adult actor in a way that Haley Joel Osment only dreams of.

Appropriately, this third film in the Harry Potter series has matured along with it's young stars. At first glance the storyline itself is relatively simple - Sirius Black has escaped from Azkaban Prison and young Harry is on his hit list. But the reality is that this movie is about being a teenager and all the trials and tribulations that go with it. On one level, Harry is like any other kid at school - he puts up with torment from bullies, gets into scrapes with his teachers and hangs out with his friends. But this is not just any school. This is Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and Harry has a whole OTHER set of problems. Like an escaped madman who may just want to kill him, for example.

The plot contains the requisite amounts of twists and turns. The focus is on Harry's past - Sirius Black was his godfather but just may have been in league with he who's name cannot be mentioned. There is the usual game of 'are they or aren't they?' when it comes to deciding which characters are really the baddies. Alan Rickman continues to walk the finest of lines between good and bad with his marvelous performance as Professor Snape. Has there ever been a better match of actor and character? Snape shows again that, while he may take occasional delight in making his students' lives difficult, he does have their best interests at heart - like any good teacher. Other plot quirks worked well - I enjoyed the way the time travel angle was worked in and the map showing the location of everyone in Hogwarts was a delight.

Visually, this is a much darker film and it is a sumptuous treat for the eyes. There is so much incredible detail in the sets that it's impossible to absorb it all in one sitting. All the staples from the other films are there - the paintings talk, the staircases move, ghosts roam the halls - watch out for the knights on horseback crashing through windows! The special effects are all top notch. A word of caution for any parents - there are some genuine scares here. The Dementors are particularly nasty, and I would certainly think twice about letting very young children watch this film. This is without even considering it's running time - two and a half hours - which is a very long time to expect some children to sit still.

One of the most impressive things about this film is the way that the young cast are more sure of themselves. As Hermione, Emma Watson grated in the first film with her occasional woodenness. Pleasingly, she has grown into herself as an actor and her performance here is much more mature. A leading lady of the future, perhaps? Hermione is growing up and is tired of being taken for an irritating goody-two shoes know it all. Rupert Grint provides comic relief and Daniel Radcliffe gives an outstanding performance, considering the whole film rests on his shoulders. Harry is the hero - the audience needs to identify with him. By the end of this film teenage girls will want to take him home to mother, while their mothers will just want to take him home and adopt him!

New cast members acquit themselves well. The role of Sirius Black was tailor made for Gary Oldman - he has a requisite creepiness with just a dose of humanity to bring the character to life. Daniel Thewlis is good as Professor Lupin, the new Defense Against the Dark Arts master who takes Harry under his wing. Emma Thompson is amusing as a Divinination professor with bad eyesight. She can see into the future but can't tell which students are falling asleep in her class!

Many have criticised Michael Gambon's performance as Dumbledore. While it's true that he is no Richard Harris, I personally was pleased that he didn't attempt to imitate his predecessor. Gambon is accomplished enough a performer to stay true to the character while at the same time putting his own stamp on it.

Take away the magic and monsters, and what you have is a coming of age movie. Harry is forced to grow up and confront both his past and his future, and come to terms with the reality that he is no ordinary wizard. With the spectra of 'you know who' continuing to loom on the horizon, roll on film four!

I wish Alfonso Cuaron would come back to the franchise. I know that he probably won't, but I still hope. After all, as we float through this empty, depressing world, sometimes all we have is hope. He detached this film franchise from its safe-as-a-CIA-file roots and allowed it to grow wings and fly into a silver ether. To anyone who thinks franchise films cannot be art... check out LOTR. But once you are done, check out this film. It is both ironic and darkly appropriate that this is both the lowest grossing Harry Potter film and the one that many film critic types, such as myself, say is the greatest of the octology.

The film starts off like do all Harry Potter books and most Harry Potter movies. Potter is at the house of his over-the-top, abusive, Muggle adopted family, getting tormented like he always does. Yes, I know it is explained in detail why he needs to stay with them, but such doesn't make it any less of a poor writing choice. But, when and if I do a full review of the Potter series, I'll go over those kinds of decisions.

