| Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2 Disc Edition) [2004] | ![Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2 Disc Edition) [2004]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MR0YBCTAL._SL160_.jpg)
 enlarge | Director: Alfonso Cuaron
Actors: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Richard Griffiths, Pam Ferris
Studio: Warner Home Video
Category: DVD
List Price: £24.99
Buy Used: £2.30
You Save: £22.69 (91%)
New (19) from £3.98
Avg. Customer Rating:  119 reviews
Sales Rank: 3471
Format: Anamorphic, Pal, Widescreen
Languages: Arabic (Subtitled), English (Subtitled), English (Original Language)
Rating: Parental Guidance
Running Time: 136 minutes
Number Of Items: 2
Discs: 2
Aspect Ratio: 2.40:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4
Dimensions (in): 7.4 x 5.4 x 0.6
EAN: 7321900284455
ASIN: B0002VB24K
Theatrical Release Date: June 4, 2004
Release Date: November 19, 2004
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
Condition: Very Good - Disc is in excellent condition. You are ordering from a well established company
|
| Customer Reviews:
 directing poor, acting inconsistent and plastically special effects June 19, 2007
3 out of 8 found this review helpful
I had heard lots about the dark scary world of Cuaron and the scary special effects, but looked in vain for them in the film. The werewolf is totally embarrassing- toe-curling to the point of dislocation-, the Dementors are laughable and poor Sirius is going to have to work pretty hard to metamorphosise into Harry's mentor of book 4. Rupert Grint still has only one facial expression (registering terror). As for Michael Gabon's twee and whimsical wizard- this was the only wizard Lord Voldemort ever feared? How come? Was he a film critic?
I am not a great stickler for following the books, but it would be nice if the director had maintained a storyline that could be understood without constantly referring to the book on my lap. I quite liked the talking head- I only wish it had eaten the werewolf!
The great actors are still great of course, watching Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane can never be regarded as a waste of time. As for Alan Rickman, he is a great actor, but my personal feeling is that he is miscast as Snape. He has too much authority, too much presence, too much maturity (precisely the qualities one would like to see in Dumbledore), which makes it hard for him to portray the immature, insecure and still fairly young man who was at school with Harry's parents. Someone professor MCGonagall and Hagrid knew when he was a spotty 13-year-old- no, that isn't really possible. And yet it is fairly crucial to understanding who Snape is.
 The best ever from J K Rowling March 19, 2007
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
I think this film is one of the best of the J K Rowlings adventures of Harry Potter's and his friends from Hogwarts,this follows Harry and friends finding out that Scabbers the rat was in fact Peter Petticue.
It is filled with adventure,scary bits,and funny bits,it is great for children and adults alike.
Getting better March 6, 2007
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
It goes without saying that the books are better than the films, but the first 2 films seemed a bit naff sometimes.
Chris Columbus seemed to end up giving us a a couple of bubble-gum pop nicey nicey films that stuck in the throat rather than warmed the heart.
I feel that Alfonso Cuaron has done a much better job of directing Harry Potter. This has a much more "fantasy feel" to it. The outdoor scenes are no less breath-taking, but they feel more dark and unreal. There's less of a kiddy feel to this. It's as though the film franchise has matured and grown up a bit.
The acting from Daniel Radcliffe is less wooden now, he's still not the best actor, but he is improving. Rupert Grint is still spot on though!
The werewolf was a great werewolf, a good blend of dog and man!
Harry Potter has always had a great adult cast, and in this film I felt I could enjoy their performances more than before as the acting of the younger actors felt less awkward.
 Dissapointed February 3, 2007
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
This film was very dissapointing, the first time i watched it i only caught the second half and at that point though "hmm its not bad" i have since watched it all the way through and i still stand by what i said about the second half. However the beginning looks more like a student film and the entire story was rushed through. The films redeeming quality is its cast, a stunning replacement for Richard Harris and another outstanding performance from Alan Rickman (but who would have expected less?)
Its definately not the best Hp out there but if you can sit through the appuling first half it does get better.
A real surprise! November 2, 2006
1 out of 4 found this review helpful
I don't like Harry Potter - movies, books, lunchpails... you name it. I mean, I'm a guy. I like beer, sports, action movies with sex, violence and car chases... So, well, er... it's kinda difficult admitting I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and have awarded it 4 stars! But it deserves it.
I only agreed to watch it because my partner wanted to. Despite her age, she loves the books, so the movies were a must-see. The books are way too childish for me. As were the first movies. But with this one, the franchise seems to have come of age. It's much darker, the atmosphere, the themes, the plot. The actors are more accomplished - I no longer yearn to slap that Hermione, as I did in her earlier incarnations, but can now watch her in relative comfort. The whole movie seems so much grander in scale.
So for any 'real men' out there who don't want to suffer the stimga of watching Harry Potter, I say, swallow your pride, sit down, shut up, and prepare to be as surprised as I was. This really is a good flick. So much so, I'm almost, that's 'almost', looking forward to the next installment.
Give it a go, it might just surprise you!
|
|
|
