Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban Movie Review
June 07, 2004 | 
33 Comments
As Harry would say — This movie is brilliant!
It really was a great movie. Even a bit better, in my opinion, that the two that came before it, both of which I greatly enjoyed. It seems like as they go along, much like the books, they just get better.
It was pretty obvious that this one was done by a different creative team, but at the same time they did a good job to tie the whole feel into the first two films. At times there were some new ways of looking at Harry’s world, but I found it very refreshing.
For example all of the transitionary scenes (mainly involving the Whomping Willow) had a very designed and very arty feel to them. As well, the scenes with the Dementors were very well done an carried a new, darker aesthetic into the film which I really enjoyed.
The acting has gotten a bit better, as you would expect, as the players grow further into their roles. The difference between this and the first film acting-wise seems considerable. They’ve also added some new talent which helps quite a bit.
David Thewlis was great as Professor Lupin and I thought Gary Oldman made an excellent Sirius Black. I know there was a whole lot of “controversy” in that casting, and my hope is that his performance will close the mouths of any nay-sayers and doubters.
As usual they did a terrific job adapting the story and capturing the feel of the books. The special effects were improved and the cinematography was gorgeous.
All in all it was better than I had expected and I expected it to be great. I’m sure if you’re a Harry Potter fan you’ll be seeing this movie, but if you’re not, do yourself a favor and treat yourself to this one!
My rating: 4.5 out of 5.
Filed under: Review
Comments
1. Bruce Boughton said:
I saw the film this Monday and absolutely loved it. It was one of those films you go and see and then want the DVD! I’m no great HP fan. I enjoyed the books but I’m not mad about it.
For me, the film felt like a proper film, rather than a book-turned-into-a-film. The Matrix-like spinning camera shots, amoung others, really added some maturity to the film.
Also, for what is essentially a children’s film, it is quite dark and scary, which can only be a good thing.
In my opinion, this film may well put the spark back into the HP world and arouse some more excitement. All in all, I’d agree it’s a great film.
Posted on June 7, 2004 10:29 AM | #
2. Darice said:
I saw the movie on the 2 June opening here in Holland. I found it more scary than the first two. While in the first two I was focusing on how they recreated the characters and the whole wizard world, in this movie I was more intrigued by the story even if I already read the books.
I still like the first movie more just like the book. I guess for me the first time I read and saw it are more impressing then the second time and so on.
Posted on June 7, 2004 10:49 AM | #
3. Michael Kelly said:
Amen.
I actually found it to be funnier than the first two films. Mostly it was the little things: the transition scenes with the Whomping Willow, the car alarm at the end of the Knight Bus sequence, Neville fighting with his monsters book (and losing).
It was the kind of film that I left the theater knowing that I’d missed something interesting along the edges (I want to see it again just for the end credits; clever, clever stuff).
Posted on June 7, 2004 10:58 AM | #
4. Sean King said:
I had many of the same reactions.
Alfonso Cuarón’s direction really made all the difference in this movie. Its the first of the series (and hopefully not the last!) that captured the excitement of Harry Potter and delivered it back to the audience onscreen.
Posted on June 7, 2004 11:37 AM | #
5. Hans said:
Um, you’ve written “or Azkaban” in the title….
You make me want to see it, even though I’m not a fan of the HP movies.
However, I’m not going to see this because I haven’t seen the second one, and… Oh, wait, I have seen the second one! Yay! I’ll go see this one, then.
Posted on June 7, 2004 01:06 PM | #
6. Bruce Boughton said:
Yeah, the whole Knight Bus sequence was the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time! It’s one of those rare times when talking about the film makes me want to see it again! I’ll def. have to get the DVD.
Posted on June 7, 2004 02:15 PM | #
7. Sian said:
I’m waiting to see it, possibly going to the cinema on saturday and I really can’t wait. Friends who have seen it say it’s a much darker film and quite appropriate too as it’s a much darker book anyway. Can’t wait now!
