Quote
Originally posted by: jimbo
As a movie to book adaptation Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is by far the worst of the three.
I agree. But then again, I gave up on having books accurately translated to film years ago. It's been three or four years since I read this book and I'm glad I didn't reread it. I loved the movie. Obviously stuff has to be left out and Cuaron reasoned that he did it because he wanted to focus on one theme and leave the rest out. Rowling agreed. Although she did veto a couple of Cuaron's proposed changes. If you think this translation is bad, wait until HP4 or HP5. Those will be horrible.
I think Cuaron did a fantastic job. I'm trying to think of this as a bit of a stand alone movie and that makes it easier to digest just how radically different everything was in this as opposed to the first two movies. I hated how "rich" and "beautiful" everything was in the first two films. It wasn't what I think of when I imagined Hogwarts while reading the books. This is a castle for chrissakes. It's grey, stone, uninviting, cold. That's how castles are. They are fortresses. They were meant to be a source of defense against opposing armies (or, in this case, wizards, dragons, et al). They are not "pretty". Besides, with as clean a look as Columbus gave the movie, the CGI stood out like a sore thumb. Pitiful effects. Here, the Quidditch match was spectacular. Harry flying on the Hippogriff was just an amazing scene. You get my drift.
Easily the best of the bunch and I am not looking forward to Newell's interpretation in HP4.