Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban

Forum

has any one seen the film

>>By pest   (Friday, 25 Jun 2004 14:09)



Thought it was much better than the previous 2 attempts, which wasn't difficult as they both sucked :0)

>>By kurn-ell   (Thursday, 1 Jul 2004 07:04)



I can only give you the point of view of someone who has read the book. The movie is enjoyable but moves very fast. A lot of things aren't explained, so I sometimes wonder if those who haven't read the novel still catch what is going on. The more new characters are introduced, the less we see the ones we've come to know and like, but then, that is part of the evolution of the story. I guess if there were always the same characters, we'd grow bored. All actors are perfect.

>>By Kara   (Thursday, 1 Jul 2004 14:27)



i don't think the movies r as good as the books but the prisoner of azkaban was better than the other two by a long way.

>>By beloved   (Saturday, 3 Jul 2004 22:03)



way better!!!
the Dementors were pretty scary and considering how complicated the book was, it was done very well.
hopefully, the next movies will be as spooky and dark.

>>By trollop23   (Monday, 5 Jul 2004 02:03)



I didn't like the movies, but now I do. Probably because it's been long enough since I read the books. But I was very pleased to find that Harry's hair was the proper color this time.

>>By CĂT   (Tuesday, 13 Jul 2004 19:53)



the storyline was TOTALLY screwed. And yea, I agree, unless you've read the books, it's kinda hard to understand some of the stuff that goes on.

>>By punk_child_8713   (Wednesday, 14 Jul 2004 03:39)



this movie does'nt make any sense i would have to be stoned to waste my money again

>>By theli#1   (Thursday, 15 Jul 2004 00:21)



five words: its a piece of shit

>>By Billy Pilgrim   (Thursday, 15 Jul 2004 03:30)



For some reason I was kind of dissapointed when I went to go see this movie. I like the first 2 much better. I mean yes the movie was good, the specials effects and all, but it was just missing something, and im a big harry poter fan

>>By Jane   (Saturday, 17 Jul 2004 06:30)



im a huge Hp fan and i dunt rlly know what to say about this movie.... it was worth seeing but it was TOTALLY easy to notice that a new director was on staff...this movie strayed quite a bit away from the book but sumhow still managed to capture the story but there were a couple mistakes that were TOOOOOOO noticeable...EG) harrys eyes are supposed to be green like his mother lilys... and in the movie they were blue..how hard is it to get colored contacts on the huge budget that movie had!

But the good news is if you didnt like this one don't give up on the 4th movie to be released Novemeber 18th 2005 because once again there will be ANOTHER new director...
3 directors on 4 movies... not great stats when ya think about it hahaha

>>By Chrissy_Hockeyluver   (Monday, 9 Aug 2004 04:17)



it's stupid...the grounds of hogwarts is diffrent from the first two movies...there's a lot of stupid mistakes in the movie...for example-that bus who drives harry to the leaky cauldron is supposed to be red,but it's blue in the movie...and in england the driver sits in the right side of the car,but on that bus 'stan' sits on the left....
but hey-you can't have everything.

>>By eva__Tier   (Tuesday, 10 Aug 2004 16:31)



I have seen all three films about Harry Potter and I really love them! I love that kind of movies! And the actors are choosed so perfectly, don't you, people, think so?!
But, hey, I'm actually not Potter's fan, I just love the films!

>>By Miss Krux   (Wednesday, 11 Aug 2004 09:10)



y ou could relly tell there was a different director.Hogwarts looked MUCH darker and of course different as it was all digital instead of alnwick castle.I noticed things were changed around from the book and quite a bit missed out, but its great to see the books come to life.

>>By scarletnikki   (Monday, 23 Aug 2004 00:27)



I loved the movies, bu i loved the books more
I think that to people who haven't read the books they will get the gist of the story, but they won't get the big picture and that still bothers me a little bit, but again i still like the movies

>>By Gidjet   (Thursday, 23 Sep 2004 02:11)



Did anyone but me notice that the third movie in one of the sets, the court yard, the statues were of a eagle eating a snake? The mexican symbol. Also why did they change the sets so much? i mean the place for Hagrid's hut....