Posted on June 7, 2004 03:06 PM | #
8. Zach said:
I have to disagree with you. Perhaps it’s because I made the mistake of reading the book and then comparing that to the movie. The new director butchered the story line. He changed significant events in the book, deleted important things, and threw in events that didn’t even happen.
I know a movie can almost never be as good as the book, but this was barely even close. I felt the first two movies were much better because they actually stuck to the story written by Rowling. I mean, they left out the totally cool drink Butterbeer!
However, I’m sure that if someone hasn’t read the books, it would be quite an enjoyable movie. I just felt that they could have done much better.
Oh, and I HATED the guy who played Sirius. =D
Posted on June 7, 2004 03:20 PM | #
9. Keith said:
Zach – if you didn’t like how this one veered from the story-line, you might want to keep away from any new Harry Potter movie from now on.
The books are simply too long to put everything in there. Sure I love all the little details in the books too, and the good thing is the books are still there to read, but there is no possible way to get everything in the books into the movie.
Considering that I felt they did a great job sticking with the essence of the story. I don’t see how he omitted anything all that important. They left out butterbeer? Who cares, how is something like that important?
Considering how bad Hollywood butchers story-lines (League of Extraordinary Gentleman, what they’re doing to Hellblazer…) the Harry Potter films have been amazing at how true they are to the books.
It could be much, much, much worse.
Posted on June 7, 2004 03:47 PM | #
10. Joe Kaczmarek said:
I also really enjoyed it (and the new directorial direction worked really good in this one), but with just a few peeves over minor points. An example: though I loved the fading/fainting transitions, I hated the last one at the end with the close up of Harry. It just seemed too much of a “happy, cheery, everything’s-right-in-the-world-again” image that the previous movies were saturated with.
Posted on June 7, 2004 04:40 PM | #
11. Scott said:
I completely agree with Zach. Not only is this movie completely dependent upon the books for any sort of cogency, they aren’t even stand-alone plot-wise. Just for starters, we see a total removal of:
1) Why Snape hatres of James et al.
2) An explanation of Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs
3) A total removal of, virtually, all Quidwitch
4) Ron turned into a 1-Dimensional moron who is in love with Hermione.
5) A total removal of the drama between Ron and Hermione, when Ron and Harry don’t research for Buckbeek’s trial.
6) A total removal of that trial…expect what isn’t totally critically to the plot.
7) Malfoy also turned into a 1-dimensional pussy
8) A total lack of exploitation of cool special effects scenes, like going back in time, the Patronus, etc.
9) Adding stupid scenes like Hermione throwing stones at Harry when they go back in time
10) ‘The Grim’ prophecy all but eliminated, the Trewlaney getting virtually no lines.
I could go on but..you get the idea.
On the whole, I thought the acting was pretty horrific as well. Scripting and delivery of lines like “Prof. Lupin’s having a rough night,” or, “That felt good” (following Hermione punching Malfoy) were ridiculous. Moreover, key dramatic scenes such as the one in the Shrieking Shack which are not only some of my favorites, but also pivotal, were all but removed.
Keith, saying that, “Hollywood does a pretty sucky job usually, so turning out something half-way decent is a big accomplishment!” doesn’t defend the movie. It just says there above the status quo, which I agree, isn’t saying much.
Finally, I think the presupposition that, well, the movie is going to be worse is stupid. Look at LOTR. Sure, they cut a tremendous amount out, but for one thing, they went almost an hour over Harry Potter’s length, and used it effectively, and also, what they kept was brilliantly filmed, scripted, and acted. Most importantly, it did what movies are supposed to do: take advantage of having a visual screen in front of you. I didn’t think PoA failed in totality as this, but it defintely does not exploit it to its fullest.
…and don’t even get me started on TimeTurners
Posted on June 7, 2004 06:04 PM | #
12. Kyle said:
Gimme a break Scott – it’s a kid’s movie!
