Finally, a harry potter movie that starts childlike and ends with maturity! Bravo Alfonso Cuaron!

With strong performances stand out Emma Watson, thrills, a great score, great emotional depth, and dazzling visuals make this one of the best of the potters. I give this film 90% of a good movie.

This one transcends fantasy and becomes a magical epic. it has an emotional resonance that the other two somewhat lacked. This time, you can actually relate to the characters and the difficulties they go through. The human side of Potter comes clear. None of the Potter movies were bad, but this one takes the cake, and sets a new standard.

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.

An excellent interpretation by Mr. Cuaron. He should be applauded for making this film darker, than the "Willy Wonka-ish" first two misfires. The only thing that prevents my awarding it 10 points, is its far-too-short length. Mr. Cuaron should have filmed and cut a three hour version. Reading many of the other reviews, I notice one particular trait in common. Those giving this film a poor review, more than likely demonstrate poor grammar and spelling skills in their postings; whereas those giving the fim a positive review, tend to appear more educated. A coincidence? I would doubt it... (And I will be thoroughly impressed, if my above comment survives editing. I will be surprised if those that maintain this board, have the courage to let someone be offended.)… Expand

Dont u think emma watson (hermione) is sooooo fit... !!!????!!!! i do!!!

It was goood.

Man, this is like the last good movie and last good book in the Harry Potter series rolled into one. Mildly confusing if you didn't read the books though. It actually alludes to how lacking of logical emotion the series will become.

Probably the least engaging of the series when it comes to the film adaptations; very uneventful -- missing the engaging parts of the book. Somehow though, even with its serious flaws -- Azkaban is worth watching.

Prisoner of Azkaban's cinematography itself blows you away, and the world of Hogwarts leaps from the screen almost as well as Pandora (and without the help of 3D). Several new great characters (and actors) enter at this point, stirring darker themes up for the first time. The storyline is also my favorite of the series, and this movie sticks to the source material incredibly well. Emotionally charged, incredible acted, and superbly directed, this is easily for me the best movie of the series.… Expand

This is a new, equally entrancing look at the world of Harry Potter, a darker, haunting film that sticks with you.

Well the books are no match to the books...but at least the movie compared to other harry potter movies.

The first two movies are great, but this is the best because of the distinct visual style (which surpasses Tim Burton's in my opinion) and the subtle brilliance in the performances. Sure I can gripe because it changes soooo much from the book and doesn't have very important scenes such as Gryffindor winning the house cup, but it is still a brilliant film that stands well on it's own as well as being part of the series.… Expand

The film in my opinion was (for a kids title) quite dark and brooding and the quidditch scene was very well done and incredibly dramatic. I didnt like the way the story was handed to us and everything was explained by someone making us feel like children (e.g. 'It wasnt my dad i saw! It was me!'.) Those small quips took away from the film but in my opinion it was top class pottery, and I hope GOF improves on the formula.… Expand

Harry Potter is the great filme i ever see!!!! I love it !!!

The third time around didn't charm me as well as the first two movies in the franchise. They changed the director, which had a big effect on the overall tone of the movie. It was dark and unrelenting to watch. The only thing that appealed to me was how it ended and the magical scenery around Hogwarts. The rest, I could forget about it. There never was a bright moment in the movie, and the only thing Harry has to hold onto is his two friends, Hermoine and Ron. Harry has enemies, he has friends. He still hasn't fully understood that he will in the end have an epic battle with Voldemort because he has an ultimate desire too. Lord Voldemort is very powerful, but his lurking presence around the halls of Hogwarts doesn't frighten him as much as it used to. The director gives us an uncomfortable viewing experience that I wan't happy with and wish this doesn't happen again in the next film.… Expand

Hands down, the best in the Potter series. The younger actors finally come into there own in this installment. The casting of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore was perfect, and he plays a better Dumbledore then the late Richard Harris (not to be offensive). Visually dark and emotionally satisfying, Azkaban works not only as a Potter movie, but as a movie in its own right.

A surprising improvement on the first and second installments in acting, artistic elements and emotional involvement in the story. It was darker and with this darkness came a more real movie, plus a pretty cool climactic battle

Ok, I just saw this movie yesterday, and I hate to say it, but, I was greatly disappointed in it. I felt like the the actors new acting technique was devoid of any real emotion. Also..I LOVE GARY OLDMAN, but, I felt him and the Thewlis..and well, most of the new characters were way overacted by the actors portraying them. Yes, I know that as the books go..it is going to get much darker, but, I just didn't feel like there was a purpose for it. Like it was left unexplained. I will go see it again and maybe I will have a different view. (hopefully) But, I hope the new director for the fourth installment will do a better job with that one then what the director for this one did. … Expand

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.

