Having read the books, it is difficult to speak for those who have not, but I think this movie would have been good even for those who have missed reading the book. (Are there any of those still out there? ) More to the point, it worked well for osmeone who had read the book. (Ok, ok, a few times!) I did not feel like I had to fill in gaps in the movie with stuff I knew from the book even though they took out so much. The only point I found myself doing this was at the beginning, partly because I was expecting a repeat of the first two movies and partly because they could have added a little bit to the scene with Harry's aunt to show us what made him so angry, ikn my opinion. I also did not feel that they recapped the damage Harry ahd done by performing serious magic. But after this scene I had very little difficulty and I stopped thinking about how the book was different, a feat I never managed in the first two movies.

I really enjoyed the style of the cinamatography - everything was less benign, darker and fuller. What I mean by the third is there was always movement within the frame that was not part of the main scene but added more depth, made it seem more magical, like all of the floating golden balls in the clocks when Lupin is teaching Harry how to make a patronus, things like that.

We went with someone who hadn't read the book and they were asking tons of questions afterwords because there was no "wrap up explanation". Not that I'm fond of long drawn out speeches at the end. But, they didn't explain who the four guys with their names on the map were, didn't explain what the shrieking shack was, that kind of stuff that my friend didn't pick up. As the books get longer it's going to be harder and harder to make an "accurate" movie. Some stuff is just going to have to get cut out. And ditto for me on the pod races, they finally made the quidditch game part of the plot rather than an intermission.

It would be interesting to find out what the younger generations think of it, meaning teens and younger. My little brother (16) didn't like it. He said it was less "fun" and he wanted the old Dumbledore back. But, my younger brother (22) love it to pieces.

You might try explaining to your little brother that there are limits to good taste and technology where getting "the old Dumbledore back" is concerned. I liked this one just fine, I finally understand why he's named "Dumbledore", because to the outward eye, that's how he appears.

As a movie, I liked the way we get enough clues early on to suspect what is going on, but the actual end suprises while making sense out of everything. For some specifics, I thought that it was pretty clear why any non-lobotomized person might be angry enough to fail in containing the desire for something exceptionally hidious to happen to that wretched aunt/cousin in the beginning. The thing that bothered me is the way they scored the event as a sort of funny, magical event. In fact, it should have been presented as an ominous moment for Harry (even more so than for anyone else) because he realizes that he isn't fully in control.

I understood that the shrieking shack was a place which held some dread/awe/mostly fear for the students, from that scene where one of confrontations with Malfwe occurs. Didn't need more than that.

One change for the worse, Malfwe came across as much less...just less. A punching bag, albeit one that provoked laughter every time he got hit. But that seems to be as much because he is nearly incidental to the plot in this episode than because of anything else. For all of that, I found his pratfalls funnier than in the previous movies.

And that goes generally for everything. All the jokes were funnier, all the scary parts were actually frightening, all the heartfelt moments actually touched something. It was far and away better than the previous efforts.

I still beg to differ.

Those who have not read the book: you never wondered how it was that Lupin knew how to work the Marauder's Map, or what exactly the Shrieking Shack or Whomping Willow, were there for? Or wondered if the Shack was actually haunted? Did you wonder why Harry's patronus was in the form of a stag? Or what that shining white stag was doing standing in front of Harry? Did you never question who "Wormtail, Moody, Padfoot and Prongs," the authors of the map, were?

My biggest gripe about the movie is that it either completely left out, and/or changed some of the very important character developments and back story that was what made Book #3 my favorite of all the books in the series so far.

Lupin spouting off about Lily (Harry's mother) never happened in the book-- it was James that was Lupin's best friend, along with Sirius-- it was a plot point that Steve Kloves (the screen-writer) liked and decided to add it. (I read an interview with him speaking on that topic not too long ago.)

The movie also never brought out the important fact that Lupin's classmates changed into Animagi (which was a huge risk because it was ILLEGAL, and they could have been expelled, etc.) in order to keep him company, and because they calmed the werewolf-Lupin down in their animal forms.

The above things I mentioned are very important later in the series. It sounds to me like Curon (the director) wasn't that concerned about the series or even the real meat of the story-- he was just happy to get his name more well-known and let the director of film #4 answer all the hanging questions that must be answered for later plotlines.

To me, the movie felt hacked-up by the editing department. (Curon said, himself, in an article, that he does not hesitate to cut, cut, cut when it comes to editing.) The scene with Aunt Marge was excruciatingly long (more-so than in the book ) and over-done. And I agree with Suvivor-- Harry didn't seem to care in the least, throughout the whole scene, that his enrollment at Hogwarts was in real question.

