DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED). (1 Viewer)

[Mark Zimmer]

Yep, 301 on my copy too. Weird & irksome.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Haven't watched the whole thing yet, but since I read about the number I skipped ahead to the 17 minute mark and got the number 301 at 17:37. It was on for 2 frames but definitely noticable at normal speed, and I won't be able to watch this movie without watching for that! (I've already given up on going to movies at theaters because of the anti-piracy dots, and FORGET about network TV!) Did it appear in the theatrical version as well? If not then I'll assume this was just some sort of glitch, but if I hear about this happening on any other DVD title, I will stop buying new releases until it stops.
What's the official word from Warner about this? If nobody else knows I'll try to contact them myself.

 

[Chris Rein]

Okay, I'm surprised this isn't talked about more...

So to my surprise I picked up HPOA today and was pissed that it wasn't in the cases like the previous two. Well, okay, I can live without the case. And then I look on the back and I see 5.1 Hmm. Where's the EX like the previous two. Who in the hell mastered this thing? Did the previous teams get fired or something? So much for consistency.

Has anyone looked at the box set yet? Are the cases the same? It's probably Warner's ploy to get you to buy them all over agin.

I'm looking forward to seeing this one. I missed it in the theater.

So, is this 301/302 thing attempting to be like the "Predator Dots" on theatrical prints for DVDs? I swear, every time I see those annoying ass dots on the screen, I wait to hear the Predator "purr" over my shoulder, or the flash of his vision going into heat sensing mode.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

We need to find out about this new numbering system F-A-S-T. If it is another form of copy protection then we must stomp this out NOW! This means war, if true.

Warner Brothers should recall them all and start over. I'm serious. I hate these CAPS code dots and if I have to watch for this crap now too, I'm done with videos altogether.

Dan

 

[Ernest Rister]

Is it possible that the "301" was on the IP used to strike the film? As in theatrical copy protection to identify the print?

I haven't seen the code myself, nor do I want to go looking for it. I would be seeing the numbers from here on out.

 

[Simon Massey]

I have the PAL version and this also has the stamp on - 302 in my case. Very annoying now as I will see it every time I watch the film

 

[Ernest Rister]

Back to the movie -- I have a question, and hopefully some of you book fans can help me out.

Midway through the film, we are told that to cast a certain defensive spell, one must seize upon a happy and personal memory.

Spoilers from here on out:

So, at the end, Harry thinks he sees his father, bolstered by the sight of the Patronus charm taking the form of a stag -- the "totem" if you will of James Potter, this creates an immense and powerful happiness and joy in Harry. Now then, when Harry goes back in time, and casts the Patronus spell himself, in the book isn't it this deeply personal and powerful memory or thought of his father that enables him to cast the uber-powerful patronus spell in the first place?


Isn't that right?

If so, you see what I mean when I say the film plays sort of like "Greatest Hits from the Prisoner of Azkaban", because without that connecting tissue, we see the action, but not the context. This is both the emotional context and emotional climax of the book -- they even spend time in the movie explaining that to cast this certain charm requires a powerful happy memory. It was all set up, and then the payoff was curiously undermined by the exclusion of this information. This is primarily the reason that I don't share in the adulation of other people in their praise of this film, and why I think, in terms of storytelling, Columbus at least got the essence and the plot of Chamber of Secrets and Sorcerer's Stone on film, even if he doesn't have Cuaron's famous gifts for lush visuals and visual poetry. So, all three films are all about equal in my eyes. Each one has strenghts and weaknesses and I can't at this point rank one higher or lower than the other, even if one can easily rank one better or worse in terms of some other element --

Music: Sorcerer's Stone

Acting: Azkaban

Editing: Chamber of Secrets

Visual F/X: Azkaban by a large margin

Story: Sorcerer's Stone (origin stories are always compelling -- without a good origin story, you don't have a good sequel)

Writing: Chamber of Secrets/Sorcerer's Stone. No contest for me.

Direction: Frankly, it's a tie. Columbus operates in a neo-classicism mode of invisible "professional" direction that I can appreciate, Cuaron operates in a personal expressive mode that I can appreciate -- but he also fails to sink the hook in the climax. What's worse -- making your emotional beats too blatant, or excising them completely? Tie.

 

[Patrick H.]