Definitely the best movie of the three. The new look and direction seems more grown up, just like Harry and his friends. From the first scenes, HP seems like something totally new and exciting. Everyone I saw this movie with was truly impressed.

This is a great movie -- if you aren't familiar with the book. Of all the HP movies so far, this one is the worst interpretation of the book. While watching the movie, the viewer gets the sense of being rushed. Quite a bit occurs that should be explained,but isn't. The acting is first rate, and the new Dumbledore does a surprisingly good job in the role. The movie is funnier - and darker - than its predecessors, but it is difficult the bond with any of the new characters, and one leaves the theater feeling full, but somehow unsatisfied.… Expand

Easily the best of the three films, Alfonso Cuaron has taken a childrens book and added mood, fear, and style in his own way and possibly set a metronome for the next couple films. The children really step up and give woundrous performances, espically Radcliffe. Also Gary Oldman is so FREAKIN good as Serius Black. This is one of this years best films, and if Cuaron does not return, could end up being the best film of the franchise. A BIG 10!… Expand

I'm not sure why one of the people who gave this movie a 1 (or was it a 0?) called the plot 'trite'. Yes, it is because of the book. And I don't understand either why some people felt that it did not stick to the book. In contrast, I thought that it stuck much better to the plot than the first two movies did, although it didn't stick to it 100%. Some things were put in different positions, some things were cut out, but all in all, it was as loyal to the book as most movies ever go. This third movie is directed beautifully and the effects much more convincing. It is darker and more mature than the first two, which annoyed me a bit in that they were very obviously children's movies. In PoA, the acting was stunning - Emma, Dan and Rupert have improved hundred-fold from even the last HP movie. PoA isn't perfect - a lot of the things they cut out which i would've liked to see irked me, but it also doesn't deserve all these negative comments either, some of which are unfounded. A quarter of the way through the movie, I told myself to stop comparing it to the book. Stop thinking about that the correct order of events would be or what they missed out. It could never compare to the book. No movie derived from a book ever could. … Expand

I thought this movie was way better than the first 2. the first 2 were stupid disney kiddie movies, while this one was much more cleverly done. and it isnt the book, its a movie, totally separate, it doesnt have to have every single little piece of dialogue.

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

Sucks a lot!

By FAR the best harry potter movie yet. THe kids are finally learning how to act, David Thewlis is amazing, and Cuaron has done an excellent job, improving substantially from 'A Little Princess' and 'Great Expectations' (REALLY, he's gotten a LOT better). if you want a simple, saccharined movie, rent the first two. If you want a movie that is concerned with acting, story, and atmosphere, go out and see it NOW.… Expand

By far the most thrilling of all the three.

I am a big HP fan and have read all the books up to date, me and my mom both share a big interest in harry potter, and we were both real excited to go out and see it together. I left the movie feeling like maybe i had fallen asleep and missed one of the important parts of the movie. The visuals were exciting but why the hell did that porno director change hogwarts into a rinky old castle and i didnt like that harry hermoine and ron were in regular clothes, it kind of took away some of the feeling from the movie, and they also could of gotten a better Dumbledore. That Couron guy need to read a few of the harry potter books himself. ...what the hell is with Tony L. The kids are the same age as they are in the book, how the hell could you replace them. read a HP book idiot then you'll see. ...Simon C. kicks ass.… Expand

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.

All the people who say it's bad need to read the books and then watch the movies.

This was the first Harry Potter film I actually liked at all (and I even ended up loving it). I would rather slit my wrists than sit through the first one again, and the second one was far too long-winded. J.K. Rowling admitted to liking the third film the most, b/c she thought it did the best at conjuring up the atmosphere she so captured in her novels and it focused on the most important elements from the novel. I couldn't agree more! This was the first film that truly felt alive, and the plot points it sacrificed can easily be salvaged in the 4th film. Naysayers, stop spazzing out. This film is, to quote the WSJ, "full of wonders, big and small." Highly recommended.… Expand

This film is the best "Harry Potter" movie yet. It's actually a great piece of cinema as well.

Having read the book some how the story line in the movie diverts from the original text. there were however many key points wren't told in the movie. One e.g is the quidditch game was to short etc etc....

GREAT MOVIE! I thought it was pretty close to the books. It captured the essence of the book. I thought the acting, visuals, music, direction and uniqueness were fabulous. GREAT MOVIE!