There were many things-- especially the feel of the movie-- that I liked. But I truly feel that they greatly compromised some of the very best stuff in the book. So, yes-- all in all-- I was disappointed in the movie.

~L.L.

[This message has been edited by Lullaby Lady (edited June 11, 2004).]

But also, if it is, why does it have to come up in this movie? The trouble with your logic is that movies and books are two separate mediums, with different strengths and weaknesses. This movie finally exploited the strengths of the movie medium. I never felt a dull moment in this movie, something was always hapening and unlike in the first two movies, which proposed to follow the books too exactly, I couldn't think of a second that could have been cut to make room for new material anyway. Besides, what missing material? I've read the book ten times and I found that I didn't miss a single moment that wasn't there. i was enjoying the movie for itself too much.

Did you want a movie that was a reenactment of the book? Because why would you make a movie in that case? That's not what movies do best. They also don't necessarily show character feelings and thoughts the way books do, which is a lot of the problem people are having with the aunt scene (including myself).

No, books and movies need not follow together and those that do come out badly, as the first two Harry Potter movies taught me. If you failed to enjoy this movie I have to believe that you had your hopes set on a reenactment of the book. Perhaps you did, if it was your favorite. (It wa smine too, BTW) But why bother? Just go read the book again.

In the meantime, if they did not explicitly say who mooney, wormtail, padfoot, and prongs were it might even be obvious to those who had not read the book. I figured it ou before it was explicitly said in the book anyway. The information is there, for those who wish to see it. As for the history of the shrieking shack, it's interesting but unnecessary. Same for the animagi thing. Those details, in particular, are ones that can also be brought into the movies later as the information becomes pertinent. Although I must say that so far in the books, I don't see where it is necessary.

I knew there was information in the books that was not mentioned in the movie, but for once I didn't care. They restructured the entire story enough so that I didn't feel the information missing. I think the editing was great, the directing was great, the details were great, and the book is its own sepearate medium that can be enjoyed with or without the movie.

Oh yeah...one more thing. I was startled to hear Lupin talk about lily when I knew that didn't happen in the books but after I got over that I really liked it. Harry's mother hasn't been given enough air time in the books, in my opinion. She died for him and that's about all we know until the fifth book. And actually, what Lupin says about Lily is well in line with what Harry learns about his mom in book 5. For all we know, he might have been good friends with Lily. He probably was. Their characters, or what little we know about them, seem to me that they would have been friends.

There was only one piece of information that I wish had been there that wasn't, and actually it was there but it wasn't emphasized enough....the fact that James, Serius, Lupin, and Peter were all the best of friends at school. But I didn't think the one thing was enough to hang the movie.

[This message has been edited by Christine (edited June 11, 2004).]

I love movies! I'm not some rube (I promise! ) who can't love a movie as well as-- or better than-- a book. In fact, please don't tell Miss Austen, but I enjoyed Ms. Emma Thompson's "Sense and Sensibilty" much more than the original novel. And that reminds me of the movie-version of "Persuasion." It was wonderful, but VERY difficult to follow, unless one has read the book. Similar to the newest Harry Potter movie's deficiencies, IMHO. I loved looking around the "new-and-improved" wizarding world, but felt a real loss for the character development and history. (Okay, now I'm getting redundant-- sorry... )

I thought the werewolf was very SCARY, but at the same time, it did resemble a large chihuahua...

But I can't say I didn't enjoy it. It was definitely the best of the three films.

Also, I didn't like Peter Pettigrew. He was a fat, goofy-looking man, that didn't at all look like someone who'd sell you out. He looked instead like the comedy relief of the group. Especially with those buckteeth.

But otherwise, the movie was okay. It wasn't as good as the book, but no movie ever is, IMO.

On the plus side, I loved the Quiddich match. It was a lot more realistic-seeming than the first two movies.

I loved the Dementors. They were just awesome. I don't think I can put it more succinctly than that.

CVG

Another point that CVG brought up is Pettigrew. He seemed older that Sirius and Lupin. Maybe that is just what years in the guise of a rat will do to you. But the apparent age difference didn't seem right either.

Or maybe there's magic involved there that Rowling was too modest to mention. *shrug*

Just wondering,
CVG

Those who have not read the book: you never wondered how it was that Lupin knew how to work the Marauder's Map, or what exactly the Shrieking Shack or Whomping Willow, were there for? Or wondered if the Shack was actually haunted? Did you wonder why Harry's patronus was in the form of a stag? Or what that shining white stag was doing standing in front of Harry? Did you never question who "Wormtail, Moody, Padfoot and Prongs," the authors of the map, were?

