Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #15077 in DVD
• Released on: 2005-10-24
• Rating: Parental Guidance
• Aspect ratio: 2.40:1
• Formats: Anamorphic, PAL
• Original language: English
• Subtitled in: Arabic, English
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 136 minutes

Amazon.co.uk Review
Adapted from JK Rowling's third novel, this installment of the family fantasy adventure story finds trainee wizard Harry Potter (played by Daniel Radcliffe) and his best friends Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint), facing the dangerous convict Sirius Black (played by Gary Oldman). Black has escaped from Azkaban Prison and is on his way to Hogwarts, so the school calls in supernatural assistance in the form of Dementors -- but will they turn out to be a great help or a further threat?

The first of the Harry Potter films to be directed by acclaimed Mexican film director Alfonso Cuarón, Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban is generally regarded as the most stylised and darkest entry in the series thus far. It stars the actors from the preceding films in the series, except for the role of Albus Dumbledore, which sees Michael Gambon take over from the late Richard Harris. Much of the original crew also returned, including screenwriter Steve Kloves.

The film broke several opening records around the world upon its release, including the top opening film in UK film history, and made approximately £20m in its first three days, totaling £90.3m in ten days.

Synopsis
In this adaptation of the third book in J.K. Rowling's best-selling series, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his best friends Hermoine (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint), must face the dangerous convict Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), who has ties with their enemy Lord Voldemort. The spectacular fantasy-adventure action of the earlier movies (SORCERER'S STONE and CHAMBER OF SECRETS) is once again presented here, as Alfonso Cuaron lends his unique directorial style to recreating Rowling's magical story on celluloid. A scarier, darker story than the first two, this one concerns the mystery behind why Sirius Black is tracking Harry Potter. Slowly Harry and his friends unravel the clues, and learn secrets about Harry's parents that had all along been hidden from him. Meanwhile, because the deranged Sirius poses a threat to all students at Hogwarts, the school enlists a group of daunting black ghosts called Dementors to stand guard. These flying ghouls have a powerful effect on Harry and frighten him to his core. Yet even these chilling obstacles don't dampen the spirits of the youthful wizards, who meet Buckbeak--a giant flying hawk-horse creature, welcome a new dark arts teacher (David Thewlis) and a new divination teacher (Emma Thompson), and are still determined to beat the rival Slytherin team in Quidditch. HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN offers a visually stunning interpretation of the revered book, and will thrill viewers with its special effects, it's penetrating John Williams score, and its superb performances.

Customer Reviews

Oh GOD NO!
Let's start out by making one thing clear...I love the Harry Potter series. I don't hate it in any way. Perhaps it is because I am so into the books that the films have so far failed to live up to expectations.

That said, I really enjoyed the first two films. Faithful to the script and visually stunning, they were a little fluffy but overall very good.

Prisoner of Azkaban is, for me, different. I'm in no way disputing the talents of the three main cast members. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson deliver sterling performances among a cast of very well known English actors. The film is again visually stunning, with the dark, gothic atmosphere of the books captured in perfect detail.

What then, I hear you cry, am I complaining about? Quite simply, there are three things:

1. The script: Good in places, DIRE elsewhere. I know the films are geared towards a younger audience, but as the majority of Potter fans know the books inside out, why deviate to the extent Azkaban has? The reason Potter is so popular is because it's wonderfully written.

2. The central thread of the book plot has been mercilessly hijacked. Okay, I know some changes have to be made because of time constraints, but I sat through the film going, "WHAT? Why on earth has the story been twisted out of all recognition?"

Because it has been.

The basics are there...Harry's 3rd year, murderer on the loose, tone getting darker, reasonably happy ending. The bits in between - i.e. the actual continuity - has been twisted and warped beyond all recognition. I could have come up with several ways to shorten the plot enough to make it filmable, and none of them included the ludicrous way it was actually done.

3. Hermione Sue: Writers and readers of fan-fiction will know what a Mary Sue is. In fanfiction, a Mary Sue is a character from a book (e.g. Hermione from HP) who has all her original traits removed and is turned into an ass kicking, unbeatable super-hero type who can do no wrong. This happened to Hermione in film 3. She's distracting werewolves, she's saving lives, she makes comments about her own hair that are so un-Hermione-esque I wanted to cry.