I only bring this up because it is a base line for these movies and such something I can use to show why this is the best one. In the Columbus films, it is played with a cheerful exaggeration that reminds me of many of his eighties movies. This is not a bad thing, but it is not brimming with greatness either. In the Yates films, it is downplayed as just a backdrop, a facade, if you will, to more serious matters. Cuaron manages to combine these approaches, which is expected, as both this and GOF are the 'transition movies', while adding both sophistication and a level of charged rawness, which is not expected.

We get to see Harry's emotional landscape. Fragile but potent, unstable but unyielding, it is a sight to behold, one that belies the simpler character that we got in both the earlier and later movies. If Harry Potter developed along these lines, he might have actually been a great character instead of the flattest one among a crowd of interesting people.

The scenes are magical, but not in the try-hard way of the first two films. Around the time that I first saw them, I declared myself a true blue of the series. I haven't looked back since. The shots are magical in a way that is both wispy and intense. This is the tone that these movies should have taken, and if they reboot them, something of I am not in favor but something that is a conceivable possibility in today's Hollywood climate, this is the tone I would like them to try to take. Just the thought of that sends chills down my spine. It might even be able to challenge LOTR for the crown of best fantasy series of all time.

After that virtuoso opening, I kept waiting to be let down. I never was. Every new character introduced was interesting and every old character they excluded was not missed. The pacing is the best out of the movies; the first two were too slow and the other five were too fast. The plot was more personal to me than the other movies; this is the one movie in which Voldemort does not appear in some form or another. There is no direct end boss and so the plot has to be more creative. And so it is.

Of course, more of the credit for this has to go Mrs. Rowling for writing the book on which this film was based. But the cinematography is all the work of Cuaron's team. And it is the best in the series by far. Not to say that the other movies are poorly shot; this is Britain, after all: things may be bad, but they are never badly done. But while the cinematography of the first few movies would perfectly fit a kid's fantasies, the cinematography of the fourth movie would perfectly fit a high class ball or gala, and the cinematography of the last four movies would perfectly fit a nature doc, the cinematography of this film perfectly fits the franchise.

It is artful and well-done, but it is not show like an Oscarbaity period piece. The camera feels alive and coated with magic powder. It is exactly how I imagine the heartbeat of a troubled magic society to feel like. The music helps it out. If you listen to Window to the Past and are not sucked into the world Cuaron made for this film, then you just don't have a soul. It is introspective, ambient, immersive, and coated with the kind of cerebral wonder that I think makes life worth living. It is the best tune in the franchise. But do not think it is the only good tune in the movie. Buckbeak's Flight is a good second.

While the characters in the series may never be willing/able to turn back time after this movie for reasons cheap and nonsensical and borderline nonexistent, I hope that you will be wiser. Come back in time with me to 2004. And let the emotional waves of this picture overtake you.

As with previous Potter films, this one is wonderful. The mischievous trio are back in their third year at Hogwarts.

Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is a slightly different character in this film as the anger inside of him for what happened to his parents has grown over the years. This made, for me, the film much more enjoyable than the first and second.

As one would no doubt assume, Gary Oldman's portrayal of the character Sirius Black is nothing less than perfect. However, Sirius Black seams an unlikely roll for the talented Oldman. I enjoyed him more in other films, such as 'The Professional' and 'Immortal Beloved'. Let us hope he has had the chance to 'play it up' a bit more in the much anticipated 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire'.

The original music of John Williams is more than I could ever hope to hear. It is absolutely splendid, making the film worth a listen even if you do not watch. Williams has created memorable compositions such as the theme music to 'Star Wars', 'Jaws' and 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.

Overall, any age should enjoy this film. The visual effects are not the most spectacular I've seen, but fantastic enough to take your imagination away from the real world for 141 minutes. Even the closing credits are kind of cool.