Totally awesome! I enjoyed it a lot! I loved the Dementors....could use one at work...err... Look folks, I've never read the books, but god damn these movies are making go out any buy all of them! Plus I'm a AD&D (Advanced Dungeons and Dragons) nut, so seeing a Hippogriff realistically portrayed was nice! Go see this film!

Awful movie. Save your money and don't go.

The first two movies were brilliant, Chris Columbus realized perfection need not be messed with.It is a shame the new director didn't feel the same ! Chris Columbus please return to direct the Goblet of Fire , true fans of this series need you!!!

Sucked big time.

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

What a disappointment.

The trick to liking this movie is twofold. 1) Don't read the book even remotely close to the time you see the film. 2) Judge movies by the director's reputation rather than any true story telling genius. This film although enjoyable for those who forgot most of the details by the time they saw it, fell short in a number of plot essentials. Visually it's beautiful; which is great. However, it really creates a sense of disconnect from the previous two films. As previous reviewers have noted, the film didn't explain itself and left quite a few questions. I'll be curious to see how the transition to Goblet goes. … Expand

I liked the fact that we weren't trapped inside Hogwart's for 2 1/2 hours. Harry and friends had a chance to expand their emotions with this movie, helped greatly by the excellent cinemotography. I loved seeing more of the outside, the view of Hogwart's was amazing and the whomping willow was great. It really showed that there was more to magic than classes and spells. Harry is growing up, why can't the movies grow with him? If fans are afraid of change, I suggest they stop reading the books after this. … Expand

Is this movie supposed to be about art, lighting, the actors' acclaim, and the director's vision? or is it supposed to be about the storyline of J. K. Rowling's bestselling Harry Potter series, specifically the book Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban? One word: DISAPPOINTING. This movie, while decent in its own right, destroyed a lot of the established scenery of the first two movies and at the same time left fully two-thirds of the exposition and B and C plot lines out in favor of the A plot lines of the story. Was there a natural disaster that raised Castle Hogwarts a couple of hundred feet, or one that lowered the Dark Forest and Hagrid's hut by the same? When did they put that druid's grove of stones in outside the entrance - which they obviously remodeled? When was there ever an enormous clock, or tolling bells, at Hogwarts - and what's with the crucifixes on nearly every parapet?? And why do I remember Harry spending two weeks in Diagon Alley and not one night...oh, because that's how the author wrote it, not the screenwriter, right! If they even mentioned Crookshanks' name, it escaped my attention; I know the cat's entire subplot wasn't there, which is odd as it was quite a story of emotional and hormonal tension between Ron and Hermione in the book...maybe Cuaron should have put that in with his exploration of Hogwarts adolescence more than the scene with the boys playing in the tower room early in the movie. And how about that Firebolt? whose placement in the movie was completely bizarre and destroyed all meaning attached to it in the book? You'd think there would be some consistency with Harry's Patronus Charm...the stag is only visible to the Harry being assaulted by the dementors rather than the Harry conjuring it, though...isn't that odd... And you'd think that the stag (Prongs), might have been, um, EXPLAINED? along with Messr's Moony, Padfoot, and Wormtail, considering the attention that was paid to the Marauder's Map? Nah, not important. I did give this movie a 4; there are some things about it worthy of praise. The special effects were very good, as was their judicious use to provide amusement, i.e. the Whomping Willow and its interaction with the change of seasons, not to mention its apparent tendencies toward avian cruelty (hilarious). Cuaron successfully introduced the dark moodiness and overtones that belong to this book, a decent transition that will be useful in the portrayal of the next few books. Finally, the scenes that -were- adapted from the book were done very, very well, in such a way that the viewer is living them rather than seeing them or experiencing them as a rollercoaster ride. Bravo on the stormy, albeit abbreviated, Quidditch match; and I'm not sure I like the 'I'm the king of the world' flair given to Harry's first ride on Buckbeak, but it was tangible. Somehow, most of the movie critics love this movie, it stands on its own, it's not a 'theme park' ride, it's not overburgeoning with sparkles and detail. Um, hello? Those details are what MAKE the book and the movie. This makes the movie then nothing more than a poor adaptation, like most other movies out there, of an author's vision. But for them to have criticized Chris Columbus's work so badly in several of the reviews I've read is appalling. They must think that we can't sit through a movie longer than two hours. Personally, I was looking forward to the 3.5 hour adaptation of Goblet of Fire, but somehow I see it being reduced to 1:50, with the entire Quidditch World Cup match (and all its exposition work) being reduced to an article in the Daily Prophet, and the bulk of the movie being nothing more than Harry moving from trial to trial in the Triwizard tournament. I wonder if they'll even mention the names of the other schools... Good thing they haven't switched the actors yet, with the exception of the late Richard Harris...at least we get to see the same actors developing their characters. Wonder if that will all change, too. They also must think we all appreciate the cinematic arts as much as they obviously do. We don't. We're looking for a visual adaptation to accompany the work of our imagination from having read the books. The first two movies, which many critics feel were so bad, filled that role well; this one both skipped a lot of imaginative work and trampled the rest. There is work that can be done to save the rest of the franchise. Cuaron has set the lighting and mood appropriately for the next installments; he's also shown more character depth for the young witches and wizards of Hogwarts than was previously there. I'm not sure I like the humor elements he's introduced, e.g. the Mexican-seeming talking shrunken heads, and the not-so-innocuous scene with Harry experimenting with his wand under the bedsheets, but they enrich the experience. The rest of the cast needs to get its character depth back, the richness and detail of the first two movies MUST be restored, and better use must be made of the actors to reflect the books, e.g. Alan Rickman should actually teach Potions as Snape, not just one lesson in DATDA on werewolves, and Michael Gambon needs to affect the kindly and whimsical Dumbledore that Richard Harris portrayed, besides the unavailable and detached headmaster/proctor, for the next two movies. A DVD release of the Prisoner of Azkaban with about an hour of missing, I mean, added footage would help, too. In summary, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was rushed, it lacked depth and richness, it ruined the scenery and ground work from the first two installments, its high-powered and huge cast was completely underused at the expense of the central three characters, and it covered far too little of the book it is adapted from to do it justice. I will watch this film again, once, to try to appreciate it for its cinematic qualities alone; however, that's not what I went to the theater for on opening night. Maybe the numbers will tell the filmmaking community (and the film reviewing community) what the people who really count, the paying ticketholders, think of this stain on the Harry Potter story, and what we want to see on the silver screen.… Expand

