Why is "Prisoner of Azkaban" considered the best film of the Harry Potter series?

[Kingjackl]

I find it hard to quantify the Harry Potter films. I enjoy them as a series, same as the books, but I can't really point to a particular one and say 'that was my most/least favourite'. I thought Half Blood Prince was a bit meh, but it was still serviceable.

I think Prisoner of Azkaban was where the series took off. After two fairly light-hearted kids adventures that were still experimenting with the concept, Prisoner of Azkaban had the kids starting to grow up, the story became darker and more complex and it established the background and set the stage for the big shift in Goblet of Fire. Plus it was a well-directed, well-acted film that set the tone for the rest of the series. Yeah, it wasn't as faithful to the books as the first two, but does that really matter? If you want a pitch-perfect recreation of the books, just read the books! I did, they're very good. But, if you want an adaptation that also makes for a good film in it's own right, you can do a lot worse than Prisoner of Azkaban.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I don?t know why either; I always thought it was very average. In fact, all the Harry Potter films are, with the only ones that I believe to be truly appalling the fourth and fifth (the former appeared very choppily abridged; the latter was based on a large yet mostly boring book, plus I still can?t forgive the omitting of Harry & George?s punch-up with Malfoy).

My favourite Harry Potter films are actually the first two now due to their faithfulness to the spirit of the source material and the best Dumbledore, while my favourite book is The Half-Blood Prince due to actually giving Malfoy a character beyond ?I exist solely to be a pompous dick to Harry?, and delving into Voldemort?s backstory.

I haven?t seen the last film yet, though. To be honest, I?ve forgotten most of the films past the fourth one.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

Prisoner of Azkaban is both my favorite book and film, with Order of the Phoenix being the opposite. Everything just... worked. It took a much darker tone with the Dementors and the fugitive on the run. Remus Lupin was fucking awesome, and it was the first movie I noticed that I had a monster crush on Emma Watson.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

See, I actually agree with a lot of this, most particularly that the merits of the books do not all translate well to cinema, and the books sort of leave their souls on the cutting room floor. I think you're being a LITTLE unfair, though. You are correct...Rowling is no master of prose, and her storytelling is a bit A-B-C. But the books didn't become phenoms by accident, they have a definite populist appeal. The characters are affable, the world is whimsical, and the writing is incredibly breezy, digestible prose. That last alone is, in and of itself, a laudable talent.

I might even go so far as to say she's an excellent writer who delivered excellent books, just not "excellent" in the same way I might call Patrick Rothfuss excellent, or Rohinton Mistry excellent.

 

[Toejam]

Personally I liked PoA because the actors/actress didn't seem like they were doing a nativity play at the local school. In the first 2 they were awful, over emphasising and shouting their lines out at times, just made me cringe.

Along with that the story itself is a lot more evolved and darker, with an amazing supporting cast.

 

[Quellist]

Personally i think it had a lot to do with David Thewlis and his performance as Lupin. The whole Werewolf as a metaphor for living with Aids just seemed to work so much better in the movie than the book

 

[RealRT]

I thought it was okay, though a little bit too jazzy for its own good. I don't get why people give Chris Columbus all the flak for the first two movies, they were pretty good. The fourth movie was fucking horrible. The fifth was a little bit better, but not by much. I didn't even bother with films six, seven and seven part two.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Personally I liked PoA because the actors/actress didn't seem like they were doing a nativity play at the local school. In the first 2 they were awful, over emphasising and shouting their lines out at times, just made me cringe.

I dunno, the child actors were always like that in the Harry Potter films, even past the first. They only started acting actually good from the last two films onwards.

Of course, the adult actors (Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, Helena Bonham Carter, etc.) were superb throughout.

 

[Toejam]

Personally I liked PoA because the actors/actress didn't seem like they were doing a nativity play at the local school. In the first 2 they were awful, over emphasising and shouting their lines out at times, just made me cringe.

I dunno, the child actors were always like that in the Harry Potter films, even past the first. They only started acting actually good from the last two films onwards.

Of course, the adult actors (Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, Helena Bonham Carter, etc.) were superb throughout.

