Such mixed feelings about the movie...

Rating: 6/10 (6 June 2004)

When I first saw the theatrical trailer for this movie, I wasn't impressed with it. The trailer was disjointed, it had very odd editing, an odd pacing, it was very short, it showed one scene that I hated the first moment I saw it (Hermione marching down a hill, yelling at Malfoy in the oddest tone, and then punching him... there's just something about that scene that I hate).
Now the trailer represents the movie in a way, but the movie was at least well-made as a film. The thing I really didn't like about the movie was that it was so freakin' short! A little over two hours is just tooooooooooo little time to tell the story. It should have been longer. WAAAYYYY longer. I would have liked to see a three+ hour movie. Return of the King length at the least! The big problem of the short running time was that so much got cut out. The pacing is odd, the ending is very abrupt, but the cut parts of the book are the biggest reason that the film should have been longer.
They should have taken the time to:
1) set up the Firebolt when Harry is at the Leaky Cauldon/Diagon Alley. It would have taken like 10 seconds, and was pretty important when we get to the end of the movie.
2) show the Quidditch House Cup scene. IMO, this is what made book 3 so great. Without it, the movie doesn't have a perk. Would have been a GREAT scene!
3) Show the proper ending on the train, when Harry gets the letter from Sirius. I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS WASN'T IN THE MOVIE!
4) Show the proper beginning, when Harry gets all the "Owl Post". They never mention his birthday, they never mention how Ron's family got the money to go to Romania (or was it Egypt? I dunno). And by the way, how did Harry perform the "Lumos" spell under his sheet without the Ministry of Magic noticing it? He's not allowed to do magic outside of school (as we see later), and I'd like to know why he was allowed to perform that spell!
5) show the Sir Cadogan scenes. I don't know if these scenes were filmed, and were just deleted, since we do see Sir Cadgogan moving around in the pictures in the scene with the Fat Lady disappearing, and I'd of liked to see him taking over the entrance portrait.
Other than that, most of the deletions were justifiable, and acceptable.
Now... Things they shouldn't have put in:
1) the freakin' shrunken head in the Knight Bus. Enough said.
2) Hermione punching Malfoy. I already mentioned this scene. As great as it is to see her hitting Malfoy, I just seriously dislike this scene. Emma Watson doesn't deliver the "you, foul, loathsome, evil little cockroach!" line very well, and the horribly clichéd "That felt good." like afterwards is just so cringe-worthy. I easily could have done without this scene. I'd prefer her slapping Malfoy after he calls her a Mudblood down by the Shrieking Shack. It'd be simple, and more effective.
Things that should be changed:
1) Dumbledore. Micheal Gambon is a fine actor, and of course, I never expected anyone would be able to fill Richard Harris' shoes, but... I DID expect better. Micheal Gambon just doesn't have the Dumbledore touch. He doesn't have the proper wise feel that Dumbledore should have.
And what was with the bells tied around his beard??? God, I was just itching for those to be gone in at least one scene! Speaking of which, why'd they make his hair so short and cragly? And why is it so gray-looking??? Dumbledore's hair is clearly described in the book as long, straight, flowing SILVER hair!!! Richard Harris' Dumbledore had the absolute perfect hair! And they go and change that too!!! For crying out loud, THIS is the main reason why Micheal Gambon's Dumbledore just didn't look like Dumbledore. His look determines the feel you get from him, and they completely ruined it by changing his hair. I can't express how much I miss Richard Harris as Dumbledore. Of course, there's nothing anybody could do, but they COULD have re-cast better, and they COULD have kept the hair the same.
2) What was with Goyle being re-cast? Anybody know what this is about? I mean, if the original actor didn't want to do it again, fine, but why they bloody hell did they cast a skinny, small guy to play the part??? Goyle is supposed to be huge and brute-like. What the hell was that all about??? When I first saw him, I was like, "Who is that??? Don't tell me that's supposed to be Goyle!". Whoever the casting director was on this movie should be fired.
3) what the BLOOODDDDYYYY HELLL was with Hagrid's Hut being re-located??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? It's not only inconsistant with the other movies, but it's wrong in regards to the book as well. Who's stupid decision was that? Same with the Womping Willow, for that matter.
And what's with the ugliness???
Both Ron and Draco got way uglier between Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban. Ron looked great in CoS, and Draco looked cute and hot as hell. Then, in this movie, they both look different, they've changed for the worse. Why was Draco's hair changed? His hair was perfect in the first and second movie. Really showed his sly, slick evilness. Now, he looks like his mom cut it with a bowl on his head... what the hell???
Daniel Radcliffe looks pretty hot in this movie tho!
OK, now that I've gotten all the bad stuff out of the way (I'm pretty sure I got it all...), onto what I liked about the movie:
I liked that the movie seemed to be taken more seriously. The dark feeling of the book was captured, and Harry's maturing was shown rather well. Daniel Radcliffe has obviously matured as an actor, and he doesn't say lines like he's reading them from prompt cards anymore. I liked the film-making aspects of the movie as well. The visual effects were very good (although I think they were a little bit better in Chamber of Secrets. Not quite as noticeable.), and I loved the shots where we go THROUGH the clock. Buckbeak was pretty well done (although he should have been a little bit bigger).
I liked how they handled the scene with Aunt Marge. Harry reactions to her were pretty good, and the whole blowing up thing was done quite well. Even though it seemed rushed, it was pretty good.
Towards the end, the movie just got so great all of a sudden. Right from the scene where Harry, Ron and Hermione sneak out of Hagrid's Hut, up until the end when Harry and Hermione come back into the hospital wing, the movie was great. The Time Turner thing was done well, and the little things that suggested the Time Turner were great too (the rocks (or whatever those were) being thrown into the hut, Hermione seeing something, the Executioner axing something). All handled very well. And the scene in the Shrieking Shack was great. I saw the movie with someone who hadn't read the book, and when Lupin hugs Sirius, she was like, "So predictable. The trusting ones are always evil." She fell to the trap of thinking Lupin was bad too. It was hard for me to resist saying, "No, Sirius is good!!".
To be honest, I've never had such mixed feelings about a movie. I don't know whether to hate the movie because it was so different from how it should have been, or to love it because it was so different. To be honest, I'm very, very, very, very, very glad that Alfonso Cuaron is not directing Goblet of Fire. I just don't like his style. I really do wish that Christopher Columbus had kept directing, because the first two movies were great as movies AND adaptations. PoA is great as a movie, but terrible as an adaptation.
I just hope this Mike Newell guy sticks more to the Columbus side of things for Goblet of Fire... AND RE-CASTS DUMBLEDORE!!! ...and puts Hagrid's Hut back where it should be! .....and he better keep the "Riddle House" chapter in!
.......and the Quidditch World Cup! ..........and make the movie more than 3 hours long. Goblet of Fire better be a long movie!
Overall, I'd give Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban a 6/10, because I did enjoy the entertainment side of things!