User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 904 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 97 out of 904

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. AustinM.
    Jan 8, 2009
    3
    This one just doesn't give me that feeling the first two gave me and it lacks the action of the 4th and 5th films. By far the worst so far.
  2. BenG.
    Jun 10, 2004
    0
    Sucks a lot!
  3. WallaceB.
    Jun 7, 2004
    0
    Sucked big time.
  4. JamesJ.
    Jun 7, 2004
    0
    I can't even begin how to describe how sad I was when I saw this bit of trash with the harry potter name on it.
  5. BenA.
    Jun 7, 2004
    0
    Although it was a good movie if it was the only one. It didn't follow the book and left so much out. I was sad.
  6. SimonC.
    Jun 9, 2004
    0
    Who wrote all the positive good reviews for this movie in the newspapers? People who have never read Harry Potter Books. That's Who! WHY DID THEY DESTROY THIS FILM? Lets get this straight. If your going to do the film of a book that people of all ages love, then at least try to keep faithful to the book! What was going on? Why put in stupid CGI shruken heads, not in ANY of the books? Who wrote all the positive good reviews for this movie in the newspapers? People who have never read Harry Potter Books. That's Who! WHY DID THEY DESTROY THIS FILM? Lets get this straight. If your going to do the film of a book that people of all ages love, then at least try to keep faithful to the book! What was going on? Why put in stupid CGI shruken heads, not in ANY of the books? Why miss out massive chunks of story and backplot? Why change the layout of hogwarts so much? Especially after all the effort to get it right in the first two films. Where in any of the books is a stupid rickety warped bridge leading out of the school to a stone circle? WHY move Hagrids hut? The first two films were filmed in and around Alwick Castle and LOOKED like a Castle and Hogwarts SHOULD look in descriptions from the books. Now hogwarts looks like a CGI Americana fest complete with hip teen students in modern clothes and not proper school robes. No Firebolt plot at all, No Crookshanks plot, Hermione and Ron arguing and falling out over the cats attempt to get scabbers because the cat KNEW he was evil, not a real rat etc... This was a major part of the book plot. I could go on for hours... Sure miss things out or skim over stuff if you want, why not change wands for swords next time eh? Why not change brooms for flying dyson hoovers because they are from our world and look "cool" I was sickened and furious when I walked out of this film. If this idiot director does another Harry film, I am not going to see it. I am not even buying this one on DVD when it comes out. I suggest that they get a director who has READ the books next time and who is FORCED AT WANDPOINT to stay true to the book. One last time....THE BOOK IS THERE. READ IT... USE IT....BRING IT TO THE SCREEN PROPERLY. DONT MAKE UP YOUR OWN PLOTS, CHANGE SETS for the sake of "arty direction" DONT LEAVE OUT HALF THE DAMN BACKSTORY!!!!!!! Kids and fans are not stupid, get it wrong and they will walk away in the thousands... Leave the world of Harry Potter as J K Rowling wrote it. THATS WHAT WE WANT TO READ. THATS WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THE FILMS. Expand
  7. AndrewM.
    Jun 9, 2004
    0
    This film was awful. The classic dilemma of Peter Parker simply does not translate to present day. Our hero is a man in love with a woman he can't have regardless of how many times he is forced to repel her advances. His obstacle to ecstasy with MJ is his fear that his enemies might exploit the obvious weakness a superhero's girlfriend would inherently be. Who thinks this way? This film was awful. The classic dilemma of Peter Parker simply does not translate to present day. Our hero is a man in love with a woman he can't have regardless of how many times he is forced to repel her advances. His obstacle to ecstasy with MJ is his fear that his enemies might exploit the obvious weakness a superhero's girlfriend would inherently be. Who thinks this way? Any man, in a similar situation, would nail the chick without fear or remorse. This heroic dilemna is so alien to the audience they actually have to explicitly state the hero's dilemna. And...of course...in a truly risky casting move...NYC is cast as the innocent victim of the crime our Anthro-Arachnid friend must fight. What I find so absurd is the ridiculously high score awarded this film by the meta-critic crowd. Is everyone on the payroll of this film? Please Tobey...end it now and go back to independent film!!! Expand
  8. Scott
    Jun 10, 2004
    0
    Why would you go and change Hogwarts castle and destroy this film. You would think with an award winning book they could at least try to follow the storyline.
  9. KevinW.
    Jun 7, 2004
    0
    In relation to the 1st 2 films it was a horribly boring, and seemingly uneventful collection of poorly directed short-sighted meaninglessness.
  10. DavidS.
    Jun 7, 2004
    0
    Sad. all i can say is very sad. A black day is on the horizon for the future of potter fans everywhere.
  11. Digitalport
    Jun 7, 2004
    0
    After watching the 1st and 2nd movies, this movie did not even get close to "ok". it was dull, boring and i cannot even remember most of it becuase i was nodding off to sleep, i loved the first 2 movies but sorry to say this i am very dissapointed with this one. make sure you get it right next time!!
  12. LarsonW.
    Jun 7, 2004
    0
    All I can say is that i didn't know dissapointment was tangible.
  13. SeanE.
    Jun 7, 2004
    0
    I was sad
  14. feliped.
    Apr 24, 2005
    0
    I don't know what you find so great about harry potter, but for me it was a lame, dull, and stupid movie. i even fell asleep!!!
  15. JK
    Aug 8, 2005
    0
    Terrible, a totally inaccurate visual representation of a great book. Being a fan of the books i could not help but notace the film SUCKED!!
  16. RitaS.
    Sep 22, 2007
    0
    Seriously, it needs to be redone. Professional reviewers, most of whom have no idea what the book is about, give it a good review because of what? The special effects? The "dark"ness? Did they read the book? Did the !@^%$#!&! director even read the book!?!?! Or did someone just give him a 2 minute summary of it and he made the movie out of what he could remember from it? How did JKR agree Seriously, it needs to be redone. Professional reviewers, most of whom have no idea what the book is about, give it a good review because of what? The special effects? The "dark"ness? Did they read the book? Did the !@^%$#!&! director even read the book!?!?! Or did someone just give him a 2 minute summary of it and he made the movie out of what he could remember from it? How did JKR agree to this? Did she even? I can only imagine her feelings of horror as she watched her book getting murdered. It seems these questions will go unanswered. Feels like scenes were mixed up and a lot of stuff has been horribly changed and a lot has been left out. Good thing the director didn't stick around for the fourth part. Good riddance. Expand
  17. Joy
    Dec 28, 2004
    2
    Harry's scar was in a different places every 3 scenes. When Hermione punched Malfoy it didn't loook realistic at all. The dementors weren't scary at all..... and Sirius was ugly *cry cry*.