I saw it, thought it was great. Sure it was different than the book, but adding an extra hour to this movie would really have put it well over the edge of being watchable.
All the things you mentioned are great parts of the book, but I don’t see how any one of them is needed to make this a good movie.
You say “Not only is this movie completely dependent upon the books for any sort of cogency” and that is pure and simple, BS. My girlfriend saw this movie without reading any of the books and she loved it, and thought it a great addition to the series.
Speaking for yourself alone this might be true, and you are welcome to your opinion, but hey, there are many more out there who think you’re wrong.
Posted on June 7, 2004 06:40 PM | #
13. Kevin said:
The movie is good… not the greatest though. I did expect that there are ‘some’ stuff that HP-goers would quip about and I was asking my girlfriend more about the characters this time around. Hmmm… he (the director) should’ve incorporated those details in the movie.
I really like the ‘dark’ direction of the film, a more mature HP movie than the last two.
Posted on June 7, 2004 07:54 PM | #
14. Greg said:
I liked this movie in that it makes me want to go read the book because I know there are more than a few details left out. Whereas the first two are so closely tied to the book, there really isn’t any good reason to go back and read them.
I think this departure was important for Warner Bros. because as the books continue, they have grown larger. If they continued with the verbatium story mode of the first two films, the fifth book would have to be a trilogy on it’s own.
All this said, I have very much enjoyed all three films – especially the sets.
Posted on June 7, 2004 09:19 PM | #
15. Dorothy said:
Not only did they butcher the story line (presumably for length…but then they used 15 minutes for closing credits??) but they changed things for no visible reason.
Dementors fly now? (No wonder Malfoy and crew didn’t bother to impersonate dementors in the movie. Flying without a broom would be hard.) Muggles can’t see dementors, but they can feel them (from the books). But now dementors cause windows to frost over and ponds to freeze. Hm. Even a stupid muggle might notice that happening. And their kiss doesn’t seem to involve coming close to their victim. What?
The 3 main characters spend the whole movie in muggle clothes (I guess the dress code has exceptions for them now), and Hermione’s trademark bushy hair isn’t any more. Not to mention her clutching at Ron’s hand in moments of stress. (what?)
The time turner is how she handled her extraordinary work load. But wait. The movie said nothing at all about that. A couple of times Harry or Ron turn around and are surprised to see Hermione, but aside from that there’s no hint of the time turner until it’s needed for The Great Escape.
Hogwarts seems to now be perched on a mountaintop. You can’t take 3 steps on a level. Not the impression I got from the books *or* the first 2 movies.
Hagrid lives in a wooden house. (Hermione points that out when he’s raising the baby dragon.) Except now it’s suddenly a pair of stone huts.
Harry never gets in trouble once for anything, and there’s not a single reference (that I recall, anyway) to house points.
The firebolt appears at the very end from nowhere, and Harry hops on and flies happily off into the credits. No suspicion of the broom being jinxed, no big quiddich match, no Sir Caduggan…
The list is nearly endless.
The special effects were fine. The rest is a mess. I was greatly disappointed.
Posted on June 8, 2004 03:05 PM | #
16. Keith said:
To everyone who’s pointed out all the parts where the movie differs from a the books:
Get over it. What did you expect?
It’s only going to get worse as the source material gets longer and more complicated. This is what most movies do. It’s a fact of life.
Sure there are tons of inaccuracies. I don’t see anything that’s been pointed out to be that big a deal. Hagrid’s house is now stone?? There is almost no Quidditch? Are you kidding?
Oh and Scott (#11) who brought up LOTR. I LOVED Return of The King, but Jackson messed up my absolute favorite parts in the books. The inaccuracies in LOTR were at least as bad as the ones in this movie.
As far as I can tell they made no fundimental changes to the plot or the characters. Sure there were things changed and things left out, but these were almost all minor in the grand scheme of the plot.