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.

I found this movie to be enjoyable. The special effects were first rate. I followed along with the story even though I haven't read any of the books. A couple of casting notes: The actors who play Ron and Draco are now too old for their parts. Daniel and Emma can probably pull one more movie off before they need to be replaced.

What discourages me about so many of the negative reviews here is how they rate it as low as a 1 or a 2. Come on, folks. That's just plain unreasonable. Being disappointed is one thing, but to rate it with the very worst is overreacting. I personally loved the movie because it's the first of the Potter series that seemed to live and breathe apart from the book. Some people criticize it for that; I praise it. I wish some fans would think a little harder and put things in perspective. Too many "true" fans want nothing more than a book on film. To me, that's unimaginative. A movie adaptation must do more than add light and sound to the pages, which is essentially what the first two movies did. The first movies were very entertaining, but this Azkaban is, I think, the first one that is truly magical. Yes, it does rush through some plot points, which hurts it a bit at the end, but the inventiveness and the performances more than make up for it. It's also worth noting that JK Rowling says this is her favorite of the films, and that she suggested many of the complained-about changes herself (see her official website and Entertainment Weekly). … Expand

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.

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!!!

I think this is the vest movie ever.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is by so far my favourite book and movie of all time! Even though the movie could have been a little longer and stuck to the same way that some of the new characters/"items" had shown up...It still amazes me every time i see it!

I rate it well on the new "look of the movie"; it is a bit more "grown up" than the other two, which were desigened for a younger audience. I think the director's creative additions, though funny, were unnecessary and wasted valuable time that could have been used at the more profitable explanation of what was going on. To someone who had not read the book this film would be very confusing. There are a lot of things that are not explained so it seems the director assumed that his audience would have the book memorized, which is an unfair assumption. The scene in the shreiking shack had me wondering how Harry could accept the truth about Sirius so suddenly. A lot of things happened in the movie that did not happen in the book, which added to the confusion of those who had read the book. Several important characters seemed to be missing from this movie, Dumbledore is almost absent, and Magonagall is also pretty much missing. You never meet Sir Cadogan and the other ghosts are also not in this film. The Whomping Willow is not as good as in the second film, and it seems unlikely that the tree would be so dangerous if you can stop its motion with a simple immobulus charm, instead of the hidden knot as in the book. You never meet Cho Chang, whom Harry has a crush on and faces an important part in the next book. There is almost no quidditch at all, except the falling scene, and you never see oliver Wood or the scene where malfoy and his cronies get in trouble for disguising themselves as dementors. Harry tackels Expecto Patronum in one night, which is inaccurate to the book and also out of character, since Harry is a talented quidditch player but an average student. The movie is good and the scenery is beautiful but the scenery change is a bit too drastic from the first two movies to make the connection (e.g. since when do you have to climb a mountain to get to Hagrid's? ) The aforementioned directors effects and jokes are funny (shrunken heads, boys eating candies in the dormitories and the fat lady singing) but unnecessary, the books are both funny and entertaining enough and are works of art as they are. They do not need these trite additions to make a good film, and I am frankly surprised JKR allowed these changes and cuts to be made to her story, which she made Colombus be so faithful to before. The first two films were more childish but I think better for part of a series that people can understand and enjoy with or without reading the books.… Expand

I loved it! i thought it was the greatest movie! ive read the book and i thought the movie was better even knowing the book explained more. that was the best acting ive seen from teens!