  18. MiguelT.
    Jul 16, 2009
    2
    By far the worst Harry Potter movie. The adaptation is horrible, and the story-telling is lousy. The director gives a lot of time to stupid details [the bus, the spider-book, the boggart class...] instead of telling important passages in the story. And, the worst of all: the ending. The ending SUCKS. Looks like they ran out of money. Fortunately this was the only movie directed by Cuaron.
  19. missprivacy
    Nov 23, 2004
    0
    This movie needs to be redone, it was horrible. I have waited so long for this movie and to my disgust I was totally let down. What a bust, dark scene after dark scene. Did the director even read the book? REDO THIS MOVIE!!!
  20. snowangel
    Nov 23, 2004
    0
    This movie needs to be REDONE. I was so angry with what this director did with this movie. Did Alfonso even read the book? I'm angry and disappointed at looking at a gray dull boring screen.
  21. BobB.
    Dec 14, 2004
    0
    I found myself asking "when is the actual main plot gonna start?" and the the credits started rolling.
  22. JustinW.
    Jun 1, 2004
    3
    Having read the books I found this film to be lacking some of the best parts. I felt no emotional ties to the characters, especially Sirius Black.
  23. Chris
    Jun 10, 2004
    2
    I waited earnestly for this movie to come to theaters. I even reread the book to make sure I would know all that was going on in the motion picture. I went to the theaters with a group of others who had done the same. But lo and behold as we watched the movie, we were taken back many times by the absence of certain features in the movie that we had all considered critical to the overall I waited earnestly for this movie to come to theaters. I even reread the book to make sure I would know all that was going on in the motion picture. I went to the theaters with a group of others who had done the same. But lo and behold as we watched the movie, we were taken back many times by the absence of certain features in the movie that we had all considered critical to the overall enjoyment of the movie. I found myself nowhere near the edge of my seat during the most critical parts of the story...Oh yes, that reminds me, there was no story line to catch critical parts in anyway. I find that the second and first movie especially were wonderful to watch over and over again; the plots were clear, the acting acceptable, and the key parts focused on. I know critics are glad that this movie is full of successful commercial aspects, but that is not what makes a great seller for those of us who loved seeing every important part we cherished when reading the books. To make an analogy: if Lord of the Rings was done the same in the third movie, Frodo and Sam would be found to be wearing t-shirts and jeans and perhaps Gandalf would have made only a few surprise appearances along with other important characters who should have played major roles. I obviously can't mask that I was dissapointed in this movie and therefore my deepest desire would be that it could be redone by a more understanding and reliable director. The sad thing is that I will not be purchasing this third movie and will be letting my friends know what a dissapointment it was along with advising them not to purchase a ticket. I just wish this movie had been one that I raved about and not one that I easily found so many faults with. I know that many others fell the same way I do and that really is saying something. SO PLEASE READ THIS OPINION AND UNDERSTAND THE MANY FLAWS IN THIS MOVIE NOTICED BY SO MANY PREVIOUS FANS OF THE BEGINNING SERIES!!! Expand
  24. RobertG.
    Jun 10, 2004
    2
    Movie was horrible. It jumped around too much, missed several key scenes that set it up for the next movie and the Hogwarts grounds are nothing like the first two movies. Overall the worst of the movies so far. Hopefully the next one will make up for the difference.
  25. JenniferB.
    Jun 5, 2004
    1
    Awful movie. Save your money and don't go.
  26. SteveC.
    Jun 7, 2004
    2
    I have to say I was disappointed. Imagine J.K. Rowling unable to finish the last two books, and the story outlines were used by another author to write the stories. The ideas would be there, the the dialogue, the feel, and the flow would be different. That's how I felt about this movie. This was primarily due to the change in directors. I didn't like the changes that were made, I have to say I was disappointed. Imagine J.K. Rowling unable to finish the last two books, and the story outlines were used by another author to write the stories. The ideas would be there, the the dialogue, the feel, and the flow would be different. That's how I felt about this movie. This was primarily due to the change in directors. I didn't like the changes that were made, from the changes in seating in the great hall, to the Griffindore common room, to Hagred's Hut. Why? I also didn't like the scene transitions - it seemed that we were into a new scene that didn't necessary flow from the previous one, and then just as quickly - leaping into another. So much was left out in this movie that needed to be there for those viewers that hadn't read the books. I also didn't like the camera angles and movement. There seemed to be an effort to be artsy without good reason. So many shots of the characters were from a low angle - without the need to do so from the perspectrive of another character in the scene - like Dobby and Harry speaking to each other in the second movie. I'm sorry, I didn't like the new Dumbeldor either. Richard Harris was both magical and wonderous in his portrayal, and his softspoken manner gave him a sense of being in control and powerful. This fellow was not any of those. I will see it again, but I only hope that they bring back Chris Colombus for the next movie. Expand
  27. DaveB.
    Jun 7, 2004
    1
    What a disappointment.
  28. LarryF.
    Jun 8, 2004
    3
    The movie wasn't bad, but there should have been more detail. There were too many holes in it. Also I don't think Michael Gambon was good at all as Professor Dumbledore. To me he did not fit the part. I really think they could have done better at casting a replacement for Richard Harris.
  29. CaroleM.
    Jun 9, 2004
    2
    I was very disappointed in this movie. The first 2 movies by Chris Columbus were excellent. The 3rd left a void from start to finish. There really wasn't a beginning or an ending and it made you feel like they took the heart and soul out of the book. I'm amazed at the reviews that this movie got. The best so far??? Read the book then watch the movie and I think you may change your mind.
  30. MichalaW.
    Jul 10, 2004
    3
    The movie sucked! I was really excited about seeing it but when I saw it I was very disappointed. It didn't follow the book at all. The sceneary was different then in the other two movies which I think was a stupid move. It didn't go into important details that you need for the other books. In my opinion this movie was the worst and the other two were very good!!!
  31. IWantTodie
    Jun 11, 2004
    0
    This movie was totally rubbish, and because of this movie, i want to die!!! Emma Watson is nice.
