Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Full Screen Edition)

This review assumes that you've already either seen the movie or read the book. I won't go into the plot here. I'll say upfront that this movie was brilliantly done. Alfonso Cuarón truly captured the darker, more complex mood that J.K. Rowling gave to the third installment of the series. The cinematography and visual effects were excellent. I also thought that the soundtrack was absolutely perfect (if interested, please see my separate review for the soundtrack). The kids are beginning to really mature in this film. Their acting, which is evidently becoming more natural and fluid, has improved a hundred times over since Chamber of Secrets. Harry, Ron, and Hermione become closer in this story, and their friendships are even more important than before. I get the sense that Daniel, Rupert, and Emma are also becoming great friends, as their friendships on the screen seem so natural. The three have a great chemistry. Some complain that the kids are growing too fast, but I just don't see it. Kids their age simply grow at an exponential rate. I assume this also holds true in the wizarding world. They seem about the right age to me. The casting for the new characters is pretty good. David Thewils is a fantastic Professor Lupin, and Emma Thompson is a perfectly clumsy and mystical Profesor Trelawney. I did not, however, warm up so well to Michael Gambon as the new Dumbledore. But I think (hope) that will change with time. Gambon is obviously a good actor, and I think that if I hadn't already gotten used to Richard Harris, I would have said that his portrayal of Dumbledore was convincing. Hopefully, Gambon will grow on me in Goblet of Fire. Now for the "qualified" portion of my review. . . . I give this movie five stars from the perspective of someone who had read the book first. I can't imagine that I would have enjoyed the fast-paced movie as much if I had not already known what was going on. I did not, however, give this factor too much weight in my assessment because, given the time constraints of the movie, it probably had to be geared toward people who had already read the book. Of course there were many missing details -- the background about Sirius and Lupin could have used more explanation, and the secondary characters did not get much face time -- but deciding what to cut and what to keep is incredibly difficult when you adapt a 435-page book (each page packed with information) to a 140-minute movie. I believe that given the complexity of the story and the time constraints of the movie, the crew did a fantastic job with making those decisions; and that is why I give the movie five stars. Remember, the perfect Harry Potter movie would be about 8 hours long. That's just not possible. (Although, if it were, I would certainly sit through it!) Now for my favorite parts of the movie. . . . (1) I think my favorite part of the movie was the time-turner sequence. This was brilliantly done. I even looked for flaws the second and third times I watched the film, and I found none. Emma Watson was brilliant in this scene! (2) Aunt Marge's "blow up" sequence was absolutely hilarious. (3) The Hogsmeade scene with the snowball fight was fun, and Daniel Radcliff did an excellent job with the scene where he "overhears" that Sirius is his godfather. Long story short, this DVD is a must-have for Harry Potter movie fans. I think this movie is even better than the first two, and the DVD will be a good supplement for when you don't have time to re-read the book!

Great product

i love harry potter so much, its such a great movie!! the prisoner of azkaban is far by my favorite. the plot twist was great too, ik we all love sirius hehe

