Why is "Prisoner of Azkaban" considered the best film of the Harry Potter series?

[whmchrish]

For the most part, I feel like the people who praise PoA are a minority.

Personally, I liked the original 2 by Chris Colombus for their loyalty to the source material. As films, they're all entertaining in their own way - but they all have their issues. Overall the best film is the 7th, because it didn't have to squeeze an entire book into its timeline - but I'd be hard pressed to call any of the films "great" on their own.

I'll say though, that while I am in no way well-versed in the world of litterature, I never found Rowling to be a poor writer as was mentioned by Jacco above. In fact, I was always a little impressed by how the showdown with Voldemort was ultimately handled - from a narrative standpoint. Particularely the callbacks to what we learned about Lilys sacrifice, Voldemorts use of Harrys blood in book 4, the horcruxes and the allegiance of the elder wand. I thought it all came together in quite an elegant way.

But back on topic; the movie-adaptaptation overall is "great" in its uniqueness and that they pulled it off over all those years with just the one hickup of recasting Dumbledore. I find the series entertaining, but PoA is - to me - the second-worst only beaten by OotP which ignored some pretty essential story-beats.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Truth be told, my favorite book and movie were the sixth ones. The sixth book had an air of mystery I liked before the storm of the last book (which I also really liked), and by the sixth movie I had managed to divorce myself enough from my impressions of the books to appreciate it on its own merits.

I don't think I've ever seen that opinion before.

(For me, the thing that really got to me was that it was shown in almost black and white, unlike all the others. The series was established, a big visual change like that is hard to get right)

Well...I have to admit, I like the books enough that picking a "favorite" is kinda meaningless. It's a toss-up between 6 and 7, and after my last reread, I've also come to appreciate book 5 a lot for sheer meta brilliance (though I think I should thank the internet for that).

I think I was used to the color change of the movies by that point, because I first noticed it in Prisoner of Azkaban. Everything suddenly started shifting blue, and I still partly blame Richard Harris' death for that. Half-Blood Prince's black-and-white actually felt more interesting.

CAPTCHA: "Do you stream video content on your gaming console?"
Answer: I don't own a gaming console.

It didn't accept my answer. Well, that's awfully fucking judgmental, captcha. How would you know I wasn't lying? >_>

 

[LobsterFeng]

I thought I was the only one that likes the 3rd the best. All my friends think I'm crazy for even liking th e 3rd movie because of how much it supposedly ruined the book.

 

[Something Amyss]

Though, they mostly got away with it. Harry Potter and LotR are amongst the few movies where they can indulgently show off their expensive sets or green screen background without it grating.

I'll take your word on Lord of the Rings. I found the books to be boring and tedious and found the landscape porn and green screen in the movies to only exacerbate things. Though I suspect that the cultural landscape does play into what people will tolerate, and I simply am not in love enough with Tolkien for this to resonate with me.

I also think there's a certain point where we're just cool with the novelty of seeing something on the big screen. Hell, even if a movie's bad, sometimes I'll walk away smiling because it caught "that moment" from the book on screen.

Okay, apparently they can teleport now. Why didn't we know about this before? (Portkeys)

In fairness, there's so much to introduce in a world like this, that it hardly seems surprising that not everything has been covered yet. I find the weirder one Order of the Phoenix, where apparently everyone learned magic combat from anime.

Actually, I find the worse offender in this movie to be veritaserum. A supposedly foolproof truth serum? Why are there any Death Eaters still free? Why does nobody, including Harry, suggest taking some to prove his claims about Voldemort? Why was Sirius Black ever imprisoned? Hell, why, two books/movies ago, when the Chamber of Secrets was opened and Hagrid was suspected, did they not subject him to it? Not even to prove his innocence, but to find out what the critter was (everyone being dumber than Hermione, period), where to find it, and how to handle it? Even if they didn't care about the lives of students (Which I'm convinced they don't), they were concerned that the school might be shut down. Oh, but noooooooo. Let's send the one guy we're sure would know to get his soul sucked out by rogue invisibility cloaks.

Oh, and Voldemort would have had a field day with this. Hell, even if Snape was a clever enough potion maker to find a way around it himself, this seems like the sort of thing you could expect Voldie to have him do. Except that didn't happen, because almost everyone who worked for him were liars and cowards.

Ooh, it's the Quidditch World Cup. Cool, I guess? Except it doesn't really have any real significance to the plot.

I usually don't go "in the book," but it's worth pointing out that in the book, there is more significance. With the exception of not showing any of the actual match, they basically edited out the most relevant points. And that's why I bring it up. Because it's so freaking dumb the way they did it.

On the other hand, it's one of the only points of fun and colour in the movie....

Another tournament? Oh great, now we have to watch Harry slog his way through this. And of course he wins, because he's Harry.