  32. KerriH.
    Jun 11, 2004
    2
    Rushed and disorganized. I was excited to see the third movie and reread the book so I could remember what was happening. Perhaps this was a bad idea, because it made the movie just that much worse for me to watch. I felt that the director of this film as opposed to the one of the previous two, decided that he was going to make up his own story using only a few of the author's ideas. Rushed and disorganized. I was excited to see the third movie and reread the book so I could remember what was happening. Perhaps this was a bad idea, because it made the movie just that much worse for me to watch. I felt that the director of this film as opposed to the one of the previous two, decided that he was going to make up his own story using only a few of the author's ideas. The movie spent more time staring at the whomping willow tree than showing the key parts in the novel. Also as many others have said, why would you change hogwarts completely after two movies have already been made another way? I understand the fact that they had to cast a new person to take the place of Dumbledore, but they could have at least done a bit better job of making him look like he's supposed to. Isn't his beard and hair supposed to be silvery-white and not gray, with a pony tail holder in it? However dissapointed in all the rearranging of events and leave outs, I did rate this movie a two. One point for the added parts that were funny(particularly the part with Ron and Hermione in hogsmeade.) And the other point because most of the actors and actresses did a good job as usual. Expand
  33. IluvArsenal&HarryPotter
    Jun 19, 2004
    3
    (Please read this all - it's intresting!)... Ok, i absolutly luv the Harry Potter series. They are my all time fav bok to read. I was really excited when i found out they were going to make the series a movie...I watch the 1st one...ok i was disappointed...2nd one...ok..still v.different to book. But they were still v.good. and then i found out the release date (4th June) for the 3rd (Please read this all - it's intresting!)... Ok, i absolutly luv the Harry Potter series. They are my all time fav bok to read. I was really excited when i found out they were going to make the series a movie...I watch the 1st one...ok i was disappointed...2nd one...ok..still v.different to book. But they were still v.good. and then i found out the release date (4th June) for the 3rd (Azkaban) Movie. Ihad been counting down days...i was soooo exicted and curious to see how Buckbeak and the Dementors looked... SHOCK ON ME...I thought (and i'm sure many agree with me) that this movie was obviously the worst. If i thought that 1 and 2 didnt follow storyline fully (which they cant have - it would be impossible and too long!), then what the hell was no. 3??? The foolish director changed hogwarts...changed the storyline colmpletely...(to tell you the truth... i was even surprised the time turner thing was in the movie - even though it is like the main thing... No offense to anyone...but Dumbldore SUCKED!! I know thge original actor has passed away (RIP) but couldnt they find a better replacement?! AND the Director himself. Why cant Chirstopher Columbus continue? Can someone reading thsi mail or somehow appeal?! The grounds anf the school its self was completely different... Ok, i dont have much time. If i did i could critise every bit of the movie. I mean the whole Diagon Alley and what the hell was that thing on the Knight Bus..??? Ok i'll stop. I mean people say it is more deep and adultish..yeah the book is, but if the movie was done propally, then i would hav been fantastic! Ok CC plz come back!!! Think about people....It was surly disapointing! Expand
  34. S.W.
    Jun 4, 2004
    1
    IT SUCKED, not true to story at all, come on now.
  35. KendraC.
    Jun 4, 2004
    2
    I gave this installment of harry potter a 2, and that is just being nice. I am an incredibly large fan of hp, along with my closest friends and we were all incredibly disappointed with the outcome of this movie. I have read the book about 3 times and it is my favorite one but I found the movie incredibly bad. There were so many random scenes that had no relevance at all to the plot with I gave this installment of harry potter a 2, and that is just being nice. I am an incredibly large fan of hp, along with my closest friends and we were all incredibly disappointed with the outcome of this movie. I have read the book about 3 times and it is my favorite one but I found the movie incredibly bad. There were so many random scenes that had no relevance at all to the plot with unnecessary gags and pointless additions. There was so many inportant elements taken out like Quidditch and how it is their captain's last year there. They portray prof. lupin completely wrong and him as a warewolf if extremely odd. Pettigrew and many other characters are gross and disgusting and not at all pleasing to watch. There is not explaination at all about the whole secret keeper element with peter telling voldemort and sirius not doing anything. I was also joined with a friend that had not read any of the books and after the movie she said she didn't understand what even happened! The whole film was very choppy and was like a waterfall that wouldn't let up, that just kept going, like it was in a rush to get to the end. And all the scenes were so short! You would just start getting into a part and you were then wisked quickly into another part. I really despised the transitions too, they reminded me of a power point presentation or an i-movie or something equally as lame. There were also many very lame and corny moments, like hermionie grabbing ron's shoulder and harry "crying" abut sirius or whatever, that was soo unnecesary. And the random srunken head on the knoght bus and the old lady countdown scene was really random as well. I just didn't understand it. It could just have been soooooo much better! I think that is what I am so dissapointed about. I guess I am somewhat biased considering that I am an extreme fan and have very high expectations, but think whatever you want, this is just my opinion. Expand
  36. GenevieveM.
    Jun 7, 2004
    2
    Could Prisoner of Azkaban be more disappointing? The plot was forgotten in favor of cinematography. I hope the next movie (Goblet of Fire) is handled with more care.
  37. Laura
    Jun 7, 2004
    2
    Chris Columbus did a better job with adapting the books to movies. All in all, the special effects were impressive, but what happened to the plot? Where did it go? It is nowhere to be found in the Prisoner of Azkaban.
  38. K.Thomas
    Jun 7, 2004
    3
    Cuaron seems to see Harry Potter as an auteur opportunity but his creative interpretation misses. The film has magic but isn't magical. Cuaron seems to be an understudy of Edgar Allen Poe rather than J.K. Rowling. Hogwarts was fabulous in HPSS; in HPPA it is dreary. The scenery is great but did I miss when someone did an enchantment and moved Hagrid's Hut?? The film has bad Cuaron seems to see Harry Potter as an auteur opportunity but his creative interpretation misses. The film has magic but isn't magical. Cuaron seems to be an understudy of Edgar Allen Poe rather than J.K. Rowling. Hogwarts was fabulous in HPSS; in HPPA it is dreary. The scenery is great but did I miss when someone did an enchantment and moved Hagrid's Hut?? The film has bad continuity. Cuaron seems to get in Dan's way - we know he's a better actor than this! The scene where he cries under the invisibiltiy cloak sucks. And worst of all, Dumbledore in absolutely mis-cast. Gambon is a weak, stumbling, ineffectual mumbling fool. This is more than bad continuity. Too many people stuck in their bonnets are messing with Harry Potter. Get rid of Cuaron and Gambon - please! Expand
  39. MeganD.
    Jun 7, 2004
    1
    I have to say, that I was very disappointed! Be a true Harry Potter fan and avid reader, it feels like the whole story was destroyed. There were may things left out and unexplained. It seem that the new director was concentrating more on the special effects than telling the story and keeping the feel of the book in mind. The new settings of Hogwarts was distrubing, and the fact that the I have to say, that I was very disappointed! Be a true Harry Potter fan and avid reader, it feels like the whole story was destroyed. There were may things left out and unexplained. It seem that the new director was concentrating more on the special effects than telling the story and keeping the feel of the book in mind. The new settings of Hogwarts was distrubing, and the fact that the main characters were dress in clothing of today, destroys the timeless aspect of the story. Expand
  40. FrankA.
    Jun 7, 2004
    3
    How sad some fan reveiwers can't help but stoop to childish attacks on those who disagree with their opinions. I guess personal attacks for them is like sucking a thumb, right, E.B.?
