This is topic Harry Potter: The Prisoner Of Azkaban in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000783

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 06-04-2004, 01:43 AM:
 
Well...
Having enjoyed the first two films, I found this to be much more mature. I liked it very much and without giving too much away, Harry's broom sucked anyway. The characters were really good and looked good in muggle clothing. I expect many cheers for when Hermionie punches Malfoy. The film has it;s funny parts and some pretty amazing effects.

If you liked the first two, go see this one!
Very Good Film since I am a fan....4.5/5

I must also say, Emma Watson (Hermionie) looks to be quite the hottie when she grows up.

Search Bait: Harry Potter 3
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-04-2004, 02:07 AM:
 
What is the name of her character? Hormonia? Gee that doesn't have any sexual inuendos. J.K. Rowling is obviously a perverted pedophile as evidenced by that character name alone. She will probably share a cell with that guy from The Who.

Actually there was a Saturday Night Live sketch with Lindsey Lohan playing Hormonia's role, and Harry and the gang could not stop staring at her cleavage. Great sketch... just for the visuals.
[av=l]
I have not seen this movie, nor any other (Harry Potter) movies, so I assume I would probably hate it, just 'cuz.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 06-04-2004, 05:49 PM:
 
I disliked parts 1&2 very much because I thought them overlong, sloppily written and photographed badly. This one is darker, gets the HP universe together much better and doesn't give me the feeling of a mixture between a overlong trailer and some kind of idiotic showride.
Acting is fine, most effects are good (well, forget the werewolf, but the WW in VAN HELSING is no better...), and the cinematography really shows the beautiful sets and gimmicks that were hardly visible in the other movies.

So I wouldn't pay to see it again, but it was a pleasant surprise.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-04-2004, 10:55 PM:
 
The "Prizoner of Azkaban" is one of my favorite books in the series, so I've been waiting for this one since the beginning. I was pretty satisfied from what I saw. It's interesting to see how much darker this movie is than the others, and how the tone has almost totally changed. It's almost like the movies are maturing along with the characters, which is pretty cool. I hope they stay on track and are able to make a few more with Daniel, Rupert & Emma, and I also hope all the rest of the adults stick around too. Michale Gambon did a well enough job as Dumbledore I thought. I wasn't as bothered by him as some rabid fans are.

One thing that did bother me about this movie that also bothered me about The Chamber of Secrets, is that for some reason there are points in the action where (I feel) the music should get loud and triumphant, and for some reason it just sort of fades a little bit softer. Very annoying!

Edit: I just watched this one again, and I'm not sure what I heard that made me think this one had the same music volume dropping problem as COS, so I'll say I was wrong on that. Someone must have been fiddling with the volume knob or something when I saw this the first time.

I like this movie. 4.5 out of 5.

[ 06-06-2004, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: Mark J. Marshall ]
 

---

Posted by Robb Johnston (Member # 239) on 06-05-2004, 07:22 PM:
 
Is it just me or did John Williams theme whenever someone was riding Buckbeak sound alot like one of Yoda's themes in The Empire Strikes Back?

One thing that I really liked that has annoyed others is that it leaves the identity of the creators of the Maurader's Map a secret. Based on one of the later scenes though, I think some viewers may figure it out without needing to read the books.

Without giving it away, I will say that someone knows at least one secret of the map without being told about it.
 

---

Posted by Rob Butler (Member # 2274) on 06-05-2004, 09:48 PM:
 
Did anybody else notice a continuity error about a third of the way into the movie? In the scene when the kids are going up the stairs to where they have to say the password to the fat lady in the painting to open the door but the painting is slashed and the lady is gone, it seems that the door can't be opened without the lady. The scene shows the door with all the people in front of it, then it zooms out to show the headmaster's assistant saying "there's no need for ghosts, the fat lady's there" and points up at another painting, then the scene cuts back to the original shot of the door with everybody starting to run up the stairs, yet the door is wide open. Earlier in the movie, they show the door swing open to the right, yet now when the door is open, you can see the inside of the hallway, so the door's not really open, it's gone.