Oh yeah, they still wasn't very good, but compared to the 1st 2 films they were alot better. I struggle to watch the 1st 2 at all because of it.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, the third installment is where they really start elaborating on things, and dealing with bigger plots since the world has become more established and the characters are a bit older and as a result a bit more conceptually capable. One of the things about the series is that the plotlines grow up with the characters. The first couple of stories had the protagonists as little kids, and who had very limited powers, as they got older their powers were growing (as was how assertive the school/ministry was being about them using those greater powers outside of school). To begin with it was mostly about mysteries and some inevitable ex deus machine when things got real, while that still always applied to an extent, the characters who were all quite talented with magic (even Ron) were developing their offensive spells (even if they practiced in secret), and getting permission to use more powerful magical devices like the Time Tuner. The third movie did a decent job of creating a malevolent presence and then doing a role-reversal with it later, as well as having the bad guys get a little more aggressive, as the protagonist himself was beginning (like most kids) to break more rules more assertively and render himself more vulnerable, as well as cover a wider area where he couldn't be kept under close protection as regularly. Also the "Death Eaters" are supposed to be rebuilding so they become stronger as the stories go on, as opposed to being as powerful as they are in the final chapter all at once, which is why when they start making their little terror raids it's noticible to everyone.

From a movie making perspective I think the third one is one of the weakest when you consider it from the perspective of the books, but probably worked better from the sake of a straight film, especially when dealing with an audience who never read and thus were not pre-existing fans of the material. The directors for example made a big deal about being all excited about how they could get the characters out of their school robes and such and have them wear "normal clothes" for the Hogsmeade scenes (which wasn't really in keeping with the books) but actually probably helped ground the movie for the casual movie goers by making the characters seem more normal, and thus more relatable.

That said, as good as these movies were overall, I do not think they will remain the final word on the franchise as there is a lot of potential for improvement and doing things better, and more accurately, to the source material. As much as many people hate to admit it, there is a certain amount of depth to these stories even if they are children's fare, and that's part of what sold it. The movies communicate the basic points, but miss a lot of the subtext and fun little details that made the books enchant so many people even if JK Rowling isn't the best writer out there. If they could do each book as a mini-series on something like HBO where they have a decent budget, I think the results can be improved.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

I didn't know that it was considered that because it just so happens that I always saw it as the point when the movies started to get worse. I think that both Philosophers Stone and Chamber of Secrets were very good adaptions of their respective that managed to have a unique and somewhat whimsical style while Prisoner of Azkaban started to force a more realistic and needlessly dark and edgy style on the franchise that I didn't think worked very well for it.

If anything I'll never excuse them for ditching all the cool costumes for plain and boring muggle clothes.

 

[Hufflepuff74]

POA was the movie that changed the landscape for the rest of the movies that came after. Curon changed hogwarts and the grounds he expanded on the depth of the castle as well. The cinematography was a very need shift, from movie 1 an 2. The acting was broader an more in depth with Watson, Radcliffe, an grint. I'm a book groupie 1st an for most, so I approached each film with a grain of salt. I expected reworkings of certain material from the books or for it too b omitted all together. Each of the movies have bullet holes in the story telling. I hated POA, when I first saw it I was outraged lol. Bit now lok king over the entire body of all the films, it's hands down my fave, cuse it took the film too a new level an each director after that, used it for a blueprint. Gary oldman was simply amazing, thewlis was Remus in every sense. An hats off too Michael Gambon for stepping I too some huge shoes, an making dumbledore his own. I accept the films for wat they are, a chance too see the characters an the world I've come too love, come too life. The books will always best the movies out by a mile in my opinion. POA is a awesome film an it was love it or hate it, the Harry potter game changer movie

 

[Hufflepuff74]

Personally I liked PoA because the actors/actress didn't seem like they were doing a nativity play at the local school. In the first 2 they were awful, over emphasising and shouting their lines out at times, just made me cringe.

I dunno, the child actors were always like that in the Harry Potter films, even past the first. They only started acting actually good from the last two films onwards.

Of course, the adult actors (Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, Helena Bonham Carter, etc.) were superb throughout.

Oh yeah, they still wasn't very good, but compared to the 1st 2 films they were alot better. I struggle to watch the 1st 2 at all because of it.

I agree with you a hundred percent. An that was dead in about them acting in the previous two like they where in a local nativity play. Nailed it