Best of the movie adaptations so far! Minor spoilers in my quibbles.

Rating: 10/10 (5 August 2004)

I think this adaptation is the truest yet to the spirit of Rowlings' books, though they clearly streamlined quite a bit. Sure, I missed some of the details of the books, like finally winning the Quidditch cup, but I think that it was actually a better movie for not trying to cover every detail. That's what the books are for -- all the wonderful details. I was sorely disappointed in the first movie, OK with the second one, and pretty happy with this third one.
I think the characters got better treatment in general in this film; I've been particularly unhappy with the way Ron was screenwritten in the first two films (whiny, cowardly), and I think this one did him better justice. The student body as a whole also seemed more real, more like actual kids at a boarding school, in no small part because of the more relaxed way they wore their clothing. Give real schoolkids a uniform, and they'll modify it any way they can! Lupin was terrific, and I think the new Dumbledore is pretty good, too; the books have Ron describe him as "utterly mad," and with a quirky sense of humor.
'Azkaban' also gives the best look yet at the extended grounds of Hogwarts; in the previous two films, nothing felt large enough to me, set-wise, and Hagrid's hut always seemed to be right outside the castle gate, instead of down at the edge of the forbidden forest, as described in the books and clearly portrayed in this third film. I wasn't expecting such a steep hill down to his cottage, but the books always do talk about the trio (Harry, Ron, Hermione) going *down* to Hagrid's hut & walking back up the hill to the castle, so I'm tolerably pleased with this visual interpretation.
Quibbles & Spoilers (Get the details you *do* show right):
1) In the intro, Harry is practicing magic under his covers in the Dursley's home. What happened to the Decree for the Restriction of Underage Wizardry?
I'll grant you it's a cool intro, but it's a violation of a key plot point.
(And not just for this book, either -- it's very important in Order of the Phoenix, too.)
2) Dementors don't fly in the books, they glide, and they don't really need to fly to make the movie work. I can see that it was done to make some streamlining elements work, but it could have been done differently.
3) I can't see Harry stealing a lollipop from Neville (in Hogsmeade). From Malfoy, maybe, but not from a friend, certainly not while invisible. I know it was done to give us a point of reference for the moving, invisible Harry, but still - let's be true to our character, hm?
4) Why did they change the nature of the Patronus from a creature to a shield? In the books, once a wizard successfully creates a Patronus, it acts to protect the wizard with no further drain on him/her. It appears as a creature with a definite shape to everybody, including its creator. And Harry's Patronus is a stag, like his father's animagus form. There was just no good reason for this change.
5) Where did Goyle disappear to, and who's Malfoy's replacement sidekick?
Still, all quibbles aside, I really enjoyed this movie. It's really, really rare that I come out of a movie -- even a favorite movie -- without a quibble of some sort, so this movie is no exception.