Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Waste of time

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Blistering performances.

Although this movie leaves out some important details from the book, it has something most of the movies don't. The magic And the tone of the book are truly here. And the parts they did have from the book where outstanding. The first two where good and faithful too the most, but didn't have that magical feel for me..

The third film about the young wizard is the most controversial, for it was he who split the fans of the novels about Potter into two warring parties: conservatives and innovators.The first group of fans absolutely condemned and condemned the actions of the director Cuaron, altered "Harry Potter" in his own way. Say, they did not like the strange werewolf, all sorts of jokes-jokes, interspersed by the director in addition to the script, and in addition to all the claims they discovered the disappearance of the atmosphere of magic, because of which the popular expression of "Quaron in the furnace" was born.The second group, on the contrary, furiously began to praise Cuaron, extolling him to the unprecedented pedestal of fame, thus creating almost a cult of personality. They liked everything that only they could like in the third film.Only now it became clear that both sides are not right in their convictions. So it should be, movies must be different in essence. The error crept in from the very beginning: Chris Columbus took the first two films, and this put the old debate on what kind of movies Harry Potter should be about. Columbus did not have to give the right to shoot two films, and one would suffice. Spectators are used to the atmosphere of the first two films, because most of the audience took the innovative approach of Quaron to the screen version of the third novel with bayonets. Now the producers make a mistake again - they give the right to shoot two films (The Order of the Phoenix and The Half-Blood Prince) to the new director David Yates. This should not be done in any case. It is necessary to preserve the diversity of director's visions. Hogwarts is not accidentally depicted in different ways in films, like Hogsmeade. Everything in novels is seen differently every time, because all the reader and viewer sees through the eyes of Harry Potter, and in films through the prism of the director's vision, the viewer must perceive the magical world through the eyes of a young wizard. Alfonso Cuaron still hit the spot with his timely vision of the plot of "The Prisoner of Azkaban."He created a sparkling tragicomedy for the growing up of a young wizard.In general, Cuaron's film reminds me of our old Soviet films. For the reason that the whole film can be easily taken away on the shots, quotes, fragments, heroes, soundtracks, etc., etc. Despite everything, this film is much kinder than the previous two, differing in their gloomy Gothic style. It's more fun, crazy, and it should be, because it's Sirius Black himself on the scene!For the whole of Rowling's novel, like the film of Quaron, is a tribute to the memory of the crazy, hooliganistic and such lonely Sirius Black ... Black, whose heart is beating violently, hot blood flows in his veins, and in the soul is truly dog devotion. The third film, as well as the film, is dedicated to the looters - James Potter (= Harry Potter), Peter Pettigrew, Rimus Lupine and Sirius Black - a group of friends who used to be friends a long time ago ...The film ruthlessly shows how easy it is to lose friendship and how difficult it is to acquire a friend ...Thanks to Alfonso Cuaron, who did a talented work, showing in one stroke all the huge gallery of the characters of the magical world and their essence: the Minister of Magic plunges into a puddle; the soothsayer with big glasses on her nose stumbles on her own table; The evil teacher Severus Snape closes the children from the werewolf; eccentric Dumbledore slams his hand over Ron's gnarled leg; Remus Lupine, at the lesson, takes a snack with an apple; portraits of Hogwarts, it turns out, also like to sleep; Stan Shanpike with his brave words is not very strong in dragging student suitcases; Hagrid and ties are incompatible things; Tom from the Leaky Cauldron has a nehyl auto; Ernie, wearing spectacles with large lenses, is led by the "Night Knight"; Sirius Black finally began to talk moral nonsense ... Also it is necessary to thank the new actors, so successfully merged into the old line-up:Emma Thompson (Sibyl Trelawney); Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore); David Thulis (Remus Lupine); Julie Christie (Madame Rosmerta); Gary Oldman (Sirius Black); Timothy Spall (Peter Pettigrew) and many others. By the way, if my memory does not change me, then the two actors from the third film (cleaning woman in the bar "Leaky Cauldron" and Aunt Marge) Quaron quietly consigned to his other project - "Child of Man", but that's another story ...Let me love the fourth film about Harry Potter (director - Mike Newell), but I always revise the Curaron part - it is the brightest of all existing.In a word, long live Rowling and Cuaron!"Potter, come back!" (Severus Snape, potions teacher).

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was directed by the very talented Alfonso Cuarón and stars Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and Michael Gambon (recast from the late Richard Harris), and follows our three heroes at a third year at a (different-looking) Hogwarts during a time where an apparently dangerous serial killer escaped the Wizard Prison of Azkaban and is for some reason heading towards Hogwarts.First and foremost, Alfonso's direction and gorgeous cinematography alone are both masterclass. When I rewatched this film recently, I was blown away by that alone. Some of the most unique direction and cinematography I've ever seen in the genre, and definitely THE most unique of such in the entire franchise. I will be remembering certain shots and how they were pulled off for years to come, probably more so than any others in the series. I recommend this film just for that.Fortunately, the film still has lots of likable characters, great world-building continuing from the previous installments, and a highly interesting story to top if off. There are some new characters in this movie, including the likable but suspicious Remus Lupin, played by the talented David Thewlis, and some new ideas and themes that are really well done. (SPOILER) What I really like about this film is the "grey area" theme, where at the end even though you learn that Sirius Black, the apparent serial killer played by Gary Oldman, is innocent and was framed, you still don't know to fully trust him, but Harry and his friends still are able to do the right thing and save his soul from the Dementors (basically ring-wraith ripoffs). The development of Harry and his friends is done especially well too, it does a fantastic job showing their turmoil as growing teenagers. I like how they aren't fully in control of both their magic and their emotions, I thought that was an interesting touch.If I were to name one single, solitary problem, it's that the set and costume designs, while good, are completely inconsistent with the previous two films. Hogwarts looks completely different on both the outside and the inside, and some characters (this is excluding the recast Dumbledore, which I can overlook) look different too in terms of their costumes. I can somewhat forgive it because the series changed directors after Chris Columbus, but it is distracting nonetheless.I adore this movie, and thanks to the direction and cinematography as well as the characterizations, this is easily one of the best of the entire franchise.RATING:9/10

I just finished watching all the Harry Potter films back to back to back to back. What a crazy trip. Before starting this review, here is my ranking, from best to worst:HP4 > HP8 > HP1 > HP6 > HP7 > HP2 > HP3 > HP5This is the Empire Strikes Back of the HP series in that it is beyond overrated. People over estimate this film because what's his name looks cool in his most wanted poster and the film knows it, which is why they show the poster at least five times during the film. Whatever, it was still an okay film. Just not great.