  41. PaulG.
    Jun 8, 2004
    2
    This film is such a disappointment. I don't know if this terrible movie is the result of a new director, more likely the fault is in the screenplay itself. Overall, it lacks the consistency and warmth of both the book and the other two movies. It isn't a matter of material being left out. This must be done sometimes in screenplays. It is the addition of elements not in the book This film is such a disappointment. I don't know if this terrible movie is the result of a new director, more likely the fault is in the screenplay itself. Overall, it lacks the consistency and warmth of both the book and the other two movies. It isn't a matter of material being left out. This must be done sometimes in screenplays. It is the addition of elements not in the book that bothers me most. I wont bother to list all the problems with the movie but I just have to mention, "Where did the shrunken heads come from?? The slapstick scenes of steam out the ears and animal noise candies have no business being in the film either. The characters have been reduced to stereotypes. Hermione is the sobing, and weak (except where she punches Malfoy), little girl. Ron is the comic relief. And Harry is a simple character that was in no way developed beyond what was in the first two films. I really hope Warner Brothers will listen to the fans' complaints and will rectify the problems in the next film and not just turn out another stupid film for the great unthinking masses. Please, Warner Brothers be faithful to the intelligent writing of J.K. Rowing and don't dumb things down! I will not buy this movie when it comes out; in fact I never want to see it again. Expand
  42. NicoleB.
    Jun 9, 2004
    2
    I was so excited when I won preview tickets to see the third instalment of Harry Potter. I am a huge fan and have read all the books at least 8 times each. The PoA is my favourite and could not wait to see it - I shouldn't have bothered. I am not going to list all the things that differentiated the movie from the book - Matt D did a good job of that. The person in charge of I was so excited when I won preview tickets to see the third instalment of Harry Potter. I am a huge fan and have read all the books at least 8 times each. The PoA is my favourite and could not wait to see it - I shouldn't have bothered. I am not going to list all the things that differentiated the movie from the book - Matt D did a good job of that. The person in charge of continuity should be sacked. I felt no warmth whatsoever to the new Dumbledore - I thought he was a soppy fool; there was no explanation whatsoever to the friendship of the authors of the map and I felt this should have been explained since Lupin comes into the Shrieking Shack and hugs Black. Why bother making a movie based on a book only to throw the plot away and rewrite it? Harry Potter is hugely popular because of the books and their contents not someone else's interpretation of it. I am surprised J.K. Rowling allowed this script to be written let alone the movie made and released. To the dedicated Potter/Rowling fans throughout the world, this movie was a huge insult to our intelligence. This movie has and will continue to make money only because it is Harry Potter. Expand
  43. Rod
    Jun 9, 2004
    3
    The ?Harry Potter? books take the reader to the edge of reality into a waiting magical world. This world is presented as one that is similar to ours, but yet different enough to allow an escape. With the first two movies, we are visually taken into a believable 'alter' world. This third movie dashes those notions with scenes and characters who do not match the first two movies, The ?Harry Potter? books take the reader to the edge of reality into a waiting magical world. This world is presented as one that is similar to ours, but yet different enough to allow an escape. With the first two movies, we are visually taken into a believable 'alter' world. This third movie dashes those notions with scenes and characters who do not match the first two movies, nor the feel of the books. In 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban', Cuaron clutters the magical world. The castle scenes contain so many extra ingredients they distract from the, sometimes difficult to understand, dialogue. Many times during the movie I was asking someone else what was said or was being asked what was said. The general feel of the castle was constricting and in need of repair. Instead of being an ancient and magnificent building, it was little more than a cramped, cluttered, rundown apartment building. Also, In the scenes of the castle, there are almost always annoying paintings, that are strictly there for comic relief. Even the ground around the castle, has become over grown with stuff. Instead of having nice lush green grass, it had patches of green. The courtyards appeared to have not been taken care of in years. The whomping willow now stands amid rocks that would not allow a vehicle to crash into it and then be driven away. After seeing the castle and grounds, you are left questioning how the wizarding race has survived. In the books we are presented with characters who are concerned about how they are perceived. Many of the characters in the movie seem to be stuck in the middle ages and do not line up with their images from the book. For example, the executioner looks feeble and on the edge of checking out himself, however, the book presents him as an employee in good standing with the ministry of magic. In a later book we find out he?s a Death Eater, so his feeble and outlandish looks don?t seem like he?s someone that would be recruited to intimidate people. In the books, we are also given the impression that wizards are as concerned about personal appearance as any other person. Yes, you will run into people who are less concerned, but the movie presents almost every ?new? witch or wizard as someone from a ?B? rated horror movie. Tom the inn keeper at the Leaky Cauldron, looks like a weak IGOR off of ?Young Frankenstein?. Dumbledore?s switch, necessary due to the passing of Richard Harris, and subsequent character changes, lessens the royal air of the books. In the books Dumbledore is presented as someone who knows what is going on and allows the students to make there own mistakes, but yet is still there to help when needed. In Cuaron and Kloves? version, Dumbledore loses his royal air for an almost bumbling grandfather, who came up with one good idea. Cuaron and Kloves also combine many of the events that take place in the books or rearrange them to make them fit into their vision of the book. If you know the book, this was very distracting. The book has many intertwined elements that were disconnected in the movie. In the book we find out much more information about the background behind Snape?s dislike for Lupin, Black and Potter. The movie skims over these topics and many others. To sum up this and many other examples of where the movie falls short-- Instead of being just at the edge of reality, it dives off the cliff to be dashed on the rocks at the bottom. Expand
  44. ClaireE.
    Jul 3, 2004
    2
    I was really disappointed in this movie. I had hoped that it would be better than the previous two, but now, since watching this one, I viewed the Columbus-directed movies and appreciated much more. The thing that distressed me most was the portrayal of Hermione as a ditzy teenager, and not the intelligent, schoolwork-oriented girl we know her to be. I had at one point identified with I was really disappointed in this movie. I had hoped that it would be better than the previous two, but now, since watching this one, I viewed the Columbus-directed movies and appreciated much more. The thing that distressed me most was the portrayal of Hermione as a ditzy teenager, and not the intelligent, schoolwork-oriented girl we know her to be. I had at one point identified with her, but now she is not the same. I am aware of the three 'growing up', but I assure you, I am not much older than she is in this movie and I felt no need to become, well, as superficial as she has become. Another thing was their portrayal of Sirius, easily the most-liked character in the series. Did they never realise the repercussions of putting a gibbering madman on the posters? The thing with Sirius is that he never went mad, and that is how he managed to escape. His unnecessary insanity also manifests itself when he meets Harry & Co, which brings me to my next point. Apart from some definite confusion with everyone blasting each others' wands away and failing to retrieve them, then using them again later, and Lupin's transformation into an overgrown Gollum rather than the wolf-like creature he supposedly is, and Pettigrew...well we won't go there. I'm afraid my tirade will have to end here as I am being kicked off the internet, but I have to say I was disappointed. Very disappointed. And I hope that some people who are insulting each other for their opinions will rethink because it is very childish. I should know. Expand
  45. BillE.
    Jul 7, 2004
    3
    Disappointing. The story feels rushed. The acting, pedestrian. The effects, so-so. Oldman and Thewlis shine as Black and Lupin respectively. Everybody else is doing their role by formula.