As I said in my review of the second film, the real problem with Chris Columbus was not that he tried to be faithful to the books, it was that he didn't have the talent to pull it off. So after enduring the crappy 2nd film (which managed to be worse than the book, which itself was not too good), the Potter film franchise is given a much needed shot in the arm thanks to hiring of a real director, Alfonso Cuaron, who, despite still being saddled with that idiot screenwriter Steve Kloves, succeeds where Columbus would have fallen flat on his face. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprise that the best of Rowling's books proved to be the best of the films. Which is not to say that the film is not without flaws. The films continue to pointlessly butcher Ron into a stupid, cry baby coward instead of portraying him as the loyal, funny, protective friend that he was in the books, and Rupert Grint's inability to act doesn't help. Exactly why the filmmakers feel they must ruin Ron, and why JK herself allows them to ruin Ron, is unclear. While the original book showed Ron defending Hermione from Snape and, in one of his all time greatest moments, stood up the an alleged killer declaring that he would have to be killed as well if it meant defending Harry, but the first moment is changed to Ron agreeing with Snape after Snape insulted Hermione - which makes no sense following previous events that would have him growing more protective of her, not less, and also screws with the so called romance brewing between them. And who gets to say "If you want to kill Harr you'll have to kill us too!"? Hermione! That's right, once again, Kloves screws Ron while blowing Hermione way out of proportion, apparently unaware that he is ruining the balance between the trio and making it impossible to believe that Ron and Hermione have romantic feelings for each other. The films never portray Hermione and Ron as having a bond that is developing beyond friendship, and despite so called "extra hints" that "foreshadow" their love, Ron and Hermione merely come off as two stupid brats who want nothing to do with each other while lacking the romantic undercurrent that charged up the sparks between Hepburn & Tracy as well as Han Solo & Princess Leia. Do you think that Princess Leia would have fallen in love with Han Solo if Han constantly acted like a stupid, effeminate, inarticulate, weak willed coward who's scared of everything - including his own shadow? Hell no. Han wasn't always gallant, but he was never stupid nor cowardly; he also had the guts and the quick thinking, which in the end is what drew Leia to him. While he's not exactly Beowulf or Hercules, or even Aquaman, what is supposed to make Ron redeeming to Hermione is that he's clearly not as dumb as he occasionally appears to be and he's clearly a brave guy, otherwise, he wouldn't have landed in Gryffindor along with the rest of his family. Sadly, it appears that none of the filmmakers involved here, not even Alfonso Cuaron, easily the best of them, really understand that, and they apparently have no idea of how to portray the relationship between Ron and Hermione; they just expect the audience to go along with it figuring that most of them have read the books, so they put little to no effort into making it believable. They don't even try to include the moments that JK Rowling herself used to demonstrate the ever changing relationship with Hermione & Ron; in fact, they have the nerve to throw out those moments and come up with their own crap, but their crap only comes out as superficial and insincere. Meanwhile, Hermione, as played by Emma Watson, continues to move away from the bookworm we knew in the novel to a shallow, "so cool & charming she's girl power" twit. (Since when does Hermione cackle at Ron, fret over her hair, wear a pink hoodie with a rainbow belt, has the strength of Rocky Balboa that allows her to punch Draco down rather than just slap him, and show up looking dirty blonde instead of frizzy brown?). Ron deserved better. Adding insult to injury, while it may not have been intentional on the part of the filmmakers, is that Hermione and Harry, who are presented as sharper and more focused, which is somewhat true even in the books, come across as having much more chemistry between the two of them than Hermione does with Ron, and at the end, they are even shown mocking him, once again throwing the balance of the trio out of whack because we don't see that Hermione also has a tendency to annoy Harry even though they're friends. Maybe Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe just have a natural chemistry with each other, but this also screws with the audiences because the film versions of Hermione & Harry seem to play so well off each other that it seems they are the ones destined to be together, as opposed to Hermione being with Ron (this will also make it even more difficult when trying to sell the audience on the concept of Harry's future romance with Ginny in "Half-Blood Prince"). When Hermione reaches out to a distraught Harry at Hogsmeade and flashes her big brown eyes to him, while Ron keeps his distance, you half expect Hermione to embrace Harry and give him a kiss. When Harry and Hermione are alone in the Forbidden Forest, you half expect Harry to rip Hermione's clothes off and make love to her (their lovemaking would probably be spoiled by the arrival of either the Lupin wolf or the Dementors). I know this probably wasn't intentional, but the filmmakers don't seem to understand that they're giving off the wrong impression to audiences. Despite these unfortunate changes, star Daniel Radcliffe finally begins to show us just how good an actor he's becoming - he's easily the best of the three, striking the right balance between his serious and light hearted moments without going over the top like his co-stars. Radcliffe works very well with both David Thewlis, in the role of Lupin, and Gary Oldman, in the role of Sirius Black. It's too bad that Radcliffe was not given more of a chance to interact with the new Dumbledore, Michael Gambon, a fellow Irishman chosen to the replace the late Richard Harris, who's life & career sadly ended with the last clunker. Cuaron's stronger sense of pacing and visual narrative along with characterization also become apparent in his handling of the action pieces and atmospheric moments of fear. I sincerely hope that he returns to direct either the sixth or seventh installment.

I have only watched the DVD four times since I bought it last week. This is after watching it three times in the theater and reading the book twice, and listening to it once. So I am not a fan, at least not as much a fan as maybe two or three other people in the world! I am very interested in using this and the books to contrast the differences each art form makes on the audience. (Can you say "audience" for a book?) There are some basics. The advantage of the movie over the book: it takes hours less time go from start to finish. The impact of the visual stimuli coupled with the music is tremendously powerful. The disadvantage: same. The advantage of the DVD over the movie: you can watch it on your terms. Disadvantage? None depending on the equipment used. I have tried it on a small lap top, large PC screen, and HDTV projector. (Dogs bark and you have to let them out and so on, but is this a disadvantage?) There is an advantage to the soundtrack CD over the DVD: it takes even less time from start to finish. It sounds like the advantage goes with the less time it takes to enjoy JKR's imagination when a big concern -- the real issue for most of us, is how much time you can afford to spend in JKR's imaginary world when we don't really have time turners of our own. Question: apart from the pecuniary value in all of this, (how much wealth has been transferred here?) are there any costs associated with the use of words like "Muggle" or phrases like "Welcome to another year at Hogwarts!"? Has there been any thought to using these movies as part of the media blitz in the Middle East? What happened to Nearly Headless? Agreed: the explanation scene between Harry and Dumbledore is important. What happens if the movies get too movieish? Worst: no time line for HP6? In short, the books are wonderful, the movies are wonderful, the music is wonderful on its own, so all of these offerings are absorbing and entertaining, so if you have the time to be entertained why not be entertained by the best? But a serious question remains that posed by Neil Postman in his book "Amusing Ourselves to Death" and Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" both of which suggest the visual art form of movies (and TV especially) are harmful in the big picture. Pierre Bourdieu also riled against the media ("On Television") Which do you think is going to win over the minds and hearts of our children -- movies or books? Email me with your thoughts!