Now, go watch the film. You'll be glad you did.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a "fan film". By this I mean the makers have made the assumption the majority of viewers, the core audience - are fans of the Potter series. As a stand alone film would leave a viewer confused by a fast moving plot devoid of a lot of detail contained in the original book which the film quite closely follows. To fully appreciate the movie, prior knowledge through reading the book would be most beneficial, it would allow you to fill in the many blanks.

Concepts, background, and explanations are skipped in the movie, which gives it a rushed, incomplete feeling, even for a Potter fan. Users have commented the movie is darker, this is somewhat true, it definitely has a different feel from the first two films, much of this can be attributed to the new director. He has changed the sets considerably, to the point where they barely resemble the first tmo films. The fine cast of adult stars is under utilized throughout the film. Maggie Smiths role could be considered a cameo for the limited screen time she got.

Overall the rest of the film is acceptable. If I didn't previously know the plot I would rate this film lower than I did. Though this IS Harry Potter and he still has the midas touch.

This third Harry Potter film is the best one yet. Director Alphonso Cuaron (Y Tu Mama Tambien, A Little Princess) has taken over from Chris Columbus and has stuck less slavishly to the original JK Rowling Books.

Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are back as Harry, Ron and Hermoine, with Hermoine in particular getting to do a lot more. There are less Quidditch matches, and more menace, in keeping with the improved complexity of Rowling's third novel. Hogwarts is not safe, Draco Malfoy is no longer a menace, but just a pain in the ass. And the new CGI-scripted character Buckbeak the Hippogriff (half eagle, half horse) looks fantastic and has personality.The kids are all supposed to be thirteen but look older - hey we'll forgive them. Neville Longbottom has lost so much weight he's almost unrecognisable.

Great performances from Emma Thompson hamming it up as the ditsy professor of foretelling, Prof Trelawny, Michael Gambon as the new Professor Dumbledore (not as magical but good), David Thewliss as Prof Lupin, and Gary Oldman as the Prisoner of Azkhaban.Thrilling, complex, menacing, ****/***** stars.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is the worst film in the series, because too much of the style has been changed. Chris Coloumbus set a standard for how the Harry Potter universe should look. He had everything done a certain way, and it was perfect to the Harry Potter mythos. Now, a new director has come aboard with a completely different vision, and he did it his way.

The story and the settings are dark, which is accurate to J.K. Rowling's book, but the style of everything seems off. In the first two movies, they wear their wizard robes through the whole film. In this, they wear their normal clothes. There's no reason given, and this isn't from the book. The story seems to rushed because the director cut so much out of the book, and then didn't come up with a way to connect everything that's in the movie. This movie just isn't as enjoyable as a Harry Potter film. It still provides a fun time of course, but it just doesn't feel the same.

As always, the performances are top notch. Gary Oldman is perfect as always in the role of the wicked Sirius Black. David Thewlis is great as the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher with a dark secret.

6/10.

This is one of my favourites of the franchise because I love Sirius Black and time travelling. Harry Potter's universe was still full of surprises at this point and the films never failed to impress. I also noticed a better soundtrack as well - not that it wasn't already pretty good in the previous ones, I just liked this one better. Oh, and RIP Richard Harris (this is the first one with Michael Gambon).

Although this film isn't all that I'd hoped it would be, I believe that it was the best of the three 'Harry Potter' films so far, thanks largely due to director Alfonso Cuaron. In 'Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban', the trio are now thirteen and beginning their Third Year at Hogwarts, under the fear of an escaped criminal who played a part in the deaths of Harry's parents and seems to be stalking the school, preying on Harry.

The child acting in this film has improved slightly with Emma Watson and Rupert Grint probably faring the best in comparison to their young co-stars. Although he is lumbered with a Ron who has once again been reduced to a comic character, it's a sign of Grint's abilities that he does well without looking embarrassed or too clownish. Dan Radcliffe was still very poor, obviously struggling to portray Harry's darker emotions in a manner that isn't wooden and awkward and and this was very apparent in the scene where he makes an atrocious effort to cry when he finds out his godfather had betrayed his parents to their deaths. while Tom Felton was let down by poor scripting of Draco.