It's not as magical as the first two films. The sounds were also very poor, it doesn't seem to compliment the mood of the scenes. The only thing I liked about the movie was the environments were more detailed. Over-all, it was a bit disappointing.

BRILLIANT!

The third movie was disappointing. Chris Columbus did such an outstanding job in the first two,it was disappointing to see the third one and how it was done. The costumes were not as good and the kids wore blue jeans way too much,which took away from the feel of Hogwarts. And Prof. Dumbledores robes were not near as nice as the first two movies.And the lighting was lacking as well. I loved the Harry Potter movies sooo much up till this one. I hope the fourth one is better than this one.… Expand

One Of The Greatest Movies Ive Ever Seen Great Movie And The Actors R Great To Got To See It Great Movie.

This fil is just the best i m very fan of harry i just love himm n his film its the best film for tean agers n childrens.

A movie expirience unlike any other, you can even feel the excitement of the last 30 minutes of the film in your vains. This movie will be on my "top ten movies of the year".This movie has enchanted me.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a fantastic film. The sets were dark and gothic, perfectly representing the mood of the story, the actors have improved beyond my expectations, and the scenes flowed very well into one another. Now, I have read the book many, many, MANY times and I consider it to be the best and my favourite of the Harry Potter series. To those 'fans' who have been blasting this movie because it doesn't have every little detail or has changed some aspects from the first two, I must ask: what in god's name were you expecting? The book was longer than the first two and far more complex. To make an emotionally captivating film AND to include every last detail of the book would be very difficult to do, if not impossible. But Cuaron did a very good job of capturing the atmosphere of the book. And the story line is exactly the same, Scott who gave this 0. Is it neccessary to show the Firebolt scene at that time? Is it essential that the Boggart show every figure it transformed into in the novel? Hardly. If they did follow every detail, as in the first two, you get a very jarring and poorly put-together film that has way to many aspects and pointless scenes that really do nothing to further any aspects of the movie. See, in this movie, the scenes fit together with remarkable ease, and each scene had a dramatic purpose- without forgetting to be entertaining. And I believe that many of the sets were the same- just shown in different lighting conditions and at different camera angels (save the Whomping Willow and some outdoor locations, which I believe were all computer animated in the first two as opposed to live sets like this one). So, for being a captivating film that is entertaining, complex, and remains very faithful to the tone of the book yet still fitting nicely into the movie series, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban gets a perfect score. Good job!… Expand

This movie would have been great if i had never read the book. The fact that the events were out of order and that i felt they took away from the feel of the book and the new dumbledore, i rate this movie low.

This movie was totally rubbish, and because of this movie, i want to die!!! Emma Watson is nice.

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

Fantastic! Nothing like the books, but brilliant in its own way. Who dares dismiss the brilliance of this film when scenes like 'Buckbeaks Flight' are before us?

Please judge HP as the film, not as the book put to screen. In case you haven't noticed, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban isn't the same as HPATPOA the movie.

Please don't listen to the nerds who are rating this film so abysamally. They obviously don't know the difference between a motion picture and a novel. I don't care how many times you read Prisoner of Azkaban, i read it and i also read all the other Potter books. Yes, Cuaron did change certain things and left certain things out. But would you rather this film be a trudgen borefest like the last two films were? What Cuaron has done here is made the first truly entertaining Potter film. The actors are twice as charming, the dialogue is twice as entertaining, the scenery is twice as beautiful, the pacing is twice as effective, even the music and computer special effects are much better this time around. So please see the movie for what it is and rate it farely, not rating it a 0 because it left out a few details from the book. I wish the first two films could have been more like this.… Expand

Well i read the book loved it saw the movie was disappointed, bored. this director is terrible he took a lot out that was important, put unneeded stuff in like those stuf shrunken heads. he changed the hogwarts rounds which i hated so much. this was a wrong director why would they choose a director thats best known for his porno films? it is just wrong, for goblet get back chrisopher columbus.

