hints, allegations and things left unsaid...: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: Yet another spoiler

hints, allegations and things left unsaid...

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: Yet another spoiler

Very soon hundreds of spoilers chronicling the third Harry Potter movie will spring up throughout the blogging world (I’ll be surprised if that is not the case already), I’ll attempt to be one of them. My outing to the movie on the Friday night was a sudden (if not unexpected) one. A colleague managed the tickets just in time, though we reached the theatre a little late, thanks to the lousy service at Veritas Platter where we had our light dinner. Now on to the spoiler:

The movie is certainly well made. Thanks to the multitude of things that happen in the third book, the movie is fast-paced and will keep you at the edge of your seat. However, the movie does not entirely stick to the sequence of events in the book. Entire chapters have been done away with (no transfiguration classes, no Quidditch tournament, no flash-backs to Hogwarts days of Lupin, Sirius, Pettygrew and John; to enlist a few). Entire characters have gone missing (or their roles significantly pruned – Lavender and Parvati are visible only in background, other teachers, especially McGonagall are visible only for modicum of seconds). There are minor omissions, shuffles in the order of events that take place during climax. Harry’s Patronus does not quite behave as it is supposed to have in the book. And personally, I found Lupin miscast, the onscreen avatar lacks conviction and steely inner strength of the Lupin in the book. Should all of this keep you from the movie? Definitely not! The cinematography is breath taking, the editing snappy and special effects mind blowing (Bugbeak the Hippogriff is extremely well done). Unquestionably worth a watch even if you are not a veritable Harry Potter fan.

If you haven’t read the book; free from botherations of faithfulness to the original storyline, you’ll enjoy the movie a little more – though you might get a little befuddled by the fast turn of events during the last few minutes of the movie (don’t leave for popcorn and drinks during intermission, you cannot afford to miss a single frame!). As for my personal opinion (the very reasons why this blog exists), the book was better (which is funny coming from someone who thought that bibliophiles considered it fashionable to repudiate works of