  46. CarolH.
    Jul 8, 2004
    1
    Overall, quite disappointing. Firstly, the actors are not portraying their characters very will. I agree with a previous post - Hermione does seem to be pretty ditzy......Then, there were a few small, but noticable mistakes. For example, y was there a staircase leading UP in the divination room? Was it not supposed to be the top floor? N they did not even explain who Mooney, Padfoot, Overall, quite disappointing. Firstly, the actors are not portraying their characters very will. I agree with a previous post - Hermione does seem to be pretty ditzy......Then, there were a few small, but noticable mistakes. For example, y was there a staircase leading UP in the divination room? Was it not supposed to be the top floor? N they did not even explain who Mooney, Padfoot, Prongs, n Wormtail were like they did in the book. Also, Crookshanks should've played a much larger roll then a pesty housecat. Also, What happened to all the ghosts? Nearly Headless Nick? Or the hilarious, cocky Sir Cadogan? Also, many things were changed from the book, such as Harry being the one who firsts notices Peter Pettigrew on the Marauder's Map. Sorry to the fans of the movie, but this is my own opinion. Expand
  47. ronnier
    Jan 10, 2005
    3
    The movie was not as good as the first two and left way to much of the book out. I liked the way the first director, directed the stars,especially the kids. It was ment to be for children and I like the way they filmed the first two, the directing wasn't as dark.
  48. S.Wales
    Jan 7, 2005
    1
    I will give it 1 because the girl in it aint bad!
  49. RobertT.
    Jun 11, 2004
    1
    After the 1st 10 mins of the movie I was wondering if the director and screenwriter had read the third book. When you have a great written work it is the job of the director and screenwriter to cut it into a workable size, but not completely change what was left in. The reviewers I have read that say this is a great movie must have never read the book, because I can not think of one After the 1st 10 mins of the movie I was wondering if the director and screenwriter had read the third book. When you have a great written work it is the job of the director and screenwriter to cut it into a workable size, but not completely change what was left in. The reviewers I have read that say this is a great movie must have never read the book, because I can not think of one moment in the movie that followed the book. In the first two they have direct quotes from the books, this movie was the biggest joke of a translation. I want the people responsible to apologize to all the Harry Potter fans around the world. Expand
  50. Mark
    Jun 10, 2004
    0
    In one word DISAPPOINTING.
  51. Megan
    Jun 14, 2004
    2
    As a movie is was pretty good, but if you've read the book it was a huge letdown. The scenery was more accurate but some things just didn't fit. Like when Harry cast the Patronus and it was more of a shield rather than a Stag. My friend and I went and she didn't read the book and i had to explain half of the movie to her. Several friends have had the same comments. It As a movie is was pretty good, but if you've read the book it was a huge letdown. The scenery was more accurate but some things just didn't fit. Like when Harry cast the Patronus and it was more of a shield rather than a Stag. My friend and I went and she didn't read the book and i had to explain half of the movie to her. Several friends have had the same comments. It really did skip around and left most in awe and wonder not of the movie but rather everything that went over there heads. I know it's hard to keep to the books but I can't believe JK Rowling let this movie turn to what it has. The other two movies had good details and were well developed and were a big leadup to this letdown. They were a bit boring but this movie just didn't flow with them. The looks and basically everything didn't fit with the other movies. I'm sorry but I hope the next book (which is very good) captures both excitement while leaving the audiance who haven't read the books with full understanding on what is going on. Expand
  52. GwenS.
    Jun 14, 2004
    3
    As an avid fan of the Harry Potter series of books and also the first 2 movies, I was at the theater on opening weekend. Prisoner of Azkaban has always been my favorite in the series and knowing that Gary Oldman was playing Sirius Black, made me even more excited and giddy to see the movie. I am disheartened by the direction the movie took. I understand that it is near impossible to As an avid fan of the Harry Potter series of books and also the first 2 movies, I was at the theater on opening weekend. Prisoner of Azkaban has always been my favorite in the series and knowing that Gary Oldman was playing Sirius Black, made me even more excited and giddy to see the movie. I am disheartened by the direction the movie took. I understand that it is near impossible to create the movie word for word, but if your not even going to try - then you shouldn't be able to call it Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. I saw it for a second time with my brother who never read the novels, he enjoyed the movie... so obviously you made the non-supporters of the book happy. I am looking forward to the next novel in the series and can't wait to read it... however, I feel the next movie will just have to wait till it plays on HBO, I will not be paying a dime to see it in the theaters, especially if it has the same director. Let those who don't or can't read, enjoy your version. Expand
  53. Unfortunate
    Jun 14, 2004
    0
    Either you liked the first two movies or you liked this one. I am one who liked the first two, but was very disappointed in this one. The first two movies presented stories, whereas this one presents one action scene after another. That would be fine if this were based on an action book, however, JK Rowling has spent many chapters developing a story. This movie seems to boil everything Either you liked the first two movies or you liked this one. I am one who liked the first two, but was very disappointed in this one. The first two movies presented stories, whereas this one presents one action scene after another. That would be fine if this were based on an action book, however, JK Rowling has spent many chapters developing a story. This movie seems to boil everything into two catagories, action and bit-part comedy. Character development? I guess it's not needed. And what were some of the extras thrown in for? Is the book not rich enough? It's only a widely popular book. Those who want to see the book protrayed on the screen should not go see this movie. If you want to see a teenage action movie (which means it is highly commercializable) should go see this movie. Ponder this--were those training wheels on Potter's firebolt at the end? Expand
