harry potter movies and the prisoner of azkaban

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) | © Warner Bros Tonally it doesn’t belong in the franchise at all, and if you take it out of any viewing marathon you would be hard pressed to notice any real loss in the narrative of the central characters. There’s much to admire in Prisoner of Azkaban, and it’s not actually a bad film, but it’s a dreadful Harry Potter film.

You Might Also Like: Daniel Radcliffe On ‘Imperium’, ‘Swiss Army Man’ And More Perhaps that high rating was from critics who were just relieved they wouldn’t have to see any more films in the series? Critics on reviews aggregator site Rottentomatoes have Alfonso Cuarón’s movie on 91%, second only to the eighth and final release Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011). The film currently sits at 7.8 on IMDBb’s rating system, which is a high for the series.Īnd it’s not just the fans that have been hoodwinked. The sequel to the underwhelmingly frothy Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002), which itself followed the lightweight Philosopher’s Stone (2001), Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) is the third film adapted from JK Rowling’s bestselling books. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) is a dull, pretentious and entirely unnecessary entry in the series.

It boasts a celebrated director, a darker tone and arguably better performances from the three young leads… but the fans are dead wrong. Conventional Potter wisdom has it that the third film in the wizarding franchise is the best.

Harry potter movies and the prisoner of azkaban