I decided to check out the Harry Potter marathon ABC family is playing. Out of curiousity, I always wondered why Prisoner of Azkaban(sp?) was considered the best film out of the series and why many critics didn't like the Sorcerer's Stone or Chamber of Secrets. Of all the movies, the first two were the closest to the book.
Why is "Prisoner of Azkaban" considered the best film of the Harry Potter series?
- Thread starter Burnouts3s3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The third movie isn't bad (the only Potter movie I consider to be truly awful is the fifth one), but it does take a few too many liberties with the source material. Alfonso Cuaron has always been a style over substance director, and I feel like it hampers any story he tries to tell. I'm not a big fan of the third one, but it does have the best soundtrack of all the films. It's one of John Williams' best works ever, and it is sorely overlooked.
The thing about Harry Potter is that it just isn't that good. (That's not to say that you can't like it or enjoy it, put down your pitchforks.) Rowling, bless her heart, isn't a particularly talented writer, either in prose or storytelling. And she definitely doesn't translate particularly well to cinema. That being said, HP3 is the film that most deviated from the source material. In this case, it had a good production team behind it so those deviations were, for the most part, to make it a good film first, instead of a good adaptation. That's why it is the most striking and cinematic feeling of the series.
And it has Gary Fucking Oldman. That's enough right there.
Capcha: Night Owl.
Capcha scares me sometimes.
And it has Gary Fucking Oldman. That's enough right there.
Capcha: Night Owl.
Capcha scares me sometimes.
IMHO, one and two were very dull. Though, so were the books. Likewise, 6, which was also in black and white or close to it, in a failed attempt at generating atmosphere. Skip those, really.
Five...well, the book was gigantic, and it didn't translate very well into a film, I thought.
7 and 8 were very long and slow, and they had to cut bits out of the books to stick more longness and slowness in.
3 and 4, however, were both, IMHO, quite decent, nothing jumps out and says "Why didn't they fix this bit?" to me. 3 has the advantage of having more emotion to it, IMHO.
Five...well, the book was gigantic, and it didn't translate very well into a film, I thought.
7 and 8 were very long and slow, and they had to cut bits out of the books to stick more longness and slowness in.
3 and 4, however, were both, IMHO, quite decent, nothing jumps out and says "Why didn't they fix this bit?" to me. 3 has the advantage of having more emotion to it, IMHO.
I consider PoA to be my personal favourite. The first two were dry carbon copies of the books, both of which I was a bit too old for when I discovered them. Because the 4th books and beyond were all far larger than the first 3, every film after PoA had to cut out tons of things that makes them feel extremely choppy (ha) at times, particularly Goblet of Fire (liked Deathly Hallows Part 1 though). PoA had more room to add and embellish things, and a director who knew what to embellish to make it a better movie than a copy paste job of the book.
More than that though, PoA has tons of humour, atmosphere, and lots of Lupin and Sirius, two of my favourite characters played by two of my favourite actors, and really seems to understand the whole overarching theme of overcoming fear. They could have extended Harry and Lupin's training sessions to 20 minutes and I still would have loved it- this is probably the start of Harry's later ambition to become an Auror, or at least not wanting to be defenceless all the time.
More than that though, PoA has tons of humour, atmosphere, and lots of Lupin and Sirius, two of my favourite characters played by two of my favourite actors, and really seems to understand the whole overarching theme of overcoming fear. They could have extended Harry and Lupin's training sessions to 20 minutes and I still would have loved it- this is probably the start of Harry's later ambition to become an Auror, or at least not wanting to be defenceless all the time.
You can rank the films in different ways, as adaptations and as films in their own right.Burnouts3s3 said:
As adaptations I'd rank the films as follows (Best to last).
1. PS/SS.
2. COS.
3. DH1.
4. DH2.
5. GOF
6. OOTP.
7. POA.
8. HBP.
And as films being able to stand up on their own:
1. POA.
2. PS/SS.
3. COS.
4. DH1
5. DH2.
6. HBP.
7. OOTP.
8. GOF.
Why is POA so critically acclaimed? I think it has to do with the overall flow of the plot as well as the cinematic feel. A lot of the films feel as though they're on speed (GOF) or will bore you to death (OOTP), whereas POA has a very good pace and is beautiful to watch. The acting and direction is generally better than the first two yet the film wasn't butchered in the same way as the following sequels were thanks to Mike Newell and David Yates. (Re Yates, OOTP and HBP were poor, DH1 was great and DH2 was okay/decent).