A great movie for a rainy day.

There were many changes to the Harry Potter franchise for the third film in the series, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and they didn't just involve the story and the characters. Alfonso Cuaron replaced Chris Columbus as director, and he brought with him a much darker tone to the films. While every Harry Potter book has been dark, the level of darkness increases with each subsequent novel, so it only makes sense. However, Cuaron overhauled the entire look of the film in order to make it scarier and darker. Gone are the brilliant golden shades from the first two films. In this one, an icy silver tone is used throughout the movie (even the Warner Bros. logo and the title are a cold silver as opposed to the bright gold used in Sorceror's Stone and Chamber of Secrets). It is very rare to see a clear blue sky in this movie; a lot of scenes take place at night or during a very cloudy/rainy day. Even the quidditch match occurs during a nasty rain storm. In Harry Potter's (Daniel Radcliffe) third year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, the state of the wizarding world is in a panic. A man named Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) has escaped from Azkaban Wizards' Prison, which, like Alcatraz, was viewed to be impossible to escape from. Now Black is on the loose, and it is widely believed that he is going to seek out and kill Harry Potter. Black was in Azkaban because of his loyalties to the Dark Lord Voldemort, and speculation is that he sees Harry standing in the way of Voldemort's return. Making matters worse for Harry is that the Dementors, which are the guards at Azkaban, have been stationed at Hogwarts to "keep it safe". Dementors are very nasty creatures (which were probably once in the service of Voldemort) that feed on happy thoughts, leaving people temporarily paralyzed with unhappy memories. Since Harry has had more than his fair share of unhappy memories (his parents' deaths is at the top of the list), the Dementors cause him to pass out. This year, two new teachers are appointed. Rubeus Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) takes over the Care of Magical Creatures position while newcomer Remus J. Lupin (David Thewlis) becomes the new Defense Against Dark Arts professor. Also, Michael Gambon replaces the late Richard Harris as Headmaster Dumbledore and does a great job with the role. Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) begin to take elective classes such as Care of Magical Creatures and Divination, which is taught by the kooky Professor Trelawny (Emma Thomas, who does a great job hamming up the role). But as the children have fun in school, newspaper articles keep reporting that Black is getting closer and closer to Hogwarts. Even though MOST people know the ending before seeing this film because they have read the book (which I really reccomend), I am still not going to give it away. I will say that the climax is amazing. There are great twists, and in a sense, a double ending which, while hard to explain, makes perfect sense and is great to see. The special effects in this film are great, much improved over the first two films. Buckbeak the hippogriff (a sort of cross between a horse and an eagle) looks beautiful and much more realistic than Fluffy in Sorceror's Stone or the basilisk in Chamber of Secrets. The quidditch match also looks better in this movie, but then again, it's very short, and pretty much the only thing we see is Harry going after the snitch. Ironically, while Prisoner of Azkaban is the longest of the first three books, it's the shortest of the first three movies. While some of the cuts that they made were necessary and made sense, I was surprised at a few of the things that they left out. Mainly, I couldn't figure out why they didn't explain HOW Sirius escaped from Azkaban, or why they didn't reveal the identities of Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs, the creators of the Marauder's Map. While the movie was very strong, these two details would have made things clearer to the audience as well as to Harry and his friends. The first two Harry Potter films were good, but I didn't find them to be anything special (unlike the books, which I love). This one, however, was amazing. Hopefully, the next film, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, will be as good or better.

Excelente película ,mi hijo la ve repetidamente por su el gran contenido de este filme.

Sotto Natale ❤️

per gli amanti del maghetto.

商品に問題なく、予定通り配達されました。

Arrivato in ottime condizioni e prima del previsto. Ottimo anche il prezzo. Film fantastico!

Ho l’intera collezione di harry potter in 4k il Formato è molto conveniente in quanto troviamo oltre la versione in 4k anche la versione in full hd, consigliato per il prezzo