Fair questions, all. Here's an answer from someone who didn't read the books:

1. I assumed Lupin knew how to work the map because he was a teacher and an expert in that sort of magic.

2. The Whomping Willow(which I loved, btw) was in the previous movies. I didn't think there was any purpose to it beyond being another mysterious, magical thing in and around the school. The Shrieking Shack was new, but didn't seem germain to this particular plot, so I figured it was another, neat magical thing that was mentioned as an aside.

3. The glowing stag did puzzle me, but I thought that it was Harry's eyes playing tricks on him that made the light from his wand look like a stag. It did seem odd, especially since for some reason (not explained in the movie) it made Harry think that his father had appeared to save him. However, the not knowing didn't ruin anything for me.

4. Didn't think it mattered who the people were behind the Marauder's Map. The map itself was the thing. Now that I know it was Harry's father, et al who wrote it, I think it's nifty but doesn't make me feel like it was a key point for this film (maybe in the future it is).

The other reason is that, like them or not, these are defining books for our time. They transcend age and culture, and if you want to be a witer you might want to see what the fuss is all about. Not to mimic...just to understand. Besides, the first three books could all be read in a few hours...the fourth and fifth are a bit longer.

With regards to the stag and Harry's assumption that he had seen his father - we were continually told how much he looks like his father throughout the film. As he passes out he sees a figure that looks like him behind the image of the stag. Yeah, they didn't explain it all, but I thought they side stepped deftly. I loved the bit about Lupin and Lily.

I think a really good film adaptation should add to the world the book created. Curacon has achieved this with Prisoner. Its a grown up film. It works its cinematography - seasonal changes, butterflies and bluebirds of happiness being squashed by the Whomping Willow.

I liked the music. It set the mood pretty well for certain things. I liked the new dumbledoor though I really miss the voice of the old one. This one just seems more active and lively...which to me, fit the part. I also loved buckbeak and the way the showed the stag patronus. I don't think they could have chosen a better person for professor traloni. She did awesome.

Now...the reasons why I wasn't happy with the movie.

1. The scenery. Just because the director changes doesn't mean the scenes can change. I felt like I was in a whole new place which shouldn't happen when we're three movies into a series.

2. Plot. They left out a lot of things that felt important. I couldn't place my finger exactly on what it was but I think they just rushed it too much. They never let Harry, Ron and Hermione ask any questions and find the answers themselves. It seemed like the producers/director assumed that the audience had seen the first two movies, read the books and therefore would know the questions...so we can skip those and go straight to the answers? I think a movie should be able to stand alone whether it's the first or the fiftieth. Any significant plot/informative scenes were rushed through too quickly. For example, the scene in the tavern when the teachers are talking to the barmaid. Their conversation was so quick and pushed (and the camera's quick cutting from one person to the other wasn't helping) that I was soon lost...and I've read the book! My husband was with me when we went to see it. He's never read the books but he loved and understood the first two movies very well. He hated this movie because he didn't understand any of it. He felt like there were a lot of loose ends that weren't tied up at the end of the movie. He had a lot of questions that he had to ask me after the movie was over. That tells me the movie was not up to par. It couldn't stand alone like the first two could.

3. Wardrobe. Yes, I understand that when they leave the school they are allowed to wear 'civilian clothes' but on school campus? This is a private school! They have dress standards as shown in the previous two movies. Even the older students wore their robes/uniforms as they should. They looked clean cut and well dressed. In this movie I couldn't help but notice the sloppy appearance of the boys and girls as they attended their classes (mostly the boys). Sleeves rolled up and ties undone. I don't think any expensive private school would put up with that. I think me and my mom are the only ones that noticed that though.

4. How did Sirrus escape? This one is a more personal thing. I suppose the movie did alright without mentioning how he escaped but I felt like the expectation was there but they didn't deliver. They made this big hoo-rah about how no one has ever escaped from Azkahban before and now he did and no one knows how....so...how did he escape? You find out in the book. If you really thought about it I suppose you can guess that he changed into a dog and the dementors somehow couldn't detect him. *shrug*

Ah well. I wasn't angry or anything like that...after all, it's just a movie. But I was disappointed. I had been looking forward to an awesome, sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat movie but I found myself thinking 'this movie is too long, is it over yet?' That thought had never crossed my mind in the first two movies.

-- other than that the books have been very different from the movies since the first... part of that has been giving lines to other characters, even if both characters are in the same scene.

quote:

---

he even makes a comment about being worried that he would be dispelled because he blew up his aunt. [emphasis added]

---