>>By Hermione Granger   (Saturday, 18 Dec 2004 02:57)



It was a decent movie, I'll admit it, but the storyline and stuff was terribly done. To chrissy, another example of a big mistake: In one scene you will see Harry with his scar on the WRONG side, the right side, but, isn't the scar supposed to be in the middle? And then you will see, in the next scene, the scar is back on the left side when he's going to bed... It's very badly done. Also, Lupin and Sirius look nothing like you expect from the books. but whatever, I guess nothing's perfect.

-Urbane-

>>By Urbane   (Saturday, 18 Dec 2004 22:40)



The third movie was one of my favs but I didn't like the way they changed some of the parts different than the book

>>By Kandace   (Saturday, 18 Dec 2004 22:58)



I intentionally didn't read the books yet. So I like this movie a lot. And I like it more than the other 2.
I did enjoy the fact that there is no more boring catching-the-fly game.

>>By The Ass Owl   (Sunday, 19 Dec 2004 03:53)



you'll probably hate the next film then, it should feature the "catching-the-fly" world cup

>>By kurn-ell   (Tuesday, 28 Dec 2004 04:47)



did anyone else imagine Lupin as being sort of fit and rough looking not chubby, rosy cheeked and moustached? he is completly wrong i think all of the other characters are near perfect though. I liked the way this film was darker than the other two though it seemed to move along real quick and missed out important stuff i mean is it just me or did it not mention at all that lupin sirius pettigrew and potter made the map?? you wouldn't understand that if oyu didnt read the book and i think its an important part... hmmm

>>By Beth88   (Wednesday, 29 Dec 2004 21:31)



Yes I imagined Lupin and Sirius to be the hot ones in the film.
And they missed out a lot of detail.
And that blasted girl was in it again - Hermoine.
It was too dark - the colour that is.
They made bits of it up.
And no matter how hard I try, Daniel Radcliffe CAN NEVER BE HOT!!!

>>By Tchock   (Friday, 31 Dec 2004 21:12)



Daniel Radcliffe is HOT! hehe
but i think Tom Felton is hotter..that's just me.
with ne of the Harry Potter movies, you have to read the books to follow what's going on..the scenery was much different..but it was beautiful. i think it was filmed in Scotland?! the whole film seemed a bit childish in my opinion..and soon Harry, Ron, and Hermione are going to be too old for the parts..hey did ne one hear that the next book might be released this July?!?!

>>By Hermione   (Sunday, 2 Jan 2005 03:36)



i have watched these movie and frankly i fell asleep during the first one, i dont understand why people like these movies, there so childish and no offence or anything but the comedy in it puts the movie down making a film that could of being much better like for god sake taking pictures and stuff. like as a hard core lord of the rings fan i just understand it how a director could ruin such a good idea for a movie, like the film is hollywood and there was no real effort put in to the story line at all , it was just another way for the writer to make more money....

>>By zeromenace   (Wednesday, 19 Jan 2005 14:47)



I haven't read the books, but I thought this film was not as good as the first two, except for the Dementors. Maybe it's the new director.

>>By horliks   (Monday, 27 Jun 2005 20:15)



rupert grint is kind-of cute ............. but who gives a f**k ............its the movies that matter ..........but just to let every one know ...the books are better

>>By An Evil Girl   (Wednesday, 6 Jul 2005 23:52)



I don't get why everyone thinks the actors that play Harry, Ron and Hermione are going to be too old to play their parts.
They were obviously the right age for the first movie. Each book covers a year. There's a movie out each year. So the actors and characters are aging at the same speed. Well, they did skip 2003 so at most you could say the actors are each one year older than they should be... One little year. They'll skip 2007 too if they stay on schedule, which makes two years unless that time is simply post-production; if principle photography was finished earlier then once again we're back to the actors being one year older...
The only way the actors could truely get too old is if they ran out of books to adapt into movies and had to wait a year or two for JK Rowling to write a new one.
Frankly, it would shake my suspension of disbelief more to see them recast the parts than it would to keep the current actors. Heck, there have been people in their early thirties playing high school kids on tv...

Anyway. Yes, the books are better than the movies, but that's virtually always true of any movie adaptation. I liked the first two well enough, and the new director has given the movies a darker feel that I enjoy. After all, the books get darker along the way too. I thought PoA held together really well considering how much had to be left out. I mean come on, you can't be too picky; if they didn't cut anything the movies would be five hours long, take more than a year to make and cost so much they wouldn't be able to make them.

>>By Warlocke   (Tuesday, 27 Sep 2005 19:46)



The discussion board is currently closed.