JKR seems happy with the result…it’s just a movie afterall and last time I checked the book hadn’t been re-written.
I liked the books better as well…that’s almost always the case. If you are worried about your favorite books being butched on screen, I suggest you stay away from the theatre.
Posted on June 8, 2004 05:08 PM | #
17. Phil Wolff said:
I agree with Scott. While the movie works on its own, plot/character divergence from the the text or logical inconsistencies (noted above) were distracting and took away from following the story. I had a great time anyway, but another 20-30 minutes scattered around would have been well spent.
The books follow the kids at the rate of one year per book. As the kids grow up, the stories correspondingly deepen in plot, worldiness, intensity, character, and maturity of subjects. We’ve seen this in each sequel and I hope it continues. Rotating directors, cinematographers, and art directors seems to help accomplish this.
Posted on June 8, 2004 05:58 PM | #
18. Dorothy said:
I still think a lot of the changes were made to no purpose but to inflate the director’s sense of “creativity”.
And if time were such a constraint, then why chop out so much from the movie, then waste 15 minutes on end credits? 10 additional minutes of movie would have filled a lot of gaps.
You’ll not hear JKR say anything bad about the movie, if for no reason other than contractual obligation. And what purpose would it serve even if she hated it? But I really doubt she was as involved or in control of this one as she was with the first two. The result would have been better. Even if the storyline were collapsed, it would have been collapsed more smoothly.
But it’ll make a ton of money of course, because it’s part of a popular franchise.
Posted on June 8, 2004 07:28 PM | #
19. paul said:
I pretty much agree with this review, though I was also disappointed at what I felt to be key elements being missed out. Dorothy, there was a brief mention of house points though I’m not surprised that you missed it - it was Professor Snape deducting 5 (I think) from Gryffindor, for Hermione speaking out of turn twice.
I’m starting to wish they’d filmed these as a TV series, and not as a set of films. Although you may not have been able to get the large list of celebrities involved (though I’m sure most of the actors would have done it anyway, just to be seen in a Harry Potter event), and perhaps the SFX would not have been so good, you could have fit a lot more in…
Posted on June 9, 2004 05:10 AM | #
20. annia said:
To be honest I was quiet disappointed by the third part of harry potter. Maybe cos I didn’t read the book. But for some reason I prefered the first two parts of HP
Posted on June 9, 2004 05:44 AM | #
21. gleek said:
i’d like to clear up some points.
dorothy seems to think that JKR wouldn’t dare say anything bad about the movie which isn’t true. if you watch the A&E biography of JKR she says plenty about how nervous she was about the movies being made and how happy she is that they turned out so well. she also puts to rest several myths about her life; debunking plenty of blatant lies that she was very peeved about. also, if you watch the DVD extras on the first two films, there’s an interview with her and steve kloves on how they went about adapting the books for the screen. they both clearly state at the end of the interview that they were working together to bring azkaban to the screen and that kloves was in touch with JKR through the entire process.
and if you are a screenwriter (if you have taken any classes on film you will know this) the best way to shorten a movie is to remove ENTIRE subplots not just bits and pieces here and there. butterbeer and the firebolt-contamination-plot were not necessary in order to advance the movie so they were cut out (yes the firebolt shows up in the end but his broom had to be replaced sometime!)
and, if you read the book, you’ll know that the time turner doesn’t show itself till one of the very last chapters so it’s only natural to do the same thing in the film. i can see how it might have confused some but it’s not beyond comprehension.
also, anyone’s beef with the end credits being 15 minutes long.. well, hello?! audiences almost never watch the end credits (though they should) so the actual length of the film is not affected by them.
one last point.. i felt that hogwarts was much more interesting now that the kids were wearing civilian clothes when they weren’t going to classes. it seemed more natural. the grounds of hogwarts were much more appealing in this movie too. in the books, the kids spend loads of time outside and it’s nice to be able to see great scenery when it’s presented on screen.