So yes what annoys me about the HP film series is that it is kind of bi-polar. Movies 1, 2,3, 7 and to a lesser extent 8 are great/decent while movies 4,5, and especially 6 are very poor; HBP was meant to be about understanding Tom Riddle before he became Voldemort, not watching a load of Twilight induced romance.
PoA was my least favourite movie, if I'm doing a marathon I usually just skip it altogether.
I don't know exactly why I don't like it, I just don't.
My favourites are 5 and 6 though, which causes most people to stare quizzically at me. I'm a big Snape fan, especially with Rickman portraying him, so 6 is by far my favourite.
5 is a tricky one though, every time I watch it I do feel slightly disappointed when Umbridge really doesn't get what's coming to her (the whole getting taken off by the centaurs is pretty anti-climactic), but I've watched it so many times regardless - it must be the Snape/Potter Legilimency/occlumency scenes.
I don't know exactly why I don't like it, I just don't.
My favourites are 5 and 6 though, which causes most people to stare quizzically at me. I'm a big Snape fan, especially with Rickman portraying him, so 6 is by far my favourite.
5 is a tricky one though, every time I watch it I do feel slightly disappointed when Umbridge really doesn't get what's coming to her (the whole getting taken off by the centaurs is pretty anti-climactic), but I've watched it so many times regardless - it must be the Snape/Potter Legilimency/occlumency scenes.
That confuses me as well, I recently went through all the Harry Potter films to review them all and I actually found PoA to be one of the weaker films, partly because I thought the pacing of the movie was awful.
The whole film just speeds by, never letting itself breath or giving events a chance to settle and let them sink in. It's a good movie but it's too flawed in my eyes to be considered one of the best in the franchise.
The whole film just speeds by, never letting itself breath or giving events a chance to settle and let them sink in. It's a good movie but it's too flawed in my eyes to be considered one of the best in the franchise.
I liked Chamber of Secrets the best out of the films (was pretty true to the book and didn't shy away from scary scenes) and Goblet of Fire the best out of the books (the 4th movie cut out so much it made it awful).
As for Prisoner of Azkaban; the movie was alright but it felt really rushed towards the end. Particularly when explaining the Peter Pettigrew twist, the book explained it much better and the movie glanced over it. If you hadn't read the book you'd probably be like 'what da fuck is happening?'. The werewolf also looked really, really bad. Like not scary at all. Time Turner part was done alright but yeah, still felt rushed.
I HATED the final book, so boring. I was expecting a kind of 'Indiana Jones but with magic' globe-trotting book with lots of booby traps and cat & mouse between Harry and Voldemort as Harry & Friends tracked down each hidden Horcrux. Instead we got some teen angsty shit where they spent most of the time in some forest hiding from everyone. The movies were more entertaining though for some reason (maybe I should try reading the book again, although I swear Voldemort died in like 2 lines in the book and after that anti-climactic showdown I had enough of that shit).
Books
Goblet of Fire > Half Blood Prince > Prisoner of Azkaban = Chamber of Secrets > Philosopher's Stone > Order of the Phoenix > Deathly Hallows
Movies
Chamber of Secrets > Philosopher's Stone > Prisoner of Azkaban > Deathly Hallows 1/2 > Order of the Phoenix > Half Blood Prince > Goblet of Fire.
The better movies are the ones with the shorter novels. Deathly Hallows being split into 2 was a smart decision and I feel they should have done that for all of the movies from Goblet of Fire and onwards. The longer novels had many things cut/rushed in the films that ruined the tension/excitement.
As for Prisoner of Azkaban; the movie was alright but it felt really rushed towards the end. Particularly when explaining the Peter Pettigrew twist, the book explained it much better and the movie glanced over it. If you hadn't read the book you'd probably be like 'what da fuck is happening?'. The werewolf also looked really, really bad. Like not scary at all. Time Turner part was done alright but yeah, still felt rushed.
I HATED the final book, so boring. I was expecting a kind of 'Indiana Jones but with magic' globe-trotting book with lots of booby traps and cat & mouse between Harry and Voldemort as Harry & Friends tracked down each hidden Horcrux. Instead we got some teen angsty shit where they spent most of the time in some forest hiding from everyone. The movies were more entertaining though for some reason (maybe I should try reading the book again, although I swear Voldemort died in like 2 lines in the book and after that anti-climactic showdown I had enough of that shit).
Books
Goblet of Fire > Half Blood Prince > Prisoner of Azkaban = Chamber of Secrets > Philosopher's Stone > Order of the Phoenix > Deathly Hallows
Movies
Chamber of Secrets > Philosopher's Stone > Prisoner of Azkaban > Deathly Hallows 1/2 > Order of the Phoenix > Half Blood Prince > Goblet of Fire.
