Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban

[Emily]

IT SUCKED!!!

It was nothing but snapshots of the book. No story line, no details, no explainations of what was going on, no drama, nothing. They were dressed in clothes that was gotten off the shelf in Walmart, not in their robes. You would HAVE to read the book in order to understand what's going on. In the last 2 movies, only a few things were left out but it didnt' damage the story line or mess up the movie. This movie didn't go by the book. There were a few things out of order which just totally messes it all up. Either get a new director or a new screen writer who has read the book.


Don't waste your money!!!

[logamus]

this is why you shouldnt waste your time reading books. it only ruins movies.

[MadChild]

im goin to see it in a little while...ill post what i thought of it when i get back

[FooTemps]

I say that it's good as a movie... it's just not good as a movie from a book...

[ZAust]

i loved it!! sure, you needed to read the book to have any idea what was going on, but id rather have it skimp on the basic background stuff than go overboard and turn into a bloated, 3 hour monster.

[atm743]

this is why you shouldnt waste your time reading books. it only ruins movies.
haha very very true i loved it its seems like a really great movie and i never read any of the books!

[Fred]

I saw it on Friday night.... I thought it was OK. But how many people are gonna go see it that HAVN'T read the books yet?

Not many.

I thought it was OK, better than the first two, the directors style was WAY better IMO, and really liked the cinematography.... and the CG on Buckbeak kicked major butt.

My only gripe (possible spoiler) is the weak CG on Harry's Patronus...

The dementors were fricking scary, I really liked how they were done.

---Fred

[1stdeadeye]

My kids liked it. It was better then the 1st two, but that ain't saying much! ;)

[Timmee]

ZAust pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as a lot of details being left out. As the books get longer, the movies are going to have to cut out more of the lesser details, in order to fit into a "reasonable" movie length.

[Emily]

I don't think 2 and 1/2 hr or even 3 is too long for this series. Heck lord of the rings was that long. So was Titantic and Pearl Harbor. I would just rather have more details and it be in the order of the book. There was no "on the edge of the seat" in this movie. I was ok, here's this and this and this and the end. What's the point in that? I mean come on if you're going to make a book into a movie then at least follow the book.

[TeamNausea]

Just got back from it actually i liked it. A lot "darker" than the other 2 i liked that. Couldve been better but was all in all worth the ticket price.

[Trick]

Taking a chick to see it tonight. Never read the books. Don't want to. Didn't want to see the movie.

The powers women hold over us men are strong and terrible.

I've needed a good 2 hour nap though anyway, so it's all good.

[logamus]

I saw it on Friday night.... I thought it was OK. But how many people are gonna go see it that HAVN'T read the books yet?

Not many.
i dont personally know a single person that has seen a harry potter movie and read a harry potter book. myself included. i will also add that i only know two people that read the lord of the rings books. movies dont make 91mil only having a bunch of book readers show up.

is it a sign of the times when the local movie tavern has harry potter on 4 screens?