Posted on June 9, 2004 09:18 AM | #
22. Dorothy said:
It’s the total run time that matters economically. That’s what influences how many times the film can be shown per screen per day. A minute of credits costs as much as a minute of watchable material, as far as the theaters are concerned. It’s ridiculous to have that many credits, if it contributed to the hack job they did on the storyline.
Oh well, done is done. I hope they display better judgement when they do film 4. That one will be harder to cut down properly, and if they do it no more skillfully than p3, it’ll be really sad.
I guess we should count our blessings. Usually #2 in a film sequence is botched terribly. At least they did the first two well, and maybe they’ll be more careful with #4.
Posted on June 9, 2004 10:58 AM | #
23. jeff said:
Oh, man! I thought it rocked, and i’m a huge fan of the series. The first 2 were so cheesy. This one had some real darkness and creativity, and that is how I have always conjured the HP books in my head. DKR is right, this is a movie adapted from a long book. Of course they can’t get everything in there. Get over it, and pay attention to some of the great work in this film!
Posted on June 10, 2004 11:48 AM | #
24. alana said:
I am going to see the movie tomorrow and what i have noticed is that people have a very mixed opinion on this movie. I think that if you are expecting an exact replica of the book, you will be disappointed, because even the first 2 movies are not replicas. Also, the complaints about the credits is ridiculous, you have to give the credits where credits are due. It is part of the contracts that they have when they agree to be part of making this movie. If you have ever paid any attention to any other movie (especially ones with a lot of special effects) then credits do to take a long time because there are a lot of people involved in making the movie. And to say “well they could have spent that time doing something other than credits” is a great insult to the people who spent over a year of their lifes to make this movies for you to enjoy. From all the previews i have seen so far, it looks amazing. And I also trust that if Rowling found it to be a good movie, then it probably is, since she is really the only one qualified to give an opinion.
Posted on June 10, 2004 01:43 PM | #
25. Dorothy said:
Okay, when you go, please sit through all the credits, then tell us they couldn’t have done them in 1/2 or 1/3 the time and used the footage for story line.
Notice also that:
Not only the 3 main characters, but also Malfoy & friends, who pride themselves so much on their wizardness, nip off to their houses at every opportunity to switch to muggle clothes before going outside.
Malfoy & crew are at best a minor irritation. Wimps, really. Hardly the antagonists they usually are. We’d barely know they were hate-objects but for the other movies/books.
The shrieking shack mudthrowing scene is now late in the year when it’s snowy. Mainly, I think, so the “footprints in snow” special effect can be used. But of course that doesn’t give Harry away. In fact “your head is not allowed in Hogsmeade” doesn’t happen at all.
Imagine the flying car landing in that whomping willow, then driving off onto the grounds, as we saw it do in #2.
The willow’s job is of course to keep people away from the tunnel mouth. But instead it picks them up, waves them about a bit, then tosses them right down that hole. How convenient.
Imagine movie 4 task 2 occurring in the puddle they call a lake. (I guess merpeople survive being frozen by dementors.)
Ask how Hagrid’s hut is so flammable that Norbert is a hazard.
Consider how collapsed the confrontation in the shack is now. Rather a short time for Harry to go from hating Sirius to liking him.
How does one tell the werewolf from the true wolf? Well, we might start with the fact they look absolutely nothing alike… But as usual, it’s a good special effect.
Scabbers turns into Pettigrew-with-clothes. Then later turns back into Scabbers, leaving behind that pile of clothes. Sorry, that’s just sloppy.
Sirius becomes a huge black dog, equal to the task of confronting Lupin the wolf. Looks like an ordinary sized dog now. I guess so he’ll not be up to the task anymore, as he isn’t.
We saw Tom the Innkeeper of the Leaky Cauldron in the first movie. This time he looks like a nosferatu. Bad ale, I suppose.