I first want to start out by saying that after this movie I don't think any more Harry Potter movies should be made. It is, in my opinion, impossible to take 742 pages and condense it into a three hour movie. I don't blame the director because writing a book and creating a movie are completly different projects. I didn't enjoy this movie because I thought that too many things were happening all at once. It felt as if Cuaron just took the main events from the book, changed a few things, and poorly jumbled them into a script. It felt as if the magic that the first two films had brought was missing. For example: Peter Jackson had made many changes with The Lord of the Rings but I enjoyed because it kept me interested. Also each movie has at least 30 minutes extra of the movie that cut strickly for time purposes. The movie made sense. In Harry Potter 3 I was bored and marveled at the fact that Cuaron attempted to save it with a few corney lines from Sirius. I think that this movie will spoiled it for those who have or have not read the book because it ruins what the books are built on. The reader's own imagination and creativity. I still believe that another Harry Potter movie should not be made because it is impossible to put that amount of literature into a three hour movie.… Expand

Because hermoiney is stupid.

The best harry potter movie, the darkest, the scarriest , the funniest... I won't go on and i'll just say that I had become again a nine years old boy when I saw this magical movie. Besides I'm 16 and I found the answers to some teens' trouble in this movie. The main actors are great, especially Rupert Grint Emma Watson and Timothy Spall...just perfect!!! In one world: this is euphory!… Expand

Wow! This franchise just got interesting. Lovely to see my favorite book in the series get turned into an intelligent, visually arresting film. And the dialogue ain't bad either. No groans from here this time around. Really can't wait to see it again.

Alright, first of all, I've read the books and I thoroughly enjoyed each and every one of them...and I'm a huge Harry Potter fan. The movie was simply amazing. Visually stunning, and emotionally moving. It was far less sterile than the last two movies- sure, they crammed just about every little detail into a 2 hour period, but the spells were inaccurate, there was little or no emotion, and although they were cute, they had no heart. POA, on the otherhand may have had to skimp (think of the size of the book compared to the others, though), but the heart of the book remained entact...besides, I'm sure he both read the books and consulted Rowling to determine what wasn't really important, while also working on the finer details (the spells were MUCH more accurate...Expelliarmus isn't supposed to throw someone twenty feet in the air...it's simply supposed to disarm someone)...Lumos looked absolutely amazing...and it was nice that they remembered that you have to turn it off, to *L*. Anyways, all nitpicking aside, it was wonderful...amazing...beautiful...
and definitely moved me...I just can't wait to see the deleted scenes on the DVD ^_^… Expand

(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

I watched the first two movies and found them great fun! So I had extremely high expectations when I entered the movie theater to watch the third one. What a disappointment! I couldn't believe people who wrote all those favorable reviews had watched the same movie I had. I did not have the action, the constant surprises and a plot that kept you interested and that surprised you all the time as was the case with the two previous ones. Ok, the looks were great and all that, but the movie simply dragged on for over two hours and the reaction of those watching it was telling, the theater was surprisingly quiet and a few yawns could be heard here and there. I hope the next sequel, if one is ever made, is not directed by the same director again, bringing back the thrill of the first two movies.… Expand

Better than the first two. this movie is faster and more artistic though it really lacks an 'effect.'

This was a very pleasing installment to the Harry Potter series: it combined a clever time-twisting storyline, some parts of which being predictable, others being truly unsupuralent, and the special effects were palatable. The acting of the kids of the movie was pretty crap, which is really the best you can expect. We can only wonder what will happen to Harry in the next film.

I never saw the 2nd installment of this series but this movie was SOOOO much better than the first one. Not only that but it had the unmistakable lift of Gary Oldman, one of my favorite actors. The 3d images were also a huge plus.

Looks good, but the plot seemed trite . Time travel? Werewolves? Could be the book's fault, couldn't say, I haven't read any of them. Seems like I just saw a handful of other movies that featured the same tired cliches. Still, it's a good universe to build movies on. I'd rather see Harry Potter IV than Scooby Doo 3D.

Amazing!

The best Harry Potter so far, and the only one that did not make me want to kill the filmmakers. The last two sucked so much ass, and made this one a huge sigh of relief. Not that it wasn't still corny in some places, and Radcliffe's acting was still horrible. Not to mention the kid who plays Malfoy. Any comments about leaving out information at this point is meaningless, as a better precedent should have been established by the first two movies. This film can at least stand on its own.… Expand

Of all three films, this one stands out as the best. It captures the true Brit spirit of the characters in the book, and offers us more insight into Harry Potter's psyche than any of the other films, partly because Daniel Radcliffe's acting chops are starting to develop. Some of the major exposition from the book was left out, which was unfortunate. But the cinematography, special effects and general atmosphere of the film are mirror images of what we've all read. Bring on number four!… Expand

It was really good.