The adult cast were excellent. Remus Lupin and Sirius Black were perfectly cast. Lupin was soft yet stern when needed and you could feel there was a parental rapport between him and Harry, and I couldn't imagine anyone other than David Thewlis in the role. And Gary Oldman was great in depicting Black's determination, mingled with an hysterical madness due to his incarceration in the hellish wizarding prison Azkaban. As for Michael Gambon, who was recast in the role of Dumbledore, I felt he was an improvement. Richard Harris was a gifted actor but his Dumbledore had a cold, aloofness to him whereas Gambon was able to portray the warm, eccentricity of the character without diminishing the power and wisdom of Dumbledore. And the rest of the regular cast, such as Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith, were perfect although we expect no better from them now!

One of the best aspects of this film is how it no longer pandered to kiddies like the previous two films did. There was a darker, moodier edge to the story and the characters. The wizarding world no longer seemed like a perfect haven and the characters had grown beyond being innocent children; this reflected the book itself since many feel PoA was a turning point in the series where it finally felt like Harry Potter- boy and book- were growing up. The Hogwarts' setting differed from the previous films yet not only was it definitely more faithful to the books but finally it felt as if the castle was in Scotland rather than perpetually sunny Disney Land and this enhanced the mood being set in the film. The clock was a nice touch, linking to the theme of time in the actual storyline, as was the bridge in being a place for Harry to mull over his problems. Also, in many ways, this film could have ended up a muddled mess in regards to the ending but Cuaron handled the Time Turner scenes well.

However, there were flaws to the film, which let it down. The characters of Hermione and Draco were poorly scripted so they seemed like two completely different characters from the ones we know and love in the books. Although Watson as an actress has improved since CoS, the main problem with the script is that Hermione is being portrayed as being too cool and cocky compared to the bookworm who has no interest in fashion that we know Hermione to be in the books. Steve Kloves, the scriptwriter who admits he's responsible for the change, really needs to learn heroines don't need to be cool Buffy types to be admired; part of why Hermione is so popular as a character in the books is that she appeals to girls who are bookish themselves and easily identify with her. And as for Draco, he comes across as too much of a cowardly, weak girlie-boy rather than an insidious, vicious brat who can be a threat to Harry when he chooses to.

Also, there was no telling of what Black did to Snape in school that left him so bitter in his hatred and I wished they'd included the scene where he let slip what Lupin was, especially as this animosity between him, Black and Lupin plays a larger role as the books go on. And speaking of Lupin, the werewolf CGI was atrocious. He looked like an emaciated rat rather than the wolf-like creature who leaves even the more powerful wizards quivering in fear. I wished there was more in the ending too as I would have loved to see Vernon's face when he found out who Black was. Kloves needs to learn how to round the Harry Potter films off properly as this was also a sticking point in CoS.

At the end of the day, there were scenes left out, some of which we didn't mind skipping but others (an explanation to Harry of James Potter's friendship to Black and Lupin) were sorely missed. It was a great film but it could have done with being made longer or skipping on non-essential scenes (less of the Knight Bus and Hermione punching Malfoy in a manner that makes her out to be a thug) to make way for scenes which are more important. I think I was disappointed because I was expecting something along the lines of RotK but it's still great viewing. I'd give it a seven-and-a-half out of ten with the hopes Cuaron will return to the helm again although preferably not with Kloves as the scriptwriter. I think Cuaron would be excellent working with a script produced by someone who has a better handle on the darker aspects of the books and a deeper understanding of the HP characters.