Lupin says “Someone” told people of lupin’s condition. Another reason for us to hate Snape. Why change that for the movie? Well, um, maybe it saved a lot of footage to say “someone” rather than “Snape”.
Lupin skips Harry in the boggart lesson when it becomes a dementor. Then apologizes to him for skipping him in sequence, because he assumed the boggart would become Voldemort. Then Harry tells him no, what he fears is a dementor, and Lupin says “oh…” What? Weird continuity glitch. But it did allow for another dementor special effect, and that’s what matters.
Basically, I think they did a lot of the hack job halfway through, and some of the seams show.
To balance all that stuff, Ron’s boggart-spider is better in the movie than in the book.
I think I’ll leave it rest now, and switch to looking forward to Spiderman 2. I doubt they’ll botch that one.
Posted on June 10, 2004 04:35 PM | #
26. Mike said:
Scott, and Zach is right. I agree with the cant have it all people too, but I can smell a bad movie when it stinks.
You cant have everything but the movie was just to choppy in parts and too long in others. One should introduce something if their not going to explain it later in the film. The moony, wormtail, ect.. marauder’s map WTF is that crap. Most pivital plot in the story cheapin to toilet tissue paper.
I think the problem is with the whole process. If you look at the Lord of the Rings written and directed by the same people. So, there is consistancy throughout all of the films.
Absolutley no consistancy. Oh, just like another WB film series called Batman. But hey, I just another kids movie. If thats the case, just recast everyone for every movie, put Hogwarts in Hawaii, rewrite the story “Harry Potter’s godfather out from Prison.” Give me a break.
Thats all. Done venting.
Posted on June 14, 2004 01:40 AM | #
27. alana said:
Well, i have seen the movie now. I enjoyed it. I did not find the credits to especially long (and yes i did sit through the all!) I think the only part that was hard for me to wrap my brain around, was the physical changes to Hogwarts. And I think if they left the sets the same and left them in “wizard” clothes more, people would have liked it more. It is very hard when you are used to things looking one way and then they look different. It looks wrong. (Even though some if it is more accurate to the books description, it is not what you are used to seeing) All in all, I still did enjoy, but it isn’t my favourite in the series. I think, it will be a good thing that they are having someone else directing the fourth, because this story is an easy one, I think the fourth one will be harder to achieve.
Posted on June 16, 2004 09:31 AM | #
28. Megan said:
I have to say that I was sorely disappointed with the way this movie was done. And no, I am not a Harry Potter fanatic who is obsessed with the movies being exactly like the books.
Movie directors take artistic license when visually recreating a book, but this one was ridiculous. The editing was terrible at best and transition from scene to scene was sloppy.
The script was lame…it made the actors look like they didn’t know how to act. The wardrobe change was immature and detracted from the magic of the story that the director of the other two films seemed to be able to leave in quite easily.
Too much emphasis was placed on the dark and horrific, at the expense of the story as a whole.
A lot of what made the previous Harry Potter movies a success was the fact that they stuck to about 80% of the book whereas this one seemed to leave out very key things that set up the plot. I’m not sure that if I didn’t read the book beforehand if I would understand the movie real well. The basic plot is minimal at best and this new director’s flair is too much his own and not one that enhances the story.
The other movies reflected the storylines and setting of the books well without making them long or wrought with too much detail. This one could’ve been the same with just a little more effort.
Posted on June 18, 2004 08:20 AM | #
29. Libby said:
Last night I saw the movie for the second time.
I have to say I agree with what Zach (the 8th poster) said. The director left out some parts of the book and added new ones in. Don’t get me wrong, I loved the ‘go-back-in-time, mess-around-with-it’ type thing as the rest of my fellow movie-goers, but Alfonzo didn’t have to change the whole other half of the story.
I think it would’ve made a nice addition to the story line if they had put the Firebolt bit in the middle of the story, which was given to Harry by Sirius Black, intead of leaving it till the end as a sort of ‘oh, and this also happened’ type part. I also didn’t like it when they didn’t put in the bit about Pigwidgeon, Ron’s new owl, given to him by Sirius. How are they going to explain Pig’s presence in the 4th movie?