I've been a lurker here for several months now, but this "301/2" issue finally motivated me to sign up and post. I agree with Dan above...the only reason I've begrudgingly ignored the theatrical anti-piracy "dots" is because I've just assured myself that the films I'm seeing will at least be clean when I purchase or rent them on disc. The idea that DVD transfers would be subject to an even MORE obtrusive form of coding is absolutely heinous to me. My theory is that the "301/302" might be region-related, as Simon mentioned above that his PAL version flashed "302." If the studio's merely trying to track what region a pirated transfer originated from, then this is an utterly pointless move that does nothing but punish those of us who legitimately purchased their product with a flawed transfer. Think about it, if the new release of 'Gone with the Wind' had little transparent numbers on it, there would be an explosion of outrage across the channels. 'Harry Potter' doesn't deserve any lesser treatment because "it's a kids' movie and nobody will care." Just plain ridiculous...

 

[Chris Farmer]

Can anyone tell me what Cuaron has against birds? Seriously, they have the survival rate of a red-shirted Enterprise crew member in this movie.

Oh, and Ernest, if I remember properly, at that moment the book does not make Harry's motivations and thoughts clear. It stays out of his head and merely reports his action, leaving us to guess as to what exactly is going through his mind at that point. A strength I would say, as this is a sequence where our own interpretations will be far more powerful then anything Rowling could have written.

As for the movie, I agree with Ernest that it's a tie. Visually and stylistically, Cuaron is head and shoulders above Columbus. He has a great talent for inventive camera use and capturing a scene just right. In addition, he did a great job ata catching the passage of time, something that simply happened in Columbus' two movies. However, the story get the serious short shrift. Ernest already touched on one major subplot that was dropped, and the final confrontation was seriously cut short. If I remember right that scene in the book took about 30 or 40 pages, and it was cut down to less then 5 minutes in the movie, to the point that Harry's motivations, especially, weren't clear at all. He hadn't been given enough reason to do what he did. In the book, when he finally acts, it's a major moment and a rather emotional one, both for him and others. In the movie, it simply happens without the necessary build-up to make the pay-off worthwhile. The beginning showed a similar weakness. In the book, Harry puts up with Marge for a week before he blows [her] up. The movie makes it all happen in one night.

Things like this go on and on. Sure, the style of this one was impeccable, but in the end, it's the story that counts, and PoA was seriously missing out on this aspect.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

If you think POA plays like a Greatest Hits version, think about Goblet of Fire, which has twice as much action and just as much backstory. I've been trying to figure out how they're going to keep that under 4 hours and can't see how they'll do it. And Order of the Phoenix is even worse.

 

[Simon Massey]

Re - Potter's father and the Patronus

I thought there was enough information in the film given to make the assumption that Harry's father was an Animagus and that the stag represented the animal he could turn into. (Or am I wrong here ?? )

I made the assumption based on the following :-

Harry said he saw his father and we saw the outline of a stag onscreen.
Hermione had explained in the film what an Animagus was in Snape's lesson
It was clear from the Shrieking Shack and Lupin's conversatins with Harry, that Lupin, Black and Harry's dad and Pettigrew were close friends previously. We knew all three of the others could change into an animal, voluntary or not. This was before the appearance of the stag so I didnt think it much of a leap to make that assumption.

I much prefer Prisoner of Azkaban over the previous films. Chris mentioned its the story that counts but what made this films so much better was the portrayal of the characters. Columbus, I felt, did not make you care about the characters at all, relying heavily on people's emotional investment in the book. What about those of us that hadn't read it ? Cut out a few of the classroom scenes in Philosopher's Stone (what does the "floating the feather" scene add to the film other than repeat info) and give us more scenes like the one in front of the mirror when Harry can see his parents. Get rid of the Quidditch match in Chamber of Secrets (or shorten it drastically like in POA - do we need another full match after SS?) and give me more scenes of Harry's isolation from the other students as they grow suspicious of him or Malfoy's relationship with his father or Hermione dealing with people's treatment of her as a "Mudblood"

Now take POA for example - the scenes with Lupin and Harry, Harry's ride on Buckbeak, Harry's distress after overhearing the conversation in the town, his conversation with Sirius plus the film contains only scenes relevant to the main plotline - and this for me makes it a much better film. I agree that the acting was also much better in POA and that was certainly a factor as well. But I had seen Radcliffe in David Copperfield prior to SS and he was much better in that than in SS.

 

[Patrick H.]