The better movies are the ones with the shorter novels. Deathly Hallows being split into 2 was a smart decision and I feel they should have done that for all of the movies from Goblet of Fire and onwards. The longer novels had many things cut/rushed in the films that ruined the tension/excitement.
My thoughts exactly. I wrote what my opinions were before reading the other comments; good to read that someone thought similarly to I.Jamieson 90 said:
The first two Harry Potter movies seemed to be more "look what we can do with children and a green screen!"
The fourth got dark to the point of ham and cheese. I'm not saying the series didn't take a darker turn, but it was camp as hell. Weirdly enough, I think that's why I end up liking it. Like, 3/4 of the cast is chewing scenery. 5 was just....lol. 6 was almost monotone and 7 was split into two movies: the camping rip and the "payoff." Both suffer on their own.
I think three wins kind of by default.
That's not to say I didn't enjoy them at all. Most of them were fun, and all of them had parts I enjoyed watching.
The fourth got dark to the point of ham and cheese. I'm not saying the series didn't take a darker turn, but it was camp as hell. Weirdly enough, I think that's why I end up liking it. Like, 3/4 of the cast is chewing scenery. 5 was just....lol. 6 was almost monotone and 7 was split into two movies: the camping rip and the "payoff." Both suffer on their own.
I think three wins kind of by default.
That's not to say I didn't enjoy them at all. Most of them were fun, and all of them had parts I enjoyed watching.
There's also that. I mean, how do you top Gary Oldman, except maybe two Gary Oldmans?Jacco said:
I sort of wonder if they even tried, though. I mean, the longest book becomes the shortest movie, and what they did keep struck me as...odd. I mean, maybe it really was the best they could do, but it didn't seem like it.thaluikhain said:
Though, they mostly got away with it. Harry Potter and LotR are amongst the few movies where they can indulgently show off their expensive sets or green screen background without it grating.Zachary Amaranth said:
I've never heard anyone but a film critic who thought that it was the best of the films. In fact, most fans I've spoken to consider it to be the worst of the movies.
It's the only one of the movies that feels most like a genuine, solid movie. Out of all of them 3 makes me believe what I'm seeing on screen. But take this from someone who never read the books and actually kinda hates the franchise all together.
It is? Man, I have less in common with the film-goers than I thought. I thought it was the worst of the films, the midway point between "faithful to the books" (1 and 2) and "comfortable in a new direction" (all the others).
Truth be told, my favorite book and movie were the sixth ones. The sixth book had an air of mystery I liked before the storm of the last book (which I also really liked), and by the sixth movie I had managed to divorce myself enough from my impressions of the books to appreciate it on its own merits.
Truth be told, my favorite book and movie were the sixth ones. The sixth book had an air of mystery I liked before the storm of the last book (which I also really liked), and by the sixth movie I had managed to divorce myself enough from my impressions of the books to appreciate it on its own merits.
I don't think I've ever seen that opinion before.NeutralDrow said:
(For me, the thing that really got to me was that it was shown in almost black and white, unlike all the others. The series was established, a big visual change like that is hard to get right)
What? People think Prisoner of Askaban is the best Harry Potter film?Burnouts3s3 said:
PoA is the only Harry Potter film that was bad.
I mean that's the one where Hermione's character got completely rewritten from smart and bookish to super badass just because Emma Watson got boobs.
PoA is an all around awful movie if you judge it as an adaptation.
This is news to me.
The seventh movie is the best one. Deathly Hollows part 1 is the only movie that's better than the book because the characters came off as more human and approachable.
then 2 and 1 because they were the most faithful to the book
Then 8 because... ya know... spectacle
Then 5 and 6 because they were my favorite books and I think book 6 was about the time that JK Rowling started writing Hermione as a badass instead of a nerd because she realized it would be too expensive to assassinate Emma Watson (I mean recast her)
Then 4 because they had trouble adapting the longest book into a 2 hour movie and they had to cut way too much, but it was still better than the retarded third movie
People actually liked the third movie... that's sad.
In regards to the movie and book, no Voldemort. Pretty self contained story. Harry Potter's overarching story is terrible and this is the only one that avoids it.
Quite frankly, I don't know. While PoA was/is my favorite of the books, the film adaptation is what made me not want to watch more Harry Potter films (was forced to watch GoF, which I also remember not liking, and after that I haven't seen the rest). Its been several years since I've either seen the film or read the book, so I can't really remember why. Probably because it changed a lot from the book.