  54. DaveG.
    Jun 15, 2004
    3
    Alas, I wanted to like this movie. I really, really did. I loved the first and second, and marveled at the true-to-the-story cinematography and scripting. This one looked more like J.K. Rowling Meets a Drunken John Woo. Character development was nil, screen time of the supporting cast was dismal, and I think the established characters were misused and scripted out of character. The worst Alas, I wanted to like this movie. I really, really did. I loved the first and second, and marveled at the true-to-the-story cinematography and scripting. This one looked more like J.K. Rowling Meets a Drunken John Woo. Character development was nil, screen time of the supporting cast was dismal, and I think the established characters were misused and scripted out of character. The worst offender was Dumbledore; Not to say the guy playing Dumbledore wasn't a decent actor, but someone directed him BADLY: He lacked the self-assured grace of Mr. Harris (the prior Dumbledore who unfortunately passed away last year). It really affects a movie to have a character as important as Dumbledore suddenly change from an incredibly wise, kindly old wizard and teacher of youngsters to a doddering old fool who cannot be trusted not to hurt his own students (Cited: Accidentally tapping Ron's injured leg - The REAL Dumbledore would NEVER have done that.) In contrast, the "Real" Dumbledore was a man who could portray a figure that inspired calm trust. The current version inspires a smirk. It's sad because Dumbledore IS Hogwart's, and, while Snape (Alan Rickman, one of my favorite Character Actors) delivers his nasty best, his screen time seems truncated. Worse, the whole womping-willow scene was far too short, with too little dialogue to understand WHY Snape went in after the others, and WHO Padfoot Et. Al. were in the realtime (I'm not going to spoil any more than that). All in all, I am saddened by this turn with the Harry Potter Movies, as what I wanted, and most of J.K. Rowling's other fans wanted, was a visualization of the wonderful books. Instead, we got another action-comedy in a familiar setting, making a mockery of our fond memories of favorite characters. I want to vomit. Expand
  55. CeraY.
    Jun 6, 2004
    0
    [***SPOILERS***] I love the HP series, read all the books, and thought this would be the best movie yet being my favorite book and lets just say that Cuaron absolutely wrecked the movie... destroyed it and is a HORRIBLE director and i hope to god he never directs another hp movie again! i was extremley disappointed, MANY MANY things being left out, and new actors right left and center...[***SPOILERS***] I love the HP series, read all the books, and thought this would be the best movie yet being my favorite book and lets just say that Cuaron absolutely wrecked the movie... destroyed it and is a HORRIBLE director and i hope to god he never directs another hp movie again! i was extremley disappointed, MANY MANY things being left out, and new actors right left and center... not to mention a whole new hogwarts and much much more... [**SPOILER SECTION**] for those who have read the books, This is what annoyed me about this movie and what was left out !! Now i do realize that certain things must be left out inorder for the movie not to be 1000 hours long... but cmon ... Hagrids cabin, When did an earth quake happen to slide Hagrids cabin down the hill? Why is the Whomping Willow in a totally different spot? and they never explained about the knot in the tree, instead they froze it with a spell instead of hitting the knot Why was the entrance to the griffondor tower in a whole new spot? how did Sirius Black escape from Azkaban? Or why did Snape hate Lupin and Black so much? Why did Snape hate Harry's father (which should have been answered in the first part itself)? Don't they have exams at Hogwarts? Why did Harry think that his dad saved him from Dementors? Harry Produces a STAG when performing the patronus charm, not a bright glow - It took months for Harry to master it, NOT in ONE Lesson after a few tries Why was his patronus a stag? Why were the quidditch matches stopped?? The friendship between M/s. Moony, Padfoot, Wormtail and Prongs is not even explained Never explained anything about the Maruader's Map or who made it never explained Why Sirius was an Animagus The Dementors... aren't they supposed to glide? I can't remember them flying in the book... Professor Flitwick was different, and, Crabbe, or is it Goyle... changed to a different boy half way through the film). in the end it never said what happened to harry .. leaving it up in the air also the yearly competition for points was left out of the movie altogether the trips to Hogsmeade and the Jokes that the weasley brother play and things they bring back from Hogsmeade are all left out Also, in the book, Harry's aunt doesn't go flying off into space like some hot air balloon, she stays in the house. they completely took out the part where Stan Shunpike asks Harry his name and he replies with "Neville Longbottom." it completely skips the part discussing the upcoming visit of Harry's uncle's sister, during which time, Harry asks his uncle to sign the permission slip which allows him to take trips into the school's village. In the movie, they skip all of that and jump right to the part when his aunt shows up I didn't like that they slide the Firebolt scene in at the very end of the movie, when in the book, there was a whole big thing about it. McGonagall had taken it from Harry to test it for jinxes when they thought Sirius Black was trying to kill him. why isnt Harry surprised when Lupin can instantly reveal the secret of the map? They never explained or showed how Harry got the book of monsters, They never explained how Hermoine got crookshanks the true murderer: did he escape in the end? they leave it out Black signed the consent form to visit the village by the end of the novel and nothing is revealed in the film about that. pretty much Couron wrecked this movie..... Expand
  56. MichaelB.
    Jun 7, 2004
    2
    I am huge HP fan and I think the movie lacked the warmth and charm of the two previous films. I also think it's snobbish to dismiss us who appreciate the "less gritty" Hogwarts and film versions. I think the movie lacked beautiful music (very important), good acting (pretty bad at times), critical subplots (Hermoine and Ron, Harry and Quidditch), seemed rushed at times (the Shrieking I am huge HP fan and I think the movie lacked the warmth and charm of the two previous films. I also think it's snobbish to dismiss us who appreciate the "less gritty" Hogwarts and film versions. I think the movie lacked beautiful music (very important), good acting (pretty bad at times), critical subplots (Hermoine and Ron, Harry and Quidditch), seemed rushed at times (the Shrieking Shack scene), lacked the important Quidditch factor (the Quidditch Cup), made Hogwarts look unpleasant and UNmagical (except for lots of moving things), destroyed my image of Dumbledore (a dottering old guy in a robe with little sophistication), and mostly left me feeling that the film franchise will not be able to live up to the books. Call me whatever you want, but I like the first two better. Expand
  57. JamesS.
    Jun 7, 2004
    0
    Sad. so sad.
  58. SmadarQ.
    Jun 7, 2004
    0
    I read all the books. this is rubbish.
  59. ChristosD.
    Jun 8, 2004
    3
    Another boring movie. When the filmakers are going to realise that some scenes can be avoided, in order not to be too long. Especially when something not really exciting is happening. Please, we are getting bored because of this. Finally i am still waiting to see Harry as a wizard and doing some really good magic. So far i have seen all of his movies but nothing wet. At the end of day, he Another boring movie. When the filmakers are going to realise that some scenes can be avoided, in order not to be too long. Especially when something not really exciting is happening. Please, we are getting bored because of this. Finally i am still waiting to see Harry as a wizard and doing some really good magic. So far i have seen all of his movies but nothing wet. At the end of day, he is the main character, isn't he??? Expand