[ 06-06-2004, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Rob Butler ]
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-05-2004, 10:06 PM:
 
Not being a huge Potter fanatic, I thought the first two were ok. Good, not great, kinda long. That being said this one is definitely the best of the three. I give that rating based upon content, acting, directing and also a MUCH better sound mix and photography.

If you liked the first two, you will definitely like this one.

(Off topic - Rob your signature "Don't complicate things by making them simpler." is great!)
 

---

Posted by Rob Butler (Member # 2274) on 06-06-2004, 12:30 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

(Off topic - Rob your signature "Don't complicate things by making them simpler." is great!)

---

Thanks, I came up with that one day while discussing the setup for an automation system. It's also something I wish the Microsoft programmers could have heard while designing Windows XP.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-06-2004, 07:56 PM:
 
06 June 2004, 1:10PM, Regal Cinema World 8, Eugene OR, House #3, some kind of digital sound (SDDS?). Attendance around 300. Presentation quality for the feature was excellent - Bright, sharply-focused, and steady image; xlnt sound. I didn't notice a single lab splice or digital sound dropout. Saw some CAP code in reel 2 but not all that obtrusive. Liked the "bleach process" look and deep blacks (this is gonna look bad on dim screens).

I enjoyed this more that the first two. Darker, more brooding. Some very creative camera work. The kids are growing up fast - What are they gonna do for the next movie?

Overall I give it 3 1/4 stars out of 4. Wish I could see it in IMAX-DMR without driving 200 miles.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-06-2004, 10:15 PM:
 
Saw it at AMC Barret Parkway 24. Their best theater in atlanta, yet it inexplicably gets very few of the marquee bookings over the last year. I don't know why. Did someone at this place seriously piss someone off?
Projection was pretty good. The bulb was thankfully not dim for a picture of muted colors.

Emma Watson and the guy who act as the buddy have been good all series long. Daniel Radcliffe comes into his own in this movie. He does not look out of place. I thought HP1 was decent, HP2 was dull in the second half and this one to be good.

Richard Greco, stay away from Emma. I don't know if she will be a hottie or not, but it is nice to see a kid act like a kid and not some teen Lolita like some of the other teen starlets(remember Eggert who always looked bratty in her sitcoms).
I like the fact that Harry Potter is the third wheel in the trifecta of Harry, hermione and Ron. I doubt your typical Disney flick would have the scene where Hermione seeks comfort in Ron, and then Harry is the one who seeks comfort in Hermione and everyone knows who the couple is in this.

I dont know why it took so long to get Cuaron on board. He was a no brainer after his great work with Little Princess.

Nice to see Gary Oldman not overact in every scene. He hammed it up only when it was needed , such as the poster scene which i thought was great.
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 06-06-2004, 11:54 PM:
 
Pravin, I'm not even going there....She is WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY too young. I just made a casual observation.

I love to catch this every so often from the booth. Every scene just seems to fall into place. Can someone tell me why, though, that Harry did "expeliamus", on Snape in the Shreiking Shack? I'm not really sure why.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-07-2004, 09:15 AM:
 
* * * SPOILER! * * *

Moments before, Harry was learning about what really happened to his parents and who betrayed whom when Snape interrupted. I think he was just trying to disarm Snape so he could regain the upper hand and get the conversation back on track. I don't think he meant to hit him quite that hard though. I think that was an accident.

That's how I took it anyway.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-07-2004, 07:13 PM:
 
This movie displays its title more than any other film I've seen.

It's a couple of minutes into the film
It's at the beginning of the credits
It comes up again during the credit roll
It shows up again at the very END of the credits.

WTF?

Haven't seen it all the way through yet so can't comment otherwise.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-07-2004, 09:44 PM:
 
That would answer why the end credit roll was 12 minutes long!
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-07-2004, 10:20 PM:
 
I saw this earlier tonight at the Madison Square 12 here in Huntsville. There were no presentation defects that I noticed.