IT SUCKED, not true to story at all, come on now.

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

I'm a Huge fan of the Harry Potter series (books and movies). I enjoyed the first 2 movies very much and could definitely see their likeness to each other, but i could definitely tell there was something different about this film. It was exciting, visually stimulating, and (if i can say so) the best of the Harry Potter movies so far. Cuaron did a WONDERFUL job directing. This movie was almost perfect to me. The first hour and thirty minutes seems to flow quite well and keep you on the edge of your seat, but after the main climax(which isn't that much of a climax) it seems to drag a bit. You can definitely tell that the younger actors have matured some and are growing into their roles, creating better actors. The few things i didn't like however, were some things from the book that were left out: the origin of the marauder's map, and a very important part of the book when it flashes back to the origin of Snape's hatred towards Harry, Lupin, and Sirius, to name a few. However this movie was STILL stood on its own from the other films, and i would recommend it to EVERYONE.… Expand

I'm going to lay it out as basic as I can, THIS installment of Harry Potter is how the first two SHOULD have looked. Cauron obviously has a better minds eye than Columbus who made the first two films a nightmare in my book. Ratcliffe actually shows a sign of promise in this film. Not much mind you, but as a friend of mine said he actually seemed "Competant" this time around, the same goes for Gint, for the first time I didn't hate Ron with a fiery passion. There are parts of the books cut out as many many critics before me have pointed out with there chubby outstretched fingers. But wake up idiots, the book is too long to put all of it in, Cauron did a nice job on the whole, I am glad he will be directing either 6 or 7. The only thing left out I think should have been put in was more about Cedric Diggory since he will be a major role in number 4. Honestly who cares about the Quidditch though, if you really think that that sport is the best part of this series please read them again. The look was amazing, the script and dialogue from the kids 10 times better than the abominations before it. I enjoy Lupin more than I thought I would, the look was kind of off though, and Wormtail really looked like a freaking rat, Dont really agree with that but its one way to go. You have to remember people, JK is right there when these movies are made, We will see it through her eyes not our own. She is the final decision maker. … Expand

GREATEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME! Stop bashing it people! It's a great movie! Who cares if its "too short" they will have deleted scenes!

A fantastic film. Certainly the best of the series, as well. If Gary Oldman wasn't so flippin great, I might have a small problem with Alan Rickman being on the screen for about 4 minutes (okay, maybe 5), but Gary Oldman was flippin great. I disagree with those of you who said Radcliffe can't make anyone care, this was the first time in the series he actually did make me care, although it was slightly cheesy when he "cried" in the snow, and when he vowed to kill Black, shortly afterward. So glad that Chris "Home Alone" Columbus didn't direct this one; I watched the first two with friends before seeing this one, and I could really sense the difference made with Cuaron at the helm. This film makes me want to read the books, too, which is something the first two didn't really do all that well.… Expand

While many younger Harry Potter fans may be disappointed because of Cuaron's unique cinematic style, a style that greatly surpasses Columbus's uninspired lackless style aimed for kids. The Prisoner of Azkaban novel is the darkest of the series which is reflected by Cauron's directorial vision. Thus, while the novel continues to provide many of the elements that made the series popular - ie Quidditch - the novel itself has a far greater sub-text by representing different elements in the formation of one's self; elements which Cauron focuses on; elements which make the Harry Potter series fresh and ultimately important to watch. The first two films are nothing more than an introductory exploration of the Hary Potter realm, while Cauron takes it to a new level (no more simplistic visionary elemnts which would stagnate the characters' development ); a truly great film that allows viewers a chance to truly identify with characters of a tolkienian style subcreation - what fantasy is ment to be.… Expand

It's a great movie, the best of the series, i really loved it.

That was a great movie. The visuals were perfect. If you didn't read the book, you'll be lost in certain places, 'cause for the sake of not making this a 4 hour movie, the story wasn't very elaborated. Also, if you read the book, some things have been changed, not necessarily for the best. But my score doesn't reflect the movie's ability to copy the book. I found that it was more "lighthearted" than the second... not as "dark" (Harry's life seems to be is in less danger than in the second)... it does have its scary material which makes the Harry Potter series more appealing to adults.… Expand

To start off, it was very, very well done. The movie has more of a teenager feel to it. The way it was made felt as though director, Tim Burton, had been directing it, because how it felt to see the widespread from the camera, not an always close up shot of the actors and sets, like it was in the past two films. But, of course, there was some part(s) that should of been done certain ways, as it was to the novel. Nevertheless, to me, Alfonse C. (the film director) should continue on with directing the novels on into films. He has done an incredible job at this one.… Expand