  60. DanniH.
    Jun 9, 2004
    2
    Very, very dissapointing. Harry Potter and the Prisoner was the best Harry Potter book so far - and the worst movie. I'm appalled at the amount of good reviews it's receiving, and even more appalled that Ms. Rawling would allow the script to be changed so much. The movie started out okay. An added joke about Harry and his wand that wasn't in the book, but it was cute and Very, very dissapointing. Harry Potter and the Prisoner was the best Harry Potter book so far - and the worst movie. I'm appalled at the amount of good reviews it's receiving, and even more appalled that Ms. Rawling would allow the script to be changed so much. The movie started out okay. An added joke about Harry and his wand that wasn't in the book, but it was cute and didn't have all that much plot relevance...so I didn't mind. As a matter of fact the movie went along just fine, until the Night Bus appeared. WHAT is the deal with the shrunken Jamacian head and his wisecracks? That's not Harry Potter, that's just stupid and a little scary. Second thing was the innkeeper at the Leaky Cauldron. Since when was he a hunch backed grunting moron? People will do anything for a cheap laugh, even ruin good characters in a good story. The Minister for Magic didn't have a green bowler hat. That's almost like his trademark, and they just left that out. Right, next. The layout of Hogwarts has changed completley. It's like some ancient Pagan site like outside, and they added rooms and a giant clock. I think the Main Hall where the house eating tables are located changed completley as well. The new Dumbledore was a shock, and at first I didn't like him, but after that I think he pulled things off okay. He'll never be like our original Dumbledore, though. He's missed by many. And what's with the mass amount of crows around Hagrid's hut and the rest of the ground? Is the director trying to appeal to sad goth kids now, because it's new and "hip", or what? Please don't turn Harry Potter into Buffy the Vampire Slayer or other such trash. Another horrible attempt at appealing to the world of pop culture was the clothing that the characters wore. Robes only in class, the rest of the time the characters wore muggle clothes. Harry's outfit was okay, but I was shocked by Hermione's. Not something a witch would wear in the wizarding world, very out of character. Being out of character was another thing the movie was good at. One of the worst lines in the film was spoken by Hermione. "Is that really what my hair looks like from the back?" Okay, no. One of the great things about Hermione and one of the stronger parts of her character is that she's confident in herself and doesn't CARE what other people think of her. In Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Hermione showed that she was prefectly capable of spending time on her hair to make it absolutley beautiful as she did in the Yule Ball, but stated that it was silly to spend so much time on it and wouldn't be doing so anymore. Although Draco Malfoy is not one of my favorite characters, he was also put to shame in this movie and depicted as a wimpering coward. He screamed like a girl, and I do recall him even crying for his mommy at one point. Not something Draco would do, he's too proud of himself. Ron was just sad. All he was was comic relief and had no part in the movie at all. Poor Ron, reduced to this. Wormtail was in character, however his visual appearance was off. I don't think Rowling ever described him with Rat like teeth, and a habit of holding his hands like paws and chattering like a rat. Also, it was stated in the book that a werewolf (in the Harry Potter world, at least) was almost indistinguishable from a real wolf, with only minor differences in the snout. But in the movie, our poor Lupin transformed into a blading, alienesque monster that didn't resemble a wolf at all. The entire backstory of the Firebolt and the rivalry beetween Crookshanks and Scabbers/Wormtail was taken out, and every time Harry had one of his heart to heart talks with Lupin, they were walking through some area of the ground suddenly...everything just jumped sporadicaly from place to place. I'm sure I'll think of more things that were horribly wrong with this movie when the review is finished, but for now I'll leave it at this. Worst Harry Potter movie ever, a discrace to fans everywhere. I will never watch it again. Expand
  61. IHATEALFONSO
    Jun 9, 2004
    0
    I thought that Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban sucked and it could have been so much better. The effects were horrible and the directing was just as bad. I think that Chris should have directed all seven and not just the first two. Alfonso also left too much out that was in the book and he mixed everything around. None of it was in the right order. He also made it go too fast. He I thought that Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban sucked and it could have been so much better. The effects were horrible and the directing was just as bad. I think that Chris should have directed all seven and not just the first two. Alfonso also left too much out that was in the book and he mixed everything around. None of it was in the right order. He also made it go too fast. He got too ahead of himself in directing it. There wasn?t really a climax in it because everything happened at once. They also changed a bunch of the story around. Ron is supposed to break his leg by wrapping it around a branch that Sirius is dragging him under the Whomping Willow, Lupin isn?t supposed to cast a spell on the Whomping Willow he?s supposed to prod the knot at the foot of the tree, Snape isn?t supposed to follow that close to Lupin when they go under the Whomping Willow and Hermione and Harry aren?t supposed to get thrown into the tree by the branches they are supposed to follow Crookshanks and then he prods the knot with a branch on the ground. They also left out how Crookshanks and Sirius were best friends and Crookshanks knew that Scabbers was bad and was trying to kill him for the better and not just because he?s a rat. I was so disappointed in the job that Alfonso did. It was my favorite book but it?s my least favorite movie. I agree with Simon C. and I don't even know who he is but he has the exact same point of veiw as I do. I loved and I mean LOVED the first two movies. I could say them word for word without the movie even being on. I'm so disappointed and disgusted. I doubt I will even take the time to wathc it again. ALFONSO SUCKS AND CHRIS SHOULD DIRECT ALL SEVEN!!! Expand
  62. KaylaM
    Jul 16, 2004
    1
    I looked 4ward 2 this movie 4 a YEAR and it was my favourite book EVER but the movie Totally sucked! i was CRYING at the end because i was so agnry and dissappointed! they missed out sooo many important parts so that the rest of the movies aren't going 2 make sense!! the scenery was compleately different 2 the first 2 films and i think the casting was done quite badly. if any1 out I looked 4ward 2 this movie 4 a YEAR and it was my favourite book EVER but the movie Totally sucked! i was CRYING at the end because i was so agnry and dissappointed! they missed out sooo many important parts so that the rest of the movies aren't going 2 make sense!! the scenery was compleately different 2 the first 2 films and i think the casting was done quite badly. if any1 out there is just seeing the movies instead of reading the books i URGE u read them!!! let's just hope the new director is better. not that it would b hard. Expand
  63. KellyN
    Jul 16, 2004
    0
    What a load of - *sigh* take a deep breath - i'm not going 2 go into detail about everything that i hated about the way this movies was so unlike the books but i will say this much. the fat lady was different from the one in, i think it was the 1st movie, RON AND HERMOINE DO NOT HOLD HANDS KEEP DREAMING IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET, lupin doesn't have a moustache and WOW! great What a load of - *sigh* take a deep breath - i'm not going 2 go into detail about everything that i hated about the way this movies was so unlike the books but i will say this much. the fat lady was different from the one in, i think it was the 1st movie, RON AND HERMOINE DO NOT HOLD HANDS KEEP DREAMING IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET, lupin doesn't have a moustache and WOW! great explanation of the whole thing in the shrieking shack! I was convinced! (all said with great sarcasim) and by the way, here's a message 4 the director: werewolves are supposed to be practically indistinguishable from true wolves well if i saw THAT thing running in the mountains, a wolf is the last thing that would come to my mind. thanks for wasting my time and money and compleatly wreaking my favourite book, i owe you. Expand
  64. JeremyS.
    Jan 9, 2005
    2
    Amusing enough, but damn everything else was terrible.