This movie definitely "felt" differently than the others. The young main characters seemed more "dark" and arrogant, although they were played by the same people as before. The cinematography was somewhat different as well. Many scenes had an contrasty, overexposed look in the bright areas of the picture, while others didn't. Some scenes had a very soft, out-of-focus look to them, while others didn't. It looked like it was done in super35 with 8-sided irises in the cameras.

I liked the movie, but I'm not sure I liked it as much as I did the first two. They're hard to compare.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-08-2004, 06:54 AM:
 

quote:

---

That would answer why the end credit roll was 12 minutes long!

---

12 minutes! I thought 'The Passion of the Christ' was bad enough at a few seconds over eight.

One of the films I ran on Saturday was strange; It must have been either 'The Missing', 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' or 'I'll Sleep When I'm Dead', as those were the only films I ran that day. Film started fine, each time I checked it was still fine, then suddenly some titles come up, right in the bottom left corner of the screen, they're so low that the bottom of them is just off the screen, and I have to pull the racking up a bit. This was within a minute or two of the end of the first reel, and it wasn't an unusally short reel.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-08-2004, 02:32 PM:
 
I've seen this film about six or seven times now, and in IMAX DMR. I think the Matrix sequels were a bit crisper and less grainy than this one, but it's still an impressive presentation.

I really loved this movie the first time. I think I still like it, but I've just seen it too many times. The effects hold up amazingly well, even with the scrutinizing clarity of the digital remastering. It was well-paced, had plenty of good crowd laughs.

Yes, the credits are over 10 minutes long ... that was more than THREE reels worth. It took me a good 13 hours to assemble that thing, as it was 43 reels PLUS the Catwoman and Polar Express trailers.

The maturity of the script of this movie, over the others, makes me want to read the novel (which I haven't read any of), as it seems like a sophisticated novel plot. So I was impressed on that level.

Yes, Hermione will be damned fine looking in a good few years, so I'm looking forward to the next several films.
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 06-09-2004, 12:07 AM:
 

quote: Brian Michael Weidemann

---

It took me a good 13 hours to assemble that thing, as it was 43 reels PLUS the Catwoman and Polar Express trailers.

---

How long is each reel? Is there a special 2000' 70mm reel? What do the reels look like? I'm just shocked that 35mm is only 8 reels and IMAX is 43!?!
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-09-2004, 02:50 AM:
 
Approx. 1000' per shipping reel/roll at 337.5 fpm (IMAX linear speed at 15 perfs per frame runs 3x faster than 5-perf 70mm to get 24 fps). At 1100' per reel you get about 3+20 running time per reel. 3+20 times 43 yields approx. the 142 minute running time for this title. Fun, ey?
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-09-2004, 05:05 AM:
 
Each reel comes at about 3.5 minutes of footage to a core, which takes about 15 minutes to load to the platter, splice, and prep the next reel. I got it down to about 12 minutes a reel when I hit my sweet spot. The build-up table spindle feeds only so fast.

I saw this movie about three more times tonight. It's not getting any better, but it's not getting much worse. Some of the scenes seem underlit. And the continuity errors are popping up a lot now.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-09-2004, 08:52 AM:
 
Okay...I am a fan of the books...

HP1 was and excellent book and the movie was an excellent rendition of it.

HP2 was one of my least favorite books of the series but the movie was a great rendition of it.

HP3 was my favorite book of the 5 currently written and the movie was the worst rendition of it. I'm waiting for the other half of the story. In fact, it was HORRIBLE story telling. If you don't know the series, this film doesn't fill you in too much. If you do know the series, it doesn't satisfy.

The basic premise of the books/films is that you spend an entire Hogwarts year with the kids. Naturally, that is a long time so only the key points are told. Harry only learns about himself and his history in snippets and so does the reader/viewer.

In HP3, about half of these key-elements that will or should come up in future films are left out thereby making these future films either have to continue the omission or hand-wave the details that you should have known by now.

Even in this film, there is handwaving...when Harry and Herminone go into the Whomping Willow they have a tough time with it...others, do not. Why?

