Review of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) by Adnana — 18 Jul 2008

Now this movie has been praised for turning away from the book and creating something new and different. Personally, changing things is the weakest point of this movie. If you haven't read the book then you'll either find it very confusing or you'll love it, but if you've read the book then nothing will stop you from finding faults and flaws.

The story... well If they just wouldn't have deleted some main plots, it would have been as good as its predecessors. Not including the plots from the book is understandable but introducing new things is unacceptable.

Acting... the trio have matured very much and I'd still say they were born for these roles. All the adults are great as usual. The two new actors, David as Lupin was perfect but Michael Gambon as Dumbledore.

.. oh boy! Erase what I said in the beginning about the alterations in the plot being its weakest point. No! Michael Gambon is the weakest point of the movie. He sucks big time!!! He has tarnished the Dumbledore portrayed by the versatile actor Richard Harris and the character created by the prolific writer J.

K.Rowling. Michael Gambon - one of the major reasons why I disliked the movie, the other reason was the tiny whomping willow. Direction... I don't know why Warner bros removed Chris. It's not that Alfonso is not talented, but changing a director breaks a smooth flow which was found between movie 1 and 2.

Sorceror's and chambers felt like it was from the same world but this movie feels like a whole new world, only the characters are same. Chris had improved upon chamber of secrets by making it dark and suspenseful and with prisoner he would have made a hell of a movie (mean it in a positive manner).

Visuals... for a 2004 movie it's visuals are excellent. Even today they look fantastic! Overall I'd rate this movie a B+. I would have given it an A if the director hadn't changed the small details which makes it very different from the books and the predecessor movies.