  65. shianinel.
    Apr 28, 2005
    2
    Nothing compared to the books.
  66. ZackO.
    Nov 28, 2004
    3
    I was appauled with the quality of this movie. 70% of the book was left out, and it doesnt even seem like the director read the book before he made the movie. the "climax" was ridiculous because character after character just kept walking in the room and started talking, and even before harry really knows who sirius black is, he is asked to come live with him. give me a break. Also, the I was appauled with the quality of this movie. 70% of the book was left out, and it doesnt even seem like the director read the book before he made the movie. the "climax" was ridiculous because character after character just kept walking in the room and started talking, and even before harry really knows who sirius black is, he is asked to come live with him. give me a break. Also, the actor who filled in for richard harris was awful. this movie blows. the plot made no sense. Expand
  67. M.C.
    Jun 12, 2004
    1
    Read the book, Alfonzo. This movie was basically a series of action clips; at the end you wondered what the heck you'd just watched. Where was the character development? Where were the magical relationships between the kids? Where were the classrooms? Where was Quidditch? Why did Dumbledore lack the ability to turn his mouth up into a smile? Why didn't the book explain half the Read the book, Alfonzo. This movie was basically a series of action clips; at the end you wondered what the heck you'd just watched. Where was the character development? Where were the magical relationships between the kids? Where were the classrooms? Where was Quidditch? Why did Dumbledore lack the ability to turn his mouth up into a smile? Why didn't the book explain half the things it introduced us to? (I took friends along who had not read the book and they felt several things were poorly explained, ie, the arrival of the Knight Bus.) And how did Mr Cuaron manage to turn great and good actors into mediocre ones? (Would you simply stare if your aunt was blown up? Particularly if you and your family were known for particularly loud screeching and raving?) Awful. Expand
  68. KarenZ.
    Jun 12, 2004
    3
    From the very first scene, one could see the movie would lack creativity, continuity, and consistency with the previous movies and books. The film techniques were lacking. The director did a poor job in creating believable characters and believable acting. Scenes jumped from one part of the book to another, leaving out some of the most enjoyable parts and lacking in any sort of consistent From the very first scene, one could see the movie would lack creativity, continuity, and consistency with the previous movies and books. The film techniques were lacking. The director did a poor job in creating believable characters and believable acting. Scenes jumped from one part of the book to another, leaving out some of the most enjoyable parts and lacking in any sort of consistent flow. I have always "sat on the edge of my seat" while watching the Harry Potter movies. For the first time, I found myself bored. JK - the magic is gone. You had a good thing, why change it? A shame too, The Goblet of Fire is my favorite book and I'm afraid the movie will be awful. Expand
  69. BarbW.
    Jun 15, 2004
    3
    I am a huge fan of the books and was really looking forward to seeing the latest movie. I was so disappointed. Gone was the magical Hogwarts replaced by a what looked like an old castle. Everyone looked shabby and the three stars dressed in grubby jeans, etc. really took away from the movie being at Hogwarts. Up till now the casting was superb. What happened?
  70. MatthewC.
    Jun 15, 2004
    0
    This was horrible compared to the first two. The best book was completly ruined. I can only hope that something, anything is done so the fourth movie or any more movies turn out like this. Cuaron should be demoted from director at the very least.
  71. MikeB.
    Jun 16, 2004
    3
    I have read every Harry Potter book thus far, and Prisoner of Azkaban was my favorite. It had all the makings of a magical world with hippogriffs, dementors, etc. The movie was highly anticipated, but unfortunately became the worst film yet in a long journey ahead. The opening scene seemed to set up the viewers for another great landmark film, but before I knew it I was tossed around I have read every Harry Potter book thus far, and Prisoner of Azkaban was my favorite. It had all the makings of a magical world with hippogriffs, dementors, etc. The movie was highly anticipated, but unfortunately became the worst film yet in a long journey ahead. The opening scene seemed to set up the viewers for another great landmark film, but before I knew it I was tossed around thirty or so times in different scenes that had no build up, no complete dialogue of what was happening, parts that never existed in the book, and major parts left out. Where was the magical ladder, the knot in the tree, why was Hagrid's hut in the middle of no where instead of being by the forbidden forest, why did that bridge and water fountain keep showing up for scenes, why was the Quidittch match so short, why did Professor Lupin's werewolf self look like a cheap video game graphic, how come the castle changed, how come all the pivotal background scenes changed, where was the fantastical scenery of hogsmeade (my most anticipated scene), how come JK Rowling picked a porno director who never read her book, and on and on. I am upset and I hope that these dumb critics that I have read don't gloss over the crud this film created for Rowling. I hope she doesn't feel it was a success. I know from what I read from above that fans are mad and want a new director for the Goblet of Fire. Expand
  72. EliseW.
    Jun 25, 2004
    0
    What in the bloody hell was that?!!! I want my money back. A question to all viewers who exult this can of chopped liver, WHAT, may I ask, was so damn great about this REEK- Fest???!!!
  73. EliW.
    Jun 27, 2004
    1
    This absolutely sucked. Having read the book briefly once, I'm not basing this on what facts were right or wrong or such, rather as the Washington Post states it above, as a real movie-movie. The plot was quite weak, and there was only worthwhile acting from Daniel and Emma. In general, there was nothing that stood out in this movie. The "thriller" scenes such as the escape of the This absolutely sucked. Having read the book briefly once, I'm not basing this on what facts were right or wrong or such, rather as the Washington Post states it above, as a real movie-movie. The plot was quite weak, and there was only worthwhile acting from Daniel and Emma. In general, there was nothing that stood out in this movie. The "thriller" scenes such as the escape of the fat lady, the dementor dude, and the whole meeting with serius black was not powerful or fulfilling. there was not drama; hardly any action; a poor excuse for horror; and an awful script. If there was more in the book that they left out in the movie, it would have improved the storyline-or lack thereof- significantly if the scene replace some of the dumb ones that nearly bored me to death. Expand
Metascore
82

Universal acclaim - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 40
  2. Negative: 0 out of 40
  1. A deeper, darker, visually arresting and more emotionally satisfying adaptation of the J.K. Rowling literary phenomenon, achieving the neat trick of remaining faithful to the spirit of the book while at the same time being true to its cinematic self.
  2. 88
    Not only is this dazzler by far the best and most thrilling of the three Harry Potter movies to date, it's a film that can stand on its own even if you never heard of author J.K. Rowling and her young wizard hero.
  3. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    70
    Visually dazzling and considerably darker than the prior incarnations, the story suffers from a slightly disjointed feel that will prove less accessible to those not intimately familiar with every corner of author J.K. Rowling's world.