And melodrama, and weird, conflicting rules, and a rather silly premise, and holy hell, whoever thought this was a great trap for Harry should be fired. How did Voldemort not kill them on the spot for this?

"Let me see if I have this straight: in order to deliver Harry Potter to me, you want to enter him into a tournament he has no chance of winning on his own and make him win. Not only will we have to have someone on the inside to do this, but they will have to keep Harry alive, as this is a dangerous tournament even for wizards of age. Upon victory, you plan to snatch him from a highly spectated locale through a magic any competent school would protect against, and that's assuming he wins at all? And that same trap could be used to allow Harry a quick retreat, should be prove to be as lucky as he always is? Nagiiiiiniiiii, din-din!"

Wait, Voldemort is alive again now? How the hell does that work? None of this makes any sense.

Well, I guess it's okay because everyone was afraid he'd return....I got nothing. I mean, I know Horcruxes are explained (sort of) later on in the series, but this struck me as something that was out of sorts even in the books.

Of course, rule 1 is The Doctor Dumbledore always lies.

The most important points are: Voldemort's resurrection, the character of Mad-Eye Moody being introduced, and Cedric Diggory is killed.

Blame Voldemort. He orchestrated the whole plot. <.<

 

[NeutralDrow]

And melodrama, and weird, conflicting rules, and a rather silly premise, and holy hell, whoever thought this was a great trap for Harry should be fired. How did Voldemort not kill them on the spot for this?

Fairly sure it was actually Voldemort's idea, though I'll have to read that part again. It would be perfectly in character, since he didn't even need Harry for his ultimate plan, he just thought it would work better.

And it wasn't really a bad plan, as far as things go. After all, it was a way to nab the most highly-visible and well-protected student in the school when no one expected it, by exploiting a security vulnerability no one thought of, and still allow the mole to keep their cover. It just happened that Voldy let his ego get in the way of his pragmatism, and the mole got excited and made an out-of-character slip.

Wait, Voldemort is alive again now? How the hell does that work? None of this makes any sense.

Well, I guess it's okay because everyone was afraid he'd return....I got nothing. I mean, I know Horcruxes are explained (sort of) later on in the series, but this struck me as something that was out of sorts even in the books.

Which "Voldemort is alive again" is being objected to? He never died in the first place, because of the horcruxes, and the thing at the end of GoF was just a dark spell he either learned before or invented himself.

 

[Evonisia]

I'm going to guess that it's because Prisoner of Azkaban is the most self contained of all the books and all of the films. Most of the major plot points that happen are established within that story and conclude by the end, no need to dwell on previous stories or foreshadow future ones.

It's not my favourite because it's way too fast paced and it's motto is "Take the cool stuff from the book, put all of it in regardless of how much screen time it gets", but I still imagine the self contained plot is a big reason for the positive reaction.

PS (and yes, it is Philosopher's not Sorcerer's... *smug pout*) and CoS both do all the introductions and bring Voldermort in it for no reason. Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix and the Half-Blood Prince could all have been in one story. The Deathly Hallows is just a reference point for any moment or character J.K. Rowling thought deserved one more mention in the story.

Oh and PoA also started the drastic removal of staying faithful to the books which eventually lead to some mad things happening in the later films. Some were alright, some were bad (why the hell is the Elder Wand just forgotten about during the final battle?).

 

[Something Amyss]

It would be perfectly in character, since he didn't even need Harry for his ultimate plan, he just thought it would work better.

Iiiiii'm pretty sure he did need Harry, both in terms of his resurrection and in terms of the prophecy. What you say is technically true from the perspective that Rowling was making it up as she went along--something I thoroughly believe, considering the last book.

And it wasn't really a bad plan, as far as things go.

It was elaborate to the point of being almost a Rube Goldberg device. I'm a fan of simplicity. As Scotty would say, the more complicated the plumbing, the easier to stop up the drain.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

It's somewhat darker than the first two films and represents a pretty successful change in tone and style for a series that originally began more or less strictly as kiddie stuff. It could've come across as dissonant or pretentious but I think the movie pulls what it wants to do rather well.

 

[GodzillaGuy92]

Is that still the consensus? I thought most everyone had gotten the hint and switched camps to Deathly Hallows Part 2 by now (the critics certainly did).

At any rate, I do understand why people continue to feel that way, even when it's not quite true. Sorceror's Stone and Chamber of Secrets established a seemingly rigid, wholly predictable formula: Harry goes through some shenanigans getting to Hogwarts, bad things of some sort or another start happening around the school, the trio investigate over the course of the year, it turns out the bad guy is Voldemort trying to return, Harry beats him, happily ever after until they release another identical movie two years from now, and overall the movie had a few dark or scary moments but nothing too traumatic for kids.

