Its not my favorte potter movie but its the second funniest one to the half blood prince

I feel nerdy, being one of the oldest people I know who still love Harry Potter, but I have to say "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is my favorite of the Harry Potter movies so far. Sirius Black was my favorite Harry Potter character, and the movie made his character incredibly real for me.

I am a big, big fan of Harry Potter, all his books and movies. My whole family love him. JK Rowling is such a genius and talented author. The world of Harry Potter is like none other in the fantasy world. The books are gripping and the movies, are interesting. Now waiting for 'Harry Potter and the Half Blood Price' movie to hit the cinemas.

This was a pretty good movie, there were scenes that I wished the kept from the book and things that they would have shown a little better.  I think though that they should have done a little more explaining of things, they should have shown how Harry's firebolt got taken away because they had to test it before he could use it.  Not the best Harry Potter movie.

Can u ppl get any more nerdy....you nerds sit at home watching one of the most pathetic movies ever recorded. i feel like going to each of your houses and slapping you to make you come back to reality. but im scared if i do go to your house you losers will do a spell on me.

I love the Harry Potter movies and books they are both great!

I have to agree with Moose. After rereading the books, this director took things in a whole different direction that lost the flow of the books. He also talked the studio into making Goblet of Fire into one movie instead of two. I'm a bit worried about how that one will get hacked.

this the best film of the harry potter series yet because emma is older and looks better and there is more action.

This was the best Harry Potter movie so far. I am actually thinking to buy this on DVD. I enjoyed it a lot. Much more action and they are growing up.

The worst Harry Potter film yet. They skipped way too much of the book leaving loads if flaws. I also didn't like how this director changed Hogwarts so much. It looked nothing like the first two. I'm hope Globet of Fire will be a HUGE improvement!

SPOILERS AHEAD!! (Sigh)...what the hell happened to this movie? How did JK Rowling let this kind of thing happen? How does a book that's about 100 pages thicker than it's predicessor get translated into a movie that's almost a half-hour shorter than it's prequal? PoA is THE best Potter book, and the worst movie adaptation. I went with a friend who hasn't read the books and at the end of the movie, she was asking why certain things happened. Ya wanna know why? Because there were so many little things left out in the movie. Maybe if the director added that necessary 30 minutes more, things could have been different. Yeah, why DID Harry's ultimate patronus take the form of a stag when all his other ones were mere shields? And how could they end the movie with Harry getting the firebolt and freeze-framing his dippy smile with oooooh...motion blur? One of the coolest things about book 3 was the mystery of where the firebolt came from and then finding out at the end (like we didn't all figure it out before then - we just wanted to hear it) that Sirius gave it to him for 13 years worth of birthday presents from a godfather who couldn't be there. You can't leave stuff like that out! That's the kind of stuff that made the book great! And if you're going to make a point that Harry can't go to Hogsmeade without a written permission slip, why not give that dilema some closure and include the scene on the train home when he gets a signed permission slip from Sirius (along with the letter about the firebolt)? Also, Ron's without a pet! Guess the director didn't want to include that tidbit of closure and left it for the next director to explain why Ron will have an owl in the next flick. Overall, it's an OK movie, but why change Hogwarts around? Why move the Whomping Willow? Why move Hagrid's hut? And why make Malfoy a whimpering pansy? All he did was run away the entire film. The whole movie felt rushed and not well-developed. At least Michael Gambon made a good Dumbledore. Looking forward to seeing him in the upcoming films. The visuals were well done as well - except some scenes where you could tell that Hagrid was definitely filmed seperately. Finally, after reading the 3rd book, I looked forward to Chris Columbus's take on it, but then found out that a different director was doing it. I thought, this can't be good...and I was right.

Pretty good movie I read the book but even though they left out the back story about prof. lupin and snape making his potions I thought it was good. Think about it if they put the whole story from the book into the movie, the movie would have been like 5 hours. long. Above all it was a great movie.

