Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, 2004

Yeah, yeah, we've heard it before a million times: "Not as good as the book". But what does that really mean? To many it just means the movie is too different from the book. That's kind of like comparing an apple to an orange and complaining that the apple isn't as good at being an orange as the orange is. We're talking about two different art forms telling the same story. Obviously, the movie, by its very nature, isn't going to be as thorough as the book, but to fairly criticize the movie, we must consider it on its own terms and compare it only to other apples, i.e. other works in the same medium and genre. Compared to the other Harry Potter films, I feel POA is currently the best of the series (which is only up to number 5 thus far). It may not be as stringently faithful to the source material as its predecessors, films 1 and 2, but thankfully, its also not as lifeless or Disney-esque. Director Cuaron brings some artistic vision to this film and even attempts to improve upon some elements of the storyline (specifically, the time-turner scenes) in an effort to give the film a non-financial reason for existing. I'm not saying this movie is flawless. There's definitely room for improvement here, but if all you want is a paint-by-numbers, scene-for-scene adaptation of the books, then stick to the two Chris Columbus efforts, or better yet, just read the books.

What did you think about this review?

Thank you for voting.

Like Dislike

Abuse report sent

Report abuse