Then comes Prisoner of Azkaban. "Think this is just a lighthearted kiddie fantasy series? Here's an earthly manifestation of clinical depression that hungers for your soul and looks like Death. Also have fun watching the most likable non-Dumbledore professor painfully transform into a werewolf before it chases our heroes through the woods at night. Did we mention Voldemort doesn't appear at all, and the person you thought was a villain the whole time was actually framed for mass murder by the guy everyone wrote off as an innocent victim, who also gets away at the end to wreak havoc on the remainder of the series while the innocent man remains on the run from the law?"

And from that point on, the series never slid back into pure formula again. A bit remained, namely that each book has Harry and friends return to Hogwarts and solve some mystery (until the last two movies break free of even those meager constraints), but otherwise each one stands out for reasons besides Sorceror's Stone introducing the series's many elements and Chamber of Secrets being more important in hindsight once Horcuxes, house-elves, and blood purity become significant later on. Goblet of Fire brings Voldemort back (both to this specific movie and to corporeal existence), shows that characters can and will be killed off permanently, solidifies the Nazi/KKK allegory of the antagonists, expands the scope of the wizarding world to include countries outside of Britain, and dives headlong into the characters' struggles with puberty. Order of the Phoenix really ramps up the stakes as far as character death is concerned, portrays Harry at his most flawed and vulnerable, and explores in painstaking detail how, as bad as ideological extremism can get, societal infrastructure's omnipresent terror of changes to the established order can get far nastier. The list goes on.

So it's not so much Prisoner of Azkaban itself, despite how great it genuinely is. It's what it signaled.

 

[NeutralDrow]

It would be perfectly in character, since he didn't even need Harry for his ultimate plan, he just thought it would work better.

Iiiiii'm pretty sure he did need Harry, both in terms of his resurrection and in terms of the prophecy. What you say is technically true from the perspective that Rowling was making it up as she went along--something I thoroughly believe, considering the last book.

All the spell required was "blood of an enemy," and Wormtail had actually advised him to use any other wizard who opposed him (there were plenty around, and their disappearances would be less suspicious). He wanted it to be Harry, because he figured that would get him around Harry's magical protection (i.e. being able to physically touch him without getting burned) and it would be good to get rid of Harry early in the game, but it wasn't an immutable requirement.

He didn't even need Harry in terms of the prophecy. As far as that went, Voldemort didn't even know what it said, beyond "the person who can beat the Dark Lord was born to such-and-such parents at the end of July." Only Voldy's own ego reversed that to say "I'm the only one allowed to kill Harry."

And it wasn't really a bad plan, as far as things go.

It was elaborate to the point of being almost a Rube Goldberg device. I'm a fan of simplicity. As Scotty would say, the more complicated the plumbing, the easier to stop up the drain.

It was elaborate because all the simple plans had far greater risks, both in terms of actually working and actually being secret. Voldemort mentions that they couldn't just grab him and try make a run for it, because he was always under protection (he's invisible at his family's house, in the middle of an insane security detail at the World Cup, and right under Dumbledore's nose at Hogwarts), and even if they succeeded they would likely be exposed, whether just to the Order of the Phoenix (as ultimately happened) or to the world as a whole. It's a lot easier to cover up your tracks and keep your spies in place when "Harry Potter mysteriously vanishes at end of dangerous tournament" than it is when "Harry Potter is kidnapped at school, breach of security."

It wasn't so much a case of complicating the plumbing as the plumbing coming out inherently complicated, due to the existing obstacles.

 

[Nazulu]

I never even bothered trying to figure out which is the best of the Harry Potter film series. None of them really were that great for me to care, but I did enjoy it up till 6 somewhat.

Also, if you're gonna look for the best, why do you just look for which was the most faithful to the book? Movies are very different, it needs to based of it's own merits. You know, the execution and acting and the rest. Frankly, I just go by which had the most moments worth a damn. I don't care if it doesn't make sense because it's bloody magic, unless it is very glaring.

I'll have to go through them again one day. I think I was most satisfied with 1 & 5 the first time round.

 

[The Harkinator]

Prisoner of Azkaban is often considered the best of the Harry Potter films (and indeed books) for a couple of reasons.

1. The characters finally begin to grow up, after two years in Hogwarts being kids, PoA shifts it's main trio into their teenage years where they have a whole new host of problems to deal with. Other books would expand further upon this but PoA lays the groundwork before our very eyes.
2. Shift in tone, after two kids adventures PoA provides a less common and darker story to work with. The Dementors are one of the main indicators of this, as is the main villain Sirius Black, a more complex and interesting character compared to Voldemort, who has just been the final boss of the previous two instalments. To have a character with such a connection to Harry (and introduce the main example of a father figure) meant things played out differently than we were used to.

Just focusing on the film, it took more risks than the comparatively safe Philosophers Stone and Chamber of Secrets, which followed the books closely and the change in directors worked for this important point in the Harry Potter series. It gave us something different and managed to pull it off fairly well.