What happened with the Quddich matches...we only see one in this film and never hear about the others or even the outcome.

Hogsmede is made out to be this great place...from the film one can hardly figure out why and again according the film, I guess Harry will never be able to go there...the list goes on and on.

As to how dark the film is...I didn't find the film any darker than HP2 and actually a bit on the lighter side.

The characters did not seem as well directed and seemed much more cardboard like.

I guess you can say I wasn't impressed with this installment but clearly by other reviews above, this is just my opinion.

Rating: 2/5 stars.

Hopefully the other half of the movie will be on the DVD.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-09-2004, 12:53 PM:
 
The third movie definitely did not feel like we spent an entire Hogwarts year with the kids. It felt more like three days with the kids. We did not see which group won the points thing at the end of the year, or anything.
 

---

Posted by Gunnar Johansson (Member # 1661) on 06-10-2004, 05:27 PM:
 
I´m siding totally with mr Guttag on this one, down to the letter.

Most of it seemed to me to be outtakes from the book and that they tried to make a story out of it. I knew it all and recogniced and "filled in the blanks" for most of the film, but if you´re not in to the universe you´re not getting much out of it. If you´ve seen the first two then maybe you´ll be a little more wiser, but any newcomer is lost.

Let´s see how number 4 turns out... Imdb says it´s filming... The last change of director seemed to me a little better, but it´ll have to be a lot better, but I don´t know if the new director (Mike Newell) will do the next one justice.

I´m really hoping mr Guttag is right and that the DVD will have the rest of the movie, even if it´ll have to be 5 hrs +.
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 06-13-2004, 03:11 AM:
 
Saw this again..This time in IMAX.

I loved every bit of it. Just as amazing as Matrix Reloaded. I already posted what I think of the story. The image quality was AMAZING!!! I took a tour of the IMAX booth before the show and I was stunned. The threading is so muchdifferent than what we 35mm people do. I have a lot of respect for IMAX now. Is it true that these films cost like 60,000? Anyways, this is a HELL of a lot better in 70mm than 35mm.

5/5
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-13-2004, 03:29 AM:
 
Well, our invoice stated the print at $1,500. But this might have been a rental charge as opposed to the price of the print. Or possibly just the SHIPPING cost of the boxes containing the print. The two trailers were $200 each, I think. I'll read over that invoice a little closer.

And congratulations on your experience of the superb presentation standards of which IMAX is capable. Glad to hear you were impressed.

I wish I could give tours, but we have this whole Managers-Only-And-No-Non-Employees thing going on with the booths.
 

---

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 06-18-2004, 01:03 PM:
 
Adam Martin explained film costs in another thread:

quote:

---

Because of the speed at which the film travels (about 336 feet/minute), a 45-minute film is about 15,000 feet long. This takes up about as much space on a platter as a feature-length 35mm print. Current cost for 70mm lab work is about 66 cents per foot, making that 45-minute print a $10,000 investment. Double that for a 3D film. And that's just for a single release print.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

What happened with the Quddich matches...we only see one in this film and never hear about the others or even the outcome.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Even in this film, there is handwaving...when Harry and Herminone go into the Whomping Willow they have a tough time with it...others, do not. Why?

---

Professor Lupin casts the "Immobilis" spell over the Willow!
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-23-2004, 05:32 PM:
 
That isn't how its done [in the book] and if it was a simple spell...Herminone should have known it. The significance of the Whomping Willow and its placement and where that passage leads are all interrelated.

From what I can tell...HP3 doesn't seem to have the staying power of the first two. I think their plan of straying too far from the books and condensing too much has really hurt them.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 06-23-2004, 06:21 PM:
 
I think it's more that the HP 'fad' is over .. or dying. And they're 'only' at book three.

Their masses of young fans have grown and moved on, in my opinion. Maybe they'll come up with something to revive the franchise, but I can't think what it would be. (Maybe make a film of two books at once??)

I wonder if all the books will be made into films .. I doubt it, though I hope they are.

Ron Yost
 

---