This is all I have to say about this movie. I would also like to add that I did not like the casting for Remus Lupin. I felt he did not fit the part. =p
Posted on June 18, 2004 08:01 PM | #
30. Libby said:
Last night I saw the movie for the second time.
I have to say I agree with what Zach (the 8th poster) said. The director left out some parts of the book and added new ones in. Don’t get me wrong, I loved the ‘go-back-in-time, mess-around-with-it’ type thing as the rest of my fellow movie-goers, but Alfonzo didn’t have to change the whole other half of the story.
I think it would’ve made a nice addition to the story line if they had put the Firebolt bit in the middle of the story, which was given to Harry by Sirius Black, intead of leaving it till the end as a sort of ‘oh, and this also happened’ type part. I also didn’t like it when they didn’t put in the bit about Pigwidgeon, Ron’s new owl, given to him by Sirius. How are they going to explain Pig’s presence in the 4th movie?
This is all I have to say about this movie. I would also like to add that I did not like the casting for Remus Lupin. I felt he did not fit the part. =p
Posted on June 18, 2004 08:02 PM | #
31. Zuhaib said:
I tell ya I’ll have to agree with scott…
I’ll start by first saying that I am a big fanatic of Harry potter books …I have read them all…
To tell u the truth harry potter 2’s movie was the reason I became an addict of harry potter franchise …..maybe because of kenneth brannaugh who played an outstanding gilderhoy lockhart . and most of all due to harry potter 2 covering 75% of the book.
Harry potter 3 on the other hand had me so dissappointed..that look at this scenario I watched harry potter3 because i liked harry potter 2 and i am not going to watch any other harry potter movie because I loathed harry potter 3.I mean …the movie is a disgrace to the harry potter franchise.There has been so much left out that there is no humour , no thrill that was present in the book . Looks like Director Alfonso was in a hurry to get the movie over with and in the process he has nearly left every important detail within the book. I mean where is snape’s loathing for harry potter’s father? Why does snape hate sirius and lupin so much? For god’s sake how the hell r u supposed to make a movie that only covers 25% of the book.
I think the movie will only appeal to fans of harry potter who have read the book or if u have not read the book but have a habit of not asking too many questions during and after the movie.
Posted on July 3, 2004 08:40 PM | #
32. Dalton McClure said:
Man i am a huge fan of Harry Potter. I have read all 5 books and cant wait for this movie to come out.I alredy have 2 of the movies.I thank the best book was the 3rd and 4th one.But I have to say one thing profser lupin does not look the way I thought he would.I expted hem to look cooler.But I like when Herminy punchs malfoy in the face that was funny.Well got to go now,by the way hurry with the 4th one and make moody look cripy ok.
Big fan,
Dalton McClure
Posted on August 25, 2004 02:54 PM | #
33. R.K. said:
I am a huge fan of Harry Potter. I have read all 5 books. The first 2 movies were more alike with the books, and there were cooler special fx, etc.. I thought this would also be like the first 2. But now the main 3 characters hav to wear Muggle clothes if they arent in class, and a lot of things werent put in this! I mean, Cho Chang didnt appear. Pigwidgeon didnt appear. The props used are different(observe the wands, some of them look REAL different from the ones used in the first 2), Ron didnt show Harry his new wand in Diagon Alley, Harry didnt drool over the Firebolt everyday at the Leaky Cauldron, he only spent ONE day in the Leaky Cauldron, Lupin has short coconut-husk shaped hair instead of the long cool one, Sirius keeps laughing in here, this list is almost endless. But its pretty funny, and the Patronus effect was pretty cool. But Expelliarmus was supposed to be a beam of RED light, not white! But other than that, this movie is fun to watch.
Posted on September 9, 2004 06:18 AM | #
Comments are now closed