This is the best Harry Potter movie so far. The first time I saw this movie, I was slightly disappointed. It didn't feel at all like the first 2 movies, and I felt like I saw something completely different. I saw this movie again, and my opinion completely changed. I was used to the way the story was told, therefore, I really liked this movie. Cuaron is a great director. Although he doesn't handle the action scenes as well as Columbus did (I kind of hoped for more of the warewolf chase and the Quidditch match) and the dementors aren't really as scary as they could have been, Cuaron does a great job. POA isn't exactly centered around action anyway. It's about character development, which Cuaron nails. Excellent character developement. The kids act like real kids, the 'family movie' feel is gone from this installment, and there's a lot more humor. Now, I mentioned that Cuaron was a great director. That's because he can make anything (except the dementors, apparently) scary. The camera goes through a deserted playground. For some reason, this shot was very scary. It's all in the timing and atmosphere. This movie was great, and very memorable. Problems? Yeah, a couple. The Quidditch match was really the only action scene in the slower middle of the movie, and it could have gone longer to hold the audience off until the finale. As I mentioned before, Cuaron doesn't really make the face off with the dementors as intense as Columbus made the Basilisc face off in COS. Also, the movie goes at a fast pace, which is great, but in a haunted house near the end of the movie, when all the plot is explained, it is done in such a rush that people who haven't read the book may be completely clueless as to what happened. Otherwise, though, very well done movie. … Expand

This is the first "10" I've given on this site (go to Elle Enchanted to read my normal review). The third book is the slowest in the series - the third movie is the best. I truly can't say enough about this film except that the metascore of 79 speaks for itself. Also, it's the first one of the series that I would willingly enjoy watching again - at the movie theatre even.

I am a huge Harry Potter fan and Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite book and this movie did not do it justice. That isn't to say that it isn't good or worth seeing, because it is. However, it was dissapointing to see that they left out a lot of details that were integral to the story. There were many things left unexplained. I know the movie was long, but all that I think needed to be added is a maybe 10 minutes of dialogue to explain a few things. It comes down to editing... for example watching Harry eat funny candy and have steam come out of his ears is funny, but explaining the whomping willow and the relationship bettern James, Sirius, Lupin and Snape would have been a better use of 3 miuntes. Also, a lot of the stuff in the book was out of order and context, for no good reason. I know this review sounds negative and it isn't completely. I did like this movie, I would recommend it, but above that, I would recommend reading the books because this movie just did not do this third movie justice (as the first two did respectively). … Expand

Thank you cauron this is how harry potter movies are supposed to be they are supposed to be movies this movie is not a mirror image of the book that is a good thing ....would you rather have everything happen that happened in the book happen in the movie....you would know exactly what would come next. i did not want that to happen.... it already happened in the first two films. they left me empty feeling repetiveness. lovers of the books...may not know how to judge movies. they are different. i have read plenty of reviews by harry potter book lovers. i am a book lover. but these people want every single scene from the book. they love repetiveness. i do too...but not that much they should be happy...it turned out this way..in 20 years they will have a wonderful book to read and at the same time a movie that is different from the book...bringning a new life to a view. some book lovers gave the directing an "F" on some web sites they were obviously disappointed by scenes left out...the director directs a movie. they can shape it any way they want. an "F" in direction is not true for this film. i give an example to the "F" givers: harry potter 3 Direction: not an "F" Freddy got Fingered: Direction: "F" it is needed in that case in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban's case the direction is better then a "D" at the very least a "C" for Cauron thank you Cauron. long live good directors.… Expand

[***SPOILERS***] Better than the first two films thanks to Cuaron's direction. Better because it's not as tortuously long as the first two films either. The plot makes the point of the nullification of a child's testmony in defense of a wrongly accused man in an interesting way. Faced with seeing a wrongly accused man reimprisoned, Harry and Hermione do the only thing they can, which is to go back in time to undo the chain of events that lead to Sirius Black's reimprisonment and help him escape. Of course, Harry and Hermione get some help from Professor Dumbledore, but in the end it is two children who set things straight. Professor Dumbledore's adult responsibilities make it impossible for him alone to do the right thing and help free Black from wrongful imprisonment. Now I can see why the Christian right hates the Harry Potter books. The Harry Potter books are parables of the different worlds adults and children live in and perhaps that's why they're so appealing. They're kind of like fantasy versions of E.T., another movie attack by the Christian right for promoting disobediance in children. … Expand