[Tom Koegel]

Count me with Ebert in finding this episode a half-notch below the other two. Cuarón, technically and stylistically, made a better film than Columbus did in the first two. (Certainly than in Sorcerer's Stone, anyways.) I understood and appreciated the muted color palate (washed out), the grainy look, etc. And he handles the greater range of emotional content much more successfully than did Columbus in the first two.

Cuarón, of course, has much more to work with this time. The story itself has greater emotional range. And the child actors, with the possible exception of Radcliffe as Harry, were much better this time. Watson/Hermione has more to do here, and demonstrates far more range than before--while keeping her knack for comic timing. Ron/Rupert Grint seems to have dialed it back a notch (well, maybe a half notch) from an over-the-top performance in Chamber of Secrets. The character of Harry, of course, doesn't get to exhibit much range--but Radcliffe doesn't seem to show much talent for emotional range, anyways. I found his efforts to weep after he learns that Sirius is his godfather to be unaffecting. Watson's response, as Hermione, though--was touching and well-acted.

What I found missing in "Episode III" was much of a sense of . . . well . . . fun. Yes, the book is darker than the first two. But there are many moments of joy in the book that seem to have eluded portrayal here. (Griffindor, I gather, does not win the Quidditch cup.) And the scenes that have made it into the final version always seem too abrupt, too rushed. Think of any scene--well, whoops, we're talking about two--with Emma Thompson as Professor Trelawney. They aren't set up well enough to demonstrate the loopy fraud that she is--or to set up the punchline when she has a genuine revelation.

On the level of script, Kloves labored well--if not wholly successfully--to tighten things up. Having Lupin learn of Pettigrew's existence from the Marauder's Map makes sense, hastens the plot, and makes the Shrieking Shack scene slightly less talky. But what the heck was that ridiculous scene in the tavern with the Minister of Magic, Cornelius Fudge, Julie Christie (nearly unidentifiable through the haze of Harry's invisibility cloak) as Madam Rosmerta, and Maggie Smith as McGonagall? "Ah, gee, guys, we've got to find a way to let Harry know about Sirius being his godfather, so let's get a couple of character's together randomly?" Yes, there is a similar scene in the bar in the book--but at least it is written that the characters might conceivably have appeared there together.

There are exceptions to this--the boggart in the wardrobe scene was well set up and well done. Virtually anything with Rickman as Snape works well. And I thought the relationship scenes with Lupin and Harry were well played and filmed.

I came away appreciating that this was a "better film" . . . but thinking it wasn't as much fun.

Tom

[Chris]

It does seem as though there had to be a good number of "deleted scenes"

[Matt Stone]

I'm still not sure if I like this as much as the other two, but it was definitely much more visually interesting. Cuaron really knows how to tell a story visually, and Columbus is really clueless when it comes to that aspect of film-making. Great choice to have Cuaron direct this one.

I also hated the ending freeze-frame thing. Sort of awkward. The CG did seem a little off, and I didn't like the werewolf design, but I thought the grim was fine.

I really loved the casting. Thewis and Oldman were fantastic. I was iffy on Thewis, because I hadn't seen him in much before, but wow...A+. Oldman is always good, so I was confident, but he really hit it out the the park. I really miss Richard Harris, but Gambon was good.

Overall, really good stuff. I'm not going to give it a rating until I see it again, but it was much more interesting than the other two films.

[Patrick Sun]

So, how many who saw HP3 "tuned out" when the CGI "werewolf vs. the dog" scene occurred? This was one of the complaints lodged against Van Helsing when 2 CGI characters were fighting each other.

[Ernest Rister]

"Columbus is really clueless when it comes to that aspect of film-making."

Yeah, Columbus is a big dullard, clueless as to how to use a camera....

[Kevin Grey]

I came away appreciating that this was a "better film" . . . but thinking it wasn't as much fun.

This will definitely be a concern as the films progress since the books continue to get darker. I really don't mind myself but some may be turned off.

One of the challenges for the upcoming filmmakers is that much of the "fun" parts of Books 4 & 5 aren't necessarily integral to the plots and may be the first items on the chopping board.

Off the top of my head there is a wonderful couple of chapters devoted to Harry and Ron trying to find dates for the Winter Ball in Goblet of Fire that will likely be cut pretty drastically if its there at all.

[Matt Stone]

Quote:

Yeah, Columbus is a big dullard, clueless as to how to use a camera....

Sorry, Ernest...didn't mean to step on any toes. Clueless was obviously hyperbole, but I do think that Cuaron is much more visual than Columbus.

[DustinC]

So Ernest, have you actually seen it yet, or are you still too busy defending Columbus?

[Jim_C]

Bloody Brilliant!

I loved this film. I know that PoA is a stronger book than the previous two but I believe that the source material is only about 50% of why this film is so much better than SS and CoS. I felt that I could inhabit Harry Potter's world this time around. Hogwarts and the grounds felt so real in this film. Cuaron really knows how to visually portray an environment. I also really appreciated not being hit over the head with reaction shots or explanations of what just happened and why.

I thought the actors did a great job, especially Thewis. If I had one complaint, it would be not enough Snape. Rickman shines in this role.

Like others, I didn't care for the final freeze frame shot of Harry.

Finally, I really enjoyed the previous two films so I'm not dissing Columbus with my comparisons to PoA. It's just so satisfying to see Harry Potter's world portrayed so well on the screen. It's a shame that Cuaron isn't directing GoF. I hope to god that Newell maintains some of Cuaron's aesthetic. I'll be very disappointed if he doesn't.

[Quentin]

I had a feeling the opinions on this film would break the way they have...

Personally, I DETEST the first two films. Can't bear watching even 2 minutes of either. Wooden, over the top, on the nose, drivel.

But, I really like this film. It still suffers from some basic plot problems that tend to plague the novels, but I had fun with this film, felt a sense of joy, felt immersed for the first time in the magical world of Hogwarts, and cared about what was happening.

I think most people who disliked the first two feel this way about the third. My observation, anyhow.

People who liked the first two - don't enjoy this film as much.

Yep...exactly like I thought it would break down...

[Chad R]

I think the praise for Cuaron is too quickly offered. Personally, many of his choices were wrong, and there were at least a few instances where his direction was shoddy.

First, where the aunt was "blown up" was awkwardly staged with really no eye towards this type of farce. The Dursleys just sat there stupidly, watching her get bigger when they knew who was doing it. At this point in raising Harry, they wouldn't look on dumbfounded, they would react angrily towards him, immediately.

I think the decision to dress the kids in 'modern' clothes ruins the timelessness of the series. In the books, there was a sense that the wizarding world didn't have much care for pop culture and its ilk, and I got that sense as well from the first two films.

I also felt that Columbus's classical style (tripods and dollies as opposed to hand-held) also lent the films that sense of timelessness.

I also didn't like the treatment of Hogsmeade, it didn't have any of the grandeur and wonder that was in the book, and not even as much as Diagon Alley had in the first film.

With that said, I still think the film was enormously successful, but no more or less than the first two. This book was, at this point in the series, the best, and I think that the film succeeded due to the source material rather than the director. He didn't spoil it in any way shape or form, and I did enjoy some nice touches such as the nod to the passing of time (something Columbus failed miserably at) and the extremely old fashioned irises, but I still lump the multitude of praise on the young actors and the tight adaptation of Steve Kloves.

I also loved that John Williams took a cue from his score for Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and didn't rely on the original theme so much, instead growing a wholly organic score from the same motif; but one that can stand on its own.