Harry Potter et le Prisonnier d'Azkaban

This is certainly darker than the first two instalments, and not as funny. But based upon a truly excellent but complex book, it is a very good film nonetheless. In my reviews on the first two films, I forgot to mention the music by John Williams. In all three movies, it is very good, but not Williams's best work. His scores to Star Wars, ET and Home Alone are better. The only real quibble i had with the movie was Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. Richard Harris, the first and better Dumbledore, had died, and although Gambon was good, Harris suited the character a lot more in terms of looks and sincerity. The three leads are still likable, and they are given solid support by Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane. The real treat lies in the newcomers though, namely David Thewlis as Lupin, Emma Thompson as Trelawney and Gary Oldman as Sirius. Timothy Spall I felt was a little odd for Wormtail. The Dementors I felt quite terrifying, a lot more chilling than they were in the book. All in all, very good. 8/10. Bethany Cox

Alfonso Cuarón's masterful adaptation does the source material immeasurable justice by exploring its underlying concepts in an intelligent manner. Of course, it certainly helps that the aesthetics of the film are incredible, the acting remains stellar (and the trio of young actors handle their roles admirably), and John Williams offers an amazing (and eclectic) score. Character development is superb - Steve Kloves penned a great script.

First-time and young viewers will likely enjoy the film for its merits based on plot and 'adventure' alone, but it takes multiple viewings and a critical eye to enjoy the abstract ideas and nuances. Cuarón himself credited the source material as being laden with real-world issues: oppression, racism, loneliness, power, friendship, justice and so forth.

This is the Harry Potter film that stands on its own and as a tremendous cinematic achievement. It challenges viewers and yet doesn't patronize them or attempt to offer answers to all of the questions presented. For instance, the ending is bittersweet at best and retains a healthy amount of ambiguity.

If you've never read the books or understood the acclaim of the series as a whole, watch Cuarón's 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and you'll understand why this entry is clearly the zenith of the seven.

I thought this was excellent....better than the first two Harry Potter movies combined and better than what has followed.. That's my feeling, and I'm still sticking to it.

This was just great fun, right from the opening. In fact, the early bus scene is the best in the film. Overall, the movie didn't have as mean an edge to it as the others, although it has a number of scary moments (which might have warranted a PG-13 rating). That was fine with me. I got tired of the dark, nasty and/or annoying characters of the first two films, and especially the irritating blonde wise-guy kid. I give this major points for cutting his role down. Even Alan Rickman's character softens.

In other words, there is no despicable villain to hate throughout the film, which I thought was refreshing. Instead, we just go through one adventure after another until the final surprise ending.

Along the way are a lot of fun special effects and scenery, some humor (Emma Thompson is a hoot as an eccentric tea-leaf reader) and some fantastic 5.1 surround sound. I wish all the Harry Potter films were like this one.

Wow. I love the new direction. The style fits the movie perfectly. I also think the kids acted much better in this one. I really hope they don't get rid of Daniel Radcliff, even if he does get too broad in the shoulders. You can't swap horses mid-stream. Also, did anyone recognize the kid who played Neville at first? The biggest problem that I had was that there were a lot of things the movie didn't explain, such as "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs." I think that it may have been hard for those who hadn't read the book to understand. It also didn't show that Harry's Patronus was a stag, which I thought was important. And Harry's eyes aren't green (which is mentioned at least once in each book), but that's a minor thing. I felt that the style fits the book well. I go back and read the first book and think "Wow, how young they all are, how naive." The books age, and I think that comes out in this movie. I hope they continue to follow the same path.

All in all, I loved the new direction and the movie itself. I can't wait 'till the next one comes out.

As with previous Potter films, this one is wonderful. The mischievous trio are back in their third year at Hogwarts.

Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is a slightly different character in this film as the anger inside of him for what happened to his parents has grown over the years. This made, for me, the film much more enjoyable than the first and second.

As one would no doubt assume, Gary Oldman's portrayal of the character Sirius Black is nothing less than perfect. However, Sirius Black seams an unlikely roll for the talented Oldman. I enjoyed him more in other films, such as 'The Professional' and 'Immortal Beloved'. Let us hope he has had the chance to 'play it up' a bit more in the much anticipated 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire'.

The original music of John Williams is more than I could ever hope to hear. It is absolutely splendid, making the film worth a listen even if you do not watch. Williams has created memorable compositions such as the theme music to 'Star Wars', 'Jaws' and 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.

Overall, any age should enjoy this film. The visual effects are not the most spectacular I've seen, but fantastic enough to take your imagination away from the real world for 141 minutes. Even the closing credits are kind of cool.

Now, go watch the film. You'll be glad you did.