Soccer Dad

Prisoner of Azkaban

I see that Peninah has beaten me to the punch and posted her impressions of "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. She (and I guess Greg) like it. I beg to differ. Since there are spoilers, see the extended entry.

I have to admit, I'm no fan of Chris Columbus the director of the first two HP movies. However, I preferred both to the "Prisoner of Azkaban." (Which, BTW, is my favorite HP book.)
Peninah, and critics generally, give the first two movies low marks for adhering too closely to the books. That, in fact, is exactly what I liked most about them. In fact I loved "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" precisely because because the movie was so close to how I imagined the book. Perhaps I lack a good imagination, but I thought that the fealty to the book was a good thing.
(Part of the first movie's appeal, I suppose, is personal. My 13 year old daughter can do a spot-on re-creation of Hermione meeting Harry and Ron on the Hogwarts Express. My five year old does a great "I want a nice, clean game ... from all of you." Of course the fact that the dialogue hewed so close to the dialogue from the book - maybe it didn't differ at all - preserved one of JK Rowling's strengths.)
To be sure, HPATPOA flows more smoothly than its two predecessors. But there are some inconsistencies that are jarring. For one, Michael Gabon's Dumbledore doesn't possess the same absent minded charm of Richard Harris's characterization. (The one exception was when he aggravated Ron's injured leg in the hospital ward.) That couldn't be helped of course.
Other things could certainly be helped. The characterization of Malfoy was off in the third movie. Instead of an aura of menace he (and Crabbe and Goyle) came off mostly as a cartoon bully. The slimy Malfoy who introduced himself in HPATSS about teaching Harry to stay away from the "wrong sort" has degnerated into a bully who high-tails it when a girl punches him in the face. (That's not to say that Malfoy isn't a bully and coward. He's both. But the menace is gone.)
In HPATOTP, much is made of the fact that Harry's Patronus could dispel two dementors. But in this movie Harry dispels a whole army of dementors. Consistency demands that Harry's power not be exagerrated for dramatic effect. But that's exactly what happened here.
One reviewer I read liked HPATPOA but he lamented the lack of robes on the students. Though I wasn't as pleased by the movie as he was, I have to agree with his assessment. Some of the otherworldliness of Hogwarts was gone. And that wasn't a good thing. (In part, this also undermined Malfoy's menace. Without the robe and the slicked back hair Malfoy seemed too much a run of the mill bully, rather than an otherworldly one.)
Finally, the one other thing that bugged me was the lack of the backstory for the Marauder's map. The names, "Prongs" and "Padfoot" etc were there, but the story behind those names was never discussed. Why is it important? There is a Harry Potter universe, or mythos. Those elements that made Harry what he is are important to that mythos. How long would it have taken to explain that the names came from the forms James Potter and his friends would adopt? This was something that would have added a lot to our appreciation of James Potter but it was ignored.
I look forward to seeing HPATPOA again when it comes out on video. I think I will like it. But I still didn't like it as much as HPATSS. I don't think I ever will.