Wow. I love the new direction. The style fits the movie perfectly. I also think the kids acted much better in this one. I really hope they don't get rid of Daniel Radcliff, even if he does get too broad in the shoulders. You can't swap horses mid-stream. Also, did anyone recognize the kid who played Neville at first? The biggest problem that I had was that there were a lot of things the movie didn't explain, such as "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs." I think that it may have been hard for those who hadn't read the book to understand. It also didn't show that Harry's Patronus was a stag, which I thought was important. And Harry's eyes aren't green (which is mentioned at least once in each book), but that's a minor thing. I felt that the style fits the book well. I go back and read the first book and think "Wow, how young they all are, how naive." The books age, and I think that comes out in this movie. I hope they continue to follow the same path.

All in all, I loved the new direction and the movie itself. I can't wait 'till the next one comes out.

Like most Harry Potter fans, I found this movie disappointing. I felt that Director Alfonso Cuaron choose style over substance, which is never a good thing in a movie.

Some critics say that the previous movies were too stiff in how they stuck close to the book. THAT IS THE POINT!! If I want to see a Harry Potter movie, I want to see the book, the plot, brought to life. I don't want to see the plot changed.

However, I must admit, I loved the darker, more Gothic look of the film. The books are taking a turn for the darker and this movie sets that tone.

But there was so many plot holes, so much left out. It was hard for this HP fan to ignore. This book, while the smallest of the 5 out there is crucial. This is my main complaint with the movie.

It introduces Lupin, Black, and Pettigrew, all of which are important to Harry, as they fill in the gaps of his past.

In this book, you discover why Snape hates Harry, Lupin, Black, and James Potter. This is important later. The relationship between Snape and Harry is important to the Order of the Phoenix.

Who is Wormtail, Prongs, Moony, and Padfoot? What is and who created The Marauders map. And why is Black an Animagus?

The above are all questions that the movie leaves unanswered (but are in the book).

I would have sat through another hour to hear the explanations and see the full story. Instead, plot points replaced by unnecessary (but yet funny) cut scenes. Not a good thing.

Buckbeak looked great; the CGI was very well done. The time warp effect was also cool. I was disappointed in how Lupin looked as a Werewolf, I thought they were more hairy.

The best part of this movie - the acting. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson are growing into their roles and as actors. Although Radcliffe could have actually shed some tears during the Hogsmade visit. Tom Felton was great as Draco, who tries to be brash, but is really a coward under it all. He played it excellently.

The adults were also fantastic. Maggie Smith was the stern, yet almost motherly Minerva McGonagall. We needed to see more of her; she only had about 2 lines. Robbie Coltrane comes back as Hagrid and he plays the part perfectly. Emma Thompson plays a wonderfully flaky Sybil Trelawney. Michael Gambon had a tough role to fill by following Richard Harris. Gambon brings his own slant to Albus Dumbledore, which in this movie was a bit off-kelter, but I think as we get used to him in this role, it will seem more natural.

Alan Rickman.... He is the most underrated actor in this movie. The critics seem to ignore his astounding acting in these films. He is absolutely fantastic in his role as the sharp, harsh, angry, but troubled Severus Snape. Any lesser actor would have made Snape flat, but Rickman gives him life and dimension. Also, he has some of the greatest lines in this movie. "Revenge is very sweet..."

Gary Oldman was good as Sirius Black, but we didn't seen enough of him. His confrontation with Rickman was emotion filled and was one of the best parts of the movie. I wish it had gone on longer.

Timothy Spall plays a disgusting and revolting Peter Pettigrew. He looked the part and played it well.

Remus Lupin was played by David Thewlis. I was not sure what to think at first; I was hoping Anthony Stewart Head (Giles from Buffy) was going to get the part. But Thewlis was excellent, he made Lupin a character you liked and cared about, a feeling you didn't get from the book. But Thewlis makes you feel that for the character. He got a fair amount of screen time, but I wanted more. Fantastic acting. I can't wait to see him come back in the next few films.

All in all, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is an good movie, as long as you don't compare it to the book or other HP movie. The plot holes really damage the film. The acting and the feel of the movie are great, but still don't quite make up the difference.

