Review of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) by Alex H — 14 Aug 2012

This one has to top the first two bookwise, as a movie, it would only top the first. I didn't see this one because of the dementors, I wasn't very strong on the scares at the time. so I waited until it came out on DVD, and rewatched it in the halfway point between goblet of fire and order of the phoenix area, excellent movie. read the book, and just loved it better than the movie. I was shocked to find out that crookshanks actually had a ROLE to play in the book and actually IS a character, while in the movies, they make him look like a mindless animal who's only intent is to hunt down mice, including Scabbers/Pettigrew.

Again, great cast with great new comers (David Thewlis as Lupin, Gary Oldman as Sirius, although I had a problem with him in the fifth, but he was perfect in this one), but I didn't like who they chose for Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) at all. Not that he did a bad job as Dumbledore, but Richard Griffiths does a more accurate Dumbledore, I like how in the books and in the first two movies how he acts like every thing is all happy and right in moments when things totally aren't. that's what you like about that Dumbledore, and Gambon does a horrible job at it. but luckily, he's not in it much, so it's forgivable in this one.

This is the first Harry that I actually choose the book over the movie, I was even with the first two. But the movie still isn't a bad movie.