I liked it (I haven't seen any of the others, though, so I have nothing to compare it to) but I thought the end was pretty predictable. And I haven't read the books since right after they came out, so I didn't remember the plot at all. I could figure out what was going to happen, though. Still, it was pretty good.

While people who love Chris Columbus will be hugely disapointed, while I prefer the CC era, I loved this movie.

Worst Harry Potter movie of all time. It had a teible ending as well. This movie just sucked, although I think that the third book wasn't all to good either.

(Rating is based on the movie as it is--I haven't read the book, and I don't really know how close to the book it is, but it doesn't matter). The other Harry Potter movies were pretty entertaining, and this installment was no disappointment. Excellent story and great effects to compliment the movie. If you haven't read the books, this is a pretty good mystery. Worth watching.

Great movie!!! I love Harry Potter movies. It dragged on a little bit, but other than that, the FX were great and the ending was surprising.

a great movie a good movie to follow the second. In the end of the movie they found out that sirus Black is innocent and the real bad person who killed all those people was rons rat. Now if you want to go see the movie you dont have to because i just gave away the ending.

My entire family enjoyed the film immensely. I put it above Chamber of Secrets (4.5) and the first Harry Potter flick (I rated it a 4). GO SEE IT ASAP. I have a different perspective on the Harry Potter movies. I have never read a syllable of any of J. K. Rowlings fine books, so everything I know about Potter is from the movies. I found the first Harry Potter a bit slow at the onset as they had to develop the story for all us muggles. With each subsequent Potter, we are now all familiar with the characters and enjoy a tightly-wove story. Prisoner of Azkaban was darker than the previous, albeit more compelling to adult viewers. There are some parts that might be a bit too intense to the wee ones. While I note some complaints from RIA Reviewers, speaking for the non-Potter readers, we really don't care if the movie doesn't expound on the significance of, let's say, why Harry Potter wipes his nose with his right sleeve instead of his left sleeve even though Dame Rowling might spend 10 pages on it. We saw Peter Jackson try to cram every minutae in LOTR Return of the King and I felt that it bogged down the movie. Things to check out in this movie: 1) Gary Oldman's stellar performance as the Prisoner; 2) The special effects are truly awesome; 3) The girl that plays Hermoine Granger keeps getting cuter and cuter. She's one tarty little witch. Her little witchy butt in tight jeans is displayed quite often.

I'm pretty much in agreement with the other reviews so far. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it for what it was, but they did skip way too much of the original story. The effects and cinematography were very good, but the film lacked heart. The first two had a feel to it that made you believe they were made by people who were really passionate about the material, but this one has more of an assembly line feel to it. My main disappointment, though, was how much story they had to cut out to reach an agreeable running time. I'm hoping that when the dvd is released, it will be a special edition containing much more of the original story.

CAUTION: My review may contain spoilers. I think this movie left out too many important details. If the people seeing it had never read the books, they would probably have a hard time understanding what was going on. I was very disappointed. Nothing was said about Lupin, Pettigrew, Sirius, and James being the Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs that created he Marauder's Map. We didn't see enough of Hogsmeade except for a glimpse of Honeydukes and the Three Broomsticks (and the Shrieking Shack at the end). We never get to see Zonko's or the Magical Menagerie. Lots of little details were completely unmentioned, like the pocket sneakoscope, Harry getting the Firebolt as a gift from his godfather, (he just gets it without explaination at the end of the movie), Crookshanks' ability to enter the whomping willow and why, Draco's fake dementor at the Gryffindor vs Ravenclaw quidditch match and how Harry dealt with it, why Snape held such a grudge against Harry, I could go on and on. The movie just skipped quickly through the story leaving out way too much. I vote not to make anymore Harry Potter books into movies because in order to do it right, Goblet of Fire would have to be at least four hours long with an intermission and perhaps get a PG-13 rating for violence. True fans wouldn't mind, at least I wouldn't. My kids liked H.P. and the Prisoner of Azkaban though and I guess most kids will. The special effects are good. The real story however is still in the pages of the books and in my vivid imagination.