A magical story directed by a Muggle

Rating: Null/10 (6 June 2004)

Having read various reviews from film critics touting this film as the greatest Harry Potter of them all I was terribly disappointed upon seeing this poor rendition of a charming book. These critics seem to feel that going away from the book as much as possible makes the film great, where I feel that the director's portrayal did nothing by leech out all the magic and charm of the movie and make it into a typical mundane story about teenagers.
I know that severe cuts and alterations are needed in adapting a book to a film, but 'The Prisoner of Azkaban' adaptation was poorly done in several ways. The story was often changed to no purpose, and worse, several things that were not in the book were added. It is hard to squeeze in all the good parts of a novel; it is twice as hard if you use up screen time adding things that weren't there in the first place.
Obviously, the screenwriter and director felt that the book they were attempting to bring to the screen was inferior and needed help to become a decent story. They felt it necessary to add scenes like the children making animal sounds, or the whomping willow in various seasons, or smashing birds to feathers. They felt it necessary to make great heroic characters like Dumbledore into inconsiderate fools who hurt their wounded students by hitting them on their wound without even knowing they are being callous? These and many more little scenes were added to the story, while important character development scenes and plot development moments were cut.
Was it really necessary to make summoning a patronus into a Star Trek shield rather than the glowing creature that protects the person who summons the patronus? What did they save by changing this? Even if they were going to make this change, why then leave in 'Prongs' as the patronus near the end without any explanation as to why this goofy shield was suddenly an unexplained stag for a moment?
Speaking of Dumbledore, the director has managed to turn him into a weak and nearly useless character that spends his time running around looking for the fat lady. Filch is more useful and portrayed smarter than Dumbledore.
Malfoy is now a sniveling coward. The director has turned Harry's main opponent into a one dimensional cowardly git. This directory obviously doesn't understand that the quality and strength of your villain is what sets the standard for the quality and courage of your hero. Crabbe and Goyle are suddenly better villains than Malfoy, at least they aren't cry babies.
The school is no longer the magical place of the books (and first two films) but now resembles any ruined muggle castle. The interior seems small, cramped and often colorless.
Indeed, this movie leaches all the magic it can from the world. The leaky cauldron is no longer the gateway to a magical place called Diagon Alley. It is now a reject for a horror film with stupid hunch backs and dusty roofs that can't even keep the muggle trains from shaking the building.
The students no longer seem to have any difficulty with wearing muggle clothing, as most of the students are portrayed through the majority of the film wearing regular muggle clothes. J.K. Rowling should be furious; she spends a lot of effort in her books separating the dreary muggle world from the colorful magical world of Harry Potter. In the books the wizarding world doesn't understand muggle clothing, yet in this film, for no apparent reason, this director feels it necessary to take away as much of the magic as possible from every part of the film.
In conclusion, one thing is very obvious about the director of Azkaban, he is a muggle and turns a magical film into a muggle's movie. Are we sure it wasn't Uncle Vernon who directed this film?