This is certainly darker than the first two instalments, and not as funny. But based upon a truly excellent but complex book, it is a very good film nonetheless. In my reviews on the first two films, I forgot to mention the music by John Williams. In all three movies, it is very good, but not Williams's best work. His scores to Star Wars, ET and Home Alone are better. The only real quibble i had with the movie was Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. Richard Harris, the first and better Dumbledore, had died, and although Gambon was good, Harris suited the character a lot more in terms of looks and sincerity. The three leads are still likable, and they are given solid support by Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane. The real treat lies in the newcomers though, namely David Thewlis as Lupin, Emma Thompson as Trelawney and Gary Oldman as Sirius. Timothy Spall I felt was a little odd for Wormtail. The Dementors I felt quite terrifying, a lot more chilling than they were in the book. All in all, very good. 8/10. Bethany Cox

I think movie wise, this was the best of the Harry Potter films. The story was OK, but of course the books are better because they have so much more detail.

The special effects are incredible. At times, it looks realistic. Like when Harry is flying on the half bird/half horse creature. The animal looks like it has depth. Another example is the extremely fast bus Harry catches a ride on at the beginning. It's refreshing to see a film with good effects that don't look like they belong in a video game.

The acting by the kids has gotten so much better than in the first film. Too bad some of the teachers aren't featured more like they are in the books.

FINAL VERDICT: If you have watched the first two films, then I'm sure you'll be watching this one. But, if you have never read the books are seen the other movies, then you best not start off with the third film because you will be lost.

From the beginning, I felt as though I'd come in 5 minutes into the start of the film; as if I'd missed some beginning section, thought I was there from the previews on. This film never got to telling a subset of the story of described in book 3, but rather was a collection of scenes depicting parts of the book, but never evolved into a coherent plot-line that one could follow or feel. I'd read the book; all the books, in fact. That did not help and so I feel those movie goers who had not read, but mearly came for a good film were even more confused and disappointed.

Clearly, there was too much material to cover in the 2hours 20-something minutes of the film (does that count the last 10 minutes which is all credits?). As to be expected, some of the story had to be left out for the sake of brevity. However, this, being my favorite of the books, resulted in my least favorite of the films. And its not even related to the new, leather-cap wearing Dumbledore, whom I could get to like, despite the drastic change in appearance that was not necessary. No, its either the direction, but surely the editing or production thats too blame.

For one, the scenes didn't seem to flow into a store that brought the viewer in. Then, the look of Hogwarts was totally different than the previous films. Sorry, when you are part of a series, you MUST stick to those things that have been established in previous films. Hagrids house is not down a rocky slope from the school and the whole thing is not on a mountain side as depicted... at least not from the previous films. To that I say BOO! Bad job on all responsible. Thanks for ruining a promising and wonderful world. Get off your high 'my artistic vision' horse and do the damn series the way the fans and the previous films and the books have set it up. No one gives a 'wormtails'-arse what your artistic vision of the story is. Really, we don't.

Where did all of these 'standing stones' come from? Nothing of the sort was ever mentioned in the books, neither was Lupin having a mustache. If there had been a mustache - Rowling WOULD have mentioned it. Which, by the way makes me wonder, what the hell was J.K. doing other than making sure the director and producers didn't bugger up the film?

In stead of wasting time on a needlessly long bus sequence and pointless whomping willow vs bird encounters, they could have spent more time telling vital story elements. A few mentions of Hermione showing up to class in the middle of it all doesn't cut it for setting the stage to her actions. Snape making 'one' mention about the 'potions' Lupin should have been taking..., if thats it, you chould have left that out since the director/producer didn't bother to develop the whole Snape-Lupin-Potion situation at all.

The film felt rushed and cramped. Knowing the story, I barely could follow the events. For those not readers of the book, I feel pity for what is surely total confusion.

If there is extra footage on the floor, I pray they do put it into an extended version for DVD ala Lord of the Rings.

Learn your lessons and don't fudge up the next film, "Goblet of Fire", which is to already be shot and I'm expecting in the editing process now.

If this is the vision of the current director, I say, bring back Chris Columbus as soon as possible.