 

[MetalShadowChaos]

Personally PoA stands out to me because of how excellently the Dementors were done. That and how generally good the characters were in general. It just stands out in general really.

 

[floppylobster]

It's the most complete as a film. The others are not as thematically connected, and are not as complete as individual works. The third one, while not only being shot well and with good pacing, actually makes sense as a film to an audience who is not familiar with Harry Potter or the Harry Potter universe. It could be better, but it's better than the rest to non-fans, and good enough for some fans to like it, making it the most popular and thereby considered 'the best'. Personally I can't really stand any of them, but I hated Azkaban the least. So for me too, it is the best.

 

[Thaluikhain]

On the other hand, it's one of the only points of fun and colour in the movie....

Actually, there was one part of Goblet of Fire that I neglected to mention, that I do think is the best part; the Hogwarts ballroom party that they have.

It's a nice change of pace from the rest of the film, and it's the only part of that film where we see some actual character development. (Hermione/Ron partner jealousy. And Luna Lovegood is such an awesome character, "I sleepwalk you see, that's why i wear shoes to bed.")

Luna was introduced in the next book/film, she wasn't in that one.

I'll take your word on Lord of the Rings. I found the books to be boring and tedious and found the landscape porn and green screen in the movies to only exacerbate things. Though I suspect that the cultural landscape does play into what people will tolerate, and I simply am not in love enough with Tolkien for this to resonate with me.

Not fussed on Tolkien as such, maybe it's just that I like New Zealand.

Another tournament? Oh great, now we have to watch Harry slog his way through this. And of course he wins, because he's Harry.

Well, yes. People are fudging it so that Harry wins, he's not winning because he's good.

 

[William Fleming]

Strange... Everyone I know seems to think that the Prisoner of Azkaban is the worst of the film series. I enjoyed it sure, everyone I know say that their favourite is Chamber of Secrets. Though any of the the movies are a million times better than the Order of the Phoenix movie (I never bothered with the movies after that point).


note: I have never read the books and the people who hate the Prisoner of Azkaban movie have read the books, so maybe that might have something to do with it.

 

[Kingjackl]

I find it hard to quantify the Harry Potter films. I enjoy them as a series, same as the books, but I can't really point to a particular one and say 'that was my most/least favourite'. I thought Half Blood Prince was a bit meh, but it was still serviceable.

I think Prisoner of Azkaban was where the series took off. After two fairly light-hearted kids adventures that were still experimenting with the concept, Prisoner of Azkaban had the kids starting to grow up, the story became darker and more complex and it established the background and set the stage for the big shift in Goblet of Fire. Plus it was a well-directed, well-acted film that set the tone for the rest of the series. Yeah, it wasn't as faithful to the books as the first two, but does that really matter? If you want a pitch-perfect recreation of the books, just read the books! I did, they're very good. But, if you want an adaptation that also makes for a good film in it's own right, you can do a lot worse than Prisoner of Azkaban.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I don?t know why either; I always thought it was very average. In fact, all the Harry Potter films are, with the only ones that I believe to be truly appalling the fourth and fifth (the former appeared very choppily abridged; the latter was based on a large yet mostly boring book, plus I still can?t forgive the omitting of Harry & George?s punch-up with Malfoy).

My favourite Harry Potter films are actually the first two now due to their faithfulness to the spirit of the source material and the best Dumbledore, while my favourite book is The Half-Blood Prince due to actually giving Malfoy a character beyond ?I exist solely to be a pompous dick to Harry?, and delving into Voldemort?s backstory.

I haven?t seen the last film yet, though. To be honest, I?ve forgotten most of the films past the fourth one.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

Prisoner of Azkaban is both my favorite book and film, with Order of the Phoenix being the opposite. Everything just... worked. It took a much darker tone with the Dementors and the fugitive on the run. Remus Lupin was fucking awesome, and it was the first movie I noticed that I had a monster crush on Emma Watson.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The thing about Harry Potter is that it just isn't that good. (That's not to say that you can't like it or enjoy it, put down your pitchforks.) Rowling, bless her heart, isn't a particularly talented writer, either in prose or storytelling. And she definitely doesn't translate particularly well to cinema.

See, I actually agree with a lot of this, most particularly that the merits of the books do not all translate well to cinema, and the books sort of leave their souls on the cutting room floor. I think you're being a LITTLE unfair, though. You are correct...Rowling is no master of prose, and her storytelling is a bit A-B-C. But the books didn't become phenoms by accident, they have a definite populist appeal. The characters are affable, the world is whimsical, and the writing is incredibly breezy, digestible prose. That last alone is, in and of itself, a laudable talent.

I might even go so far as to say she's an excellent writer who delivered excellent books, just not "excellent" in the same way I might call Patrick Rothfuss excellent, or Rohinton Mistry excellent.