dont like harry pot

Possiblement la més fluixa de totes

It's Harry Potter. Nuff said.

HArry Potter!!!!

I'm sort of bothered by these films. This review is about to go entirely off topic. You've been warned :P
Why must everything for children become a movie, anyhow? Not that I've ever read these particular books, but seeing a director and/or cinematographer and/or casting director's interpretation of something that you've read as a child kinda destroys the "magic" a little, in my opinion. Imagination is important to foster, and books usually help.

The Harry Potter books and movies are number one for me and there awesome!

I love all the Harry Potter movies!!! This is my favorite kind of Fantasy movie!

So far I have avoided the charm of Harry Potter.

It is good, but the book is better.

I do not Like HP!!!!!!

A 3.5 this was an okay adaptation of the book.   In this movie you see Tom Mavalro Riddle a.k.a. Lord Voldemort.  I think that they portrayed Dobby well from the books.  There were scenes from the book that they didn't put in the movie like Nearly headless Nicks deathday party.

Pretty good but far from thrilling. I'm one of those mean people who says Harry Potter films are for nerds. Sorry, but I think these movies are pretty geeky.

I just don't understand why this is so popular. Oh yeah, and the people in the movie theater, wedgie city dudes, wedgie city!

It's Harry Potter...It's got to be good!

I liked this movie. It was better than the first one, and the acting was even better.

This is a great film!

The best bit was Tom Marvolo Riddle.

Better than the first movie. I can say as a non Harry Potter fan that I enjoyed watching it. It was a long movie, but it did not feel that bad compared to the first one.

Some how they managed to make a more uninteresting movie than the first, amazing! How anyone could enjoy this bothers the hell out of me, nothing personal though, to each his own, but I really hate Harry Pothead because the movie felt like a bad acid trip. And to Piper Norman: Yes, yes he is.

All Harry Potter movies and books are O.K but they ain't great.

it was good but it left to much stuff out from tha book

Grow up!

Read the book first.

I didn't like this film as much as the first. It got a bit boring and couldn't hold my attention like the first movie did. A well-made film though.

Harry is back, this time older. Still great, but have to take away a star because Dobby gets a little annoying.

As if the first one wasn't bad enough. The only redeeming feature here was Branagh's performance, although even that isn't enough to award another star.

The books are much better. Daniel Radciffe is a little old to play Harry now.

Whilst better than Philosopher's Stone, this film has too many downfalls to be classified as a 'great' or even 'good' film. Chris Columbus's direction is unsatisfying and the script takes away JK Rowlings smart dialouge and characterisation from the book and leaves us with shallow characters unable to be liked. Harry is an annoying hero, and Hermione is an up- herself know-it-all. The only characters who shine are Kenneth Brannagh's portrayal as Lockhart and Rupert Grint's Ron. As a big fan of the books, this film leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Hopefully a change of director will give Prisoner of Azkaban the magical element of the books that have been lacking in the previous two films.

its Harry Potter so it has to get a least 4 stars. but this film was a little better than the first and some of the acting especially maggie smith was very good. also it had some good special effects. overall good but they could have done a better job with such a great storyline.

This movie is awesome. I think the movie was a star below the first one however, mostly because of that annoying house elf..ugh. But overall, this movie is entertaining from beginning to end, and I could watch it many more times without getting bored with it. Really cute. Can't wait until the next one. :) ~~~Kolby

Pretty good sequel, but I liked the first a little better. Harry Potter is played by the same person from the first movie. This had some good effects, but it was a little too long. I missed it at theaters so I rented it. If you rent it, try not to fall asleep.

Another great Harry Potter movie.

This movie is one of the best movies that I have seen. I like this one better, because I think I've seen the first one a little too many times. I think the acting did get better.

This movie was okay, but should be further down on the list.

No matter what others might say...this film is good. The story is excellent,(as many harry potter fans will tell you!) and the directing has made the magical side of it stand out in a fantasical quality. For all the fans out there i do agree that it is a great movie. The director has done a great job bringing the books to life so far and i think that this film was better than the last one. Having read the books there are a few differences in from the orginal story, but how can you expect a movie from such an imaginitive book to be exactly the same as the written version? This film following from the perviuos is one of those rareties...a sequel that is actualy as good (and better) than the first one...i look forward to the next movie and advise everyone to try and see this film.It was one of the must sees for the past year and now that its on DVD its even better!

harry potter is not a nerd

The movie like the books was surprisingly good.

Horrible, thats all i have to say.

Even better than the first film and I loved that one! The pace is faster and the story is a little darker. All the exposition from the first film is largely out of the way, so they can really concentrate on telling an exciting story. There are some really funny moments to the film...personally I think that Rupert Grint who plays Ron is brilliant! In the one scene where he and Harry follow a trail of spiders through the forbidden forest, he kept whimpering and tugging on Harry's arm, his voice cracking at really humourous moments. Kenneth Brannagh was also very funny as Professor Lockheart, the self obsessed, and icompetent new teacher at Hogwarts. The effects were also well developed...Quiddich looked even more exciting than the first film and the CGI character Dooby was a joy to watch

I felt that is a great movie, it didn't fit everything from the book into the story line but it captured the important aspects.

Best. Movie. Ever. This ran circles around the first. Before I saw it, my favorite movie was The Nightmare Before Christmas. I haven't read any of the books, though. The best part was with the snake and the bird.

I liked this movie. When I went in, I thought I was going to see a boring dull kids movie. I found out that this movie is good for people of all ages. Go see it.

Despite good special effects, and a fine performance by Maggie Smith, the film contained far too many characters and subplots. It was 1 hour way too long, and the ending was totally forced and had little or no meaning to it other than to scare little children. Daniel Radcliffe shows no emotion to his character, and makes Harry Potter out to be a complete nerd.

The book actually was a lot better. In the movie the´ve let out too much. So I must say that the first film was better. But I don´t hope that movie three will be as bad as the second. I this one they could have put in more information out of the book. It really disappointed me in many ways. Yet again they could have put more effort into the quidditch games. I don´t like having to say, that it is quite a shame. Sorry bout that.

Not as good as the first but still good. A little too long

I don't like fantasy...many people may disagree.

I have to admit that when I saw the first Harry Potter I was not impressed. I had no intentions of seeing the second release, but was dragged to see it with a friend. To my surprise this time around the film was quite good. I found comedy in the character of Dobi, but am dissappointed to learn he won't be in any of the new Harry Potter movies.

Not bad for the sophmore outing.

A good movie, but not as good as it was expected to be. The actors are not remarkable, and the story begins to loose entertainmet. I liked the book best than the movie.

A very good film, but not as good as the first Potter film. The acting and production values are all first-rate, and the plot was interesting, but the film should have been about 15 to 20 minutes shorter. Had I not read the book beforehand, it probably would have held my attention better. It was a little strange watching the film, knowing that Richard Harris had already passed away from cancer just a few weeks before. All in all, I would recommend this one, especially to Potter fans, but anyone with young kids may be in for a challenge, because they are bound to get restless before this one is over.