I know it all sounds petty but as an avid reader of the HP books, one of the most beautiful things about the characters is that they're not perfect, even if they are know-it-alls! They're flawed but wonderful. Turn a character into an all singing, all dancing Wonderwoman and you lose the character entirely. If you lose the character entirely, what's the point in having 'em in at all?

To conclude, if you're after a great adventure flick with wonderful imagery and have a smattering of knowledge about the Potter universe, no doubt you'll adore this film. It's as visually perfect as its predecessors, and the quality of acting is superb.

What a shame the cast had to contend with such a dire adaptation. Sorry, Steve Kloves, but your film has disappointed loyal Harry fans to the core. If you're having difficuly believing there's so much attention to detail being paid to the Potter universe, think of it like this: it's like Peter Jackson making a Lord of the Rings movie but making Gollem an out and out good guy, Frodo a surfer-hunk type, and took the wonderful wording of Tolkien and rewrote the script himself. No matter how viually stunning it will be, it'll still be appauling, right? Well, it's the same with Harry.

not the best of the 4
Primarily, I quite enjoyed this film. I thought it was the best of the three. however, I have recently re-read the book, and realise that the film is a shadow of it ink and paper friend. the story has been whittled down the the bare minimal, with the script being a world away from the clever and witty words of the wondeful J.K Rowling.
The performances are better this time round, with an impressive Daniel Radcliffe, and great performances from David Thewlis (Lupin) and Gary Oldman (Sirius Black). these two actors, along with Alan Rickman (Snape)Dame Maggie Smith (mcGonagall)and Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) are what truly holds the film together, and makes it miles more enjoyable than it would be otherwise.
Steve Kloves' script, does injustice to some characters, such as Hermione Granger (portrayed by an extremely posh Emma Watson) who has been altered from a book loving academic to a snobbish vain teenager, who is, on occasion, dangerously preoccupied with her appearance.
The film misses out some of the fascinating background of Sirius Black, James Potter, Remus Lupin, and Peter Pettigrew, a reationship which is very important in some chapters in Book 5. (Snape's worst memory), as well, as the true nature of the Marauder's map, and the significant form of Harry's Patronous. but perhps i am being Picky.
This film, is also the first film without the wonderful Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore, instead employing the questionable interpretation of the character from Sir. Michael Gambon. Personally, i cannot stand what he has done to the character, and feel truly sorry for those who have seen the film , but have not read the books - you are missing out on one of the funniest, cleverest, magical characters in fiction.
The special effects are, as ever, marvellous with the Aunt Marge scene being brought to life in the most vivid way imaginable!! The werewolf...well. I might go off on a tangent, so I will keep quiet.
However, the film is enjoyable, and is worth buying, warts and all.

The best of all four movies!
OK, many Potter fans have deep criticism for the Prisoner of Azkaban movie because of various scenes and details excised from the book. Also they get all riled up at the way Hermione is portrayed by Emma Watson as more of an all-action beauty than the geeky-but-loyal book version. Well frankly all of this is so petty it's ridiculous.

This was the one that brought the Harry Potter movies out of the whole kids-flick category and into something much more interesting. For the first time we get a REAL movie rather than sections of the book cobbled together and forced onscreen like the first two were. It's stylish and contains performances with real emotion and integrity, particularly in the scenes between Harry and Lupin, and finally scenes with the young actors that didn't feel like kids in a play. Everything is much more natural and less cliched. Sadly some of this adaptation-by-numbers routine returned in Goblet of Fire, which is why Azkaban is still my favourite (though Goblet is still great).

I must mention John Williams's score which is incredible, one of his best ever which is a feat in itself considering his massive body of work including Jaws, Jurassic Park and the Star Wars series. The main 'Window To The Past' theme is so beautiful and perfect for Harry Potter. I really hope Williams returns for later movies as he couldn't do Goblet of Fire due to Revenge of the Sith commitments.

Anyhow, if you only want to watch one Harry Potter movie then this is it because it stands on it's own and you don't really need to know what happens in the first two.