Yes, back to the movie itself, I agree you could piece the bits of info together and more or less figure out the significance of Harry's patronus spirit. However, the filmmakers could've made it a LOT clearer with probably about thirty seconds of footage. They just needed to have Lupin explain the Marauder's Map, that was it. In the final scene in his office, Harry should've asked him how he understood the workings of the map, and Lupin could've just winked and said he created it "with some old school friends." Harry looks at the inscription, zeros in on the 'Prongs,' and makes the connection. Bingo. Cue heartwarming John Williams music.

Well...perhaps a bit more explaintion would be needed, but something sly and economical like that.

As it was, I was dumbfounded by that penultimate scene when I first saw this theatrically...it seemed to end at exactly the point some final question needed to be asked. I thought this really hamstrung the plot, particularly from an emotional standpoint. I agree completely with what others have said previously: it could've easily been the best of the lot, but instead ends up just making par because of careless storytelling. In all other areas, though, I thought it was a step up from the previous two, particularly in matching the atmosphere and humor of the novels.

 

[Herb Kane]

Ernest, hope this helps… or even makes sense.

In order to create a patronus, Prof. Lupin teaches that one must think of an extremely happy memory. This is what helps to create the patronus.

You are correct in that Harry believes he sees his father across the lake and believes his father created the patronus to protect Harry and Sirius. However, when Harry and Hermione go back in time, Harry realizes that it is not his father, but rather himself he saw across the lake. At that point, Harry is able to produce the patronus because he knows that he produced it before. This is the same in both the movie and the book. No happy memory necessary this time.

The relationship between Harry’s patronus taking the form of a stag and that it was a stag that his father, James, turned into is not dealt with in the movie. However it would have been hard to do this since the whole issue of the three friends turning into animagi was never dealt with in the movie.

 

[Dave Poehlman]

I can't imagine why they would put copy protection on a DVD. I thought the whole premise for marring the film versions is to identify bootleg copies more easily.

Putting it on a DVD doesn't make any sense.. because a bootleg copy is going to have the same mark as the original... how will you tell them apart?

If it's a mark to tell what area a bootleg was made in, how much information can you get from a 3 digit number? Besides.. a DVD ordered from the internet could've come from anywhere.

It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Herb Kane]

Carlos and Dave... I just sent off an email to WB inquiring re: the number. As soon as I hear back I will post. I didn't notice it during my review, nor have I had a chance to re-watch it.

Herb.

 

[RogerH]

About the code issue. When I first heard about it I thought it was static through the scene but its a barely there atleast to me, I barely noticed it and thats when I was looking for it. I doubt I'd notice it when watching the movie normally (I haven't gotten around to watching it yet). btw number 301 here as well.

 

[Ernest Rister]

I'll have to track down the novel and re-read the ending -- it's been a few years -- but even in the movie, we see various characters as animagi, Hermione even gets points removed from her house for telling us what the difference is between an animagi and another...creature.

Still, the emotional kick of the book was the climax proving that essence of James lived on in Harry, to a degree he didn't know of. Anyone who has seen Sorcerer's Stone knows that the essence of Lily lies in a protection spell given to Harry, in Azkaban, we see that the father exists within Harry as well, and I thought that was the emotional punch of the book. It's so damned unfair to compare books and movies, so I'll stop this line of argument now -- and urge fence sitters to go and buy the DVD. Quibbles aside, it is a fine film, and I think I liked the DVD supplements a bit more than Herb did.

(although I hated the forced trailers on Disc 1 and the lame "interview" supplement on Disc 2 which is essentially the same interviews shown on "The Wonderful World of Disney" airing of Sorcerer's Stone last Spring, composited together to make it appear as if the interviewer was in the same room with the kids. I know such stuff is old hat in the film biz, with pro-forma answers being submitted to reporters who then film themselves asking the questions -- cut the two together and you get the illusion the reporter is asking and the stars are answering. On the Potter DVD, I think they composited in the "reporter" onto a set in a big chair in a split screen to make it appear he is asking the questions. These are the same exact promotional questions asked to the kids and stars last Spring on ABC, and the same exact answers.)

 

[Scott Wong]

I'm curious, too about the "301" stamping. It's... ummm... interesting, to say the least.

Also, despite the fact that Warner has now done as we all asked in regards to the packaging, I am disappointed that the third film does not match the packaging of the first and second films.

 

[JoSAN]

.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Hate to break the news to you JoSAN, but Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets have been re-issued in the same exact case as Azkaban. You just have to buy the complete set of three to get the films in the same exact packaging.