countdown boutiques-francophones Learn more scflyout Pets All-New Kindle Music Deals Store sports Tools Registry

Customer Reviews

4.1 out of 5 stars
4.1 out of 5 stars
Format: VHS Tape|Change
Price:$19.99+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on December 18, 2004
My whole family is big fan of all five books of Harry Potter and first two movies. In my opinion the second movie is even better than second book. Actors like Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy) and Kenneth Branagh (Gilderoy Lockhart) did excellent job!
We all expected with eagerness to see the third movie, even more that the book "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is our favorite- great story with strong new characters (Sirius Black and Remus Lupin). What a disappointment! The new director paid attention mostly on the effects and I think the third book deserves more than effects.
I don't think David Thewlis (Professor Lupin) and Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore) are most appropriate actors for those roles. However there was a director's hit- Gary Oldman was perfect for his part (well almost- without tattoos J) I still wonder why the director made Tom the Innkeeper to looks like weak-minded and spared so much time for scene with wizards' bus, but leaved out why Hermione needs time turner and more, and more... no need to repeat Lin and other guys with close to mine opinions.
I believe that people who read the book will understand what I mean. But maybe others, who haven't read it are more lucky- they have chance to like the third movie.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 9, 2004
Having read the book before seeing the movie in theatres, this third instalment in the Harry Potter movie series didn't quite live up to its predecessors that followed the books quite closely and lived up to the magic the literature offers. This movie adaptation of the Prisoner of Azkaban seemed to be more slapped together, taking some elements from the book, but changing around all the important events and forgetting why things are the way they are in the books, such as the importance of the Quidditch Cup.
I didn't quite like the casting for the new Albus Dumbledore either after being exposed to and enjoying the performance of the late Richard Harris as headmaster at Hogwarts. Michael Gambon's take as Dumbledore didn't have the right feel to it. He brought a more grumpier and stern Albus Dumbledore to the screen as opposed to a kind-hearted, bright blue-eyed, old wizard that one would respect as a friend. In my opinion, John Hurt, who portrayed a father figure to Hellboy in the Hellboy movie, would have brought back the Dumbledore we have come to love after the late Richard Harris.
In whole, considering the Prisoner of Azkaban is highly regarded as the best book in the series so far, it just wasn't what it could have been, maybe because the Prisoner of Azkaban book is a lot darker and deals with even darker issues than the first two parts of the series, and this movie was compelled to be more of a family film that parents would let their kids see.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 31, 2005
Of *course* it isn't as good as the book. Movie adaptations almost never are. Things have to be changed in order to work, and some things are inevitably lost in the transition.
That said, it's the best one yet. The first two movies were mediocre partly because they tried to follow the books too closely and brought nothing to the story- why would you watch a second-rate edited version of events when you can read the brilliant original?
Azkaban was darker, funnier, and more believable. The changes made to the storyline didn't feel forced or unnatural. What won me over were the details; seeing the characters out of uniform or goofing off with magic animal crackers...they're kids at a magic school, but they're still kids. The acting was excellent all-round.
I can't see Phoenix making the jump to the big screen successfully: they'd have to cut it down a lot or make two films. But if they do make another, hopefully Alfonso Cuarón remains the director.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 19, 2004
I felt that this movie was by far the best of the three to date. The others annoyed me at times because they were simply TOO faithful to the books...word for word at times. Cuaron managed to maintain the spirit of the book without making a carbon copy. I realize that some key elements were left out, but, remember, they are planning on putting those in the next movie where they thought that they would fit better.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 21, 2006
I liked all the Harry Potter movies. They weren't the books but they were good. The best one was probably the second. The only thing that really got me was the scenery. Was there something wrong with it?! Did anyone notice how suddenly the land scape, the location of the womping willow, and the whole caslte were different than the first and second? All I can say is: "What was wrong with the old way?!"
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on September 4, 2013
for the price,a new movie at quater of the the cost, now have the complete collection of harry potter movies,fantastic
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 25, 2004
ok: this movie is magical but not without its faults: apparantly the geography of the Hogwarts grounds has changed (for the better, IMO), it strays from the book SLIGHTLY but nothing major. When it does, it makes sense. a great example is Harry's Firebolt. Once you see the film you'll understand why it was a good move. My only complaint is that they didn't dwell on the Prongs, Padfoot, Moody and Wormtail story. Bottom line: best Potter film, however, to get the full expereince read the book AS WELL. Reading the first two books wasn't neccessary to 'get' the movies. I'm anxious for "HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE" due Nov. 18, 2005. I just hope that #4 follows the book, as it is BIG...
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 3, 2004
As a huge Harry Potter fan, and having really enjoyed the first two movies, I was very eager to see 'The Prisoner of Azkaban', and now I wish I had rented it and saved my money. There is almost no character development, and Hogwarts now looks as if it is a ruin. But perhaps worst of all it is a poorly constructed movie. My husband, who has not read the books, but thoroughly enjoyed the first two movies, was completely lost in this one. Scenes change quickly, frequently with no explanation, and while this is not a serious problem if you have read the book, for others it makes for a choppy, disjointed mess. Let's hope that if they make the fourth movie, they'll change directors.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 27, 2011
Exquisite packaging, excellent bonus features and a great price made this a must-buy for me. The extra few minutes in the movie are a nice bonus, but don't really add a whole lot (not like the extended edition of Lord of the Rings which added plot points). Still I am extremely happy with this purchase and would recommend to any serious Harry Potter fans.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 4, 2004
This movie is fantastic! It is ten times better than the previous two Potter films, with more action, humor, and thrills. The special effects are excellent, the acting is better, and the story is better. Although quite a bit is left out, shuffled, or changed from the original material it is truly an amazing cinematic experience. If you didn't love the first two then try this one out, because I can guarentee you'll love it. Knowing that JK Rowling's books get better as they go, The Goblet of Fire will likely do what The Prisoner of Azkaban did- thrill and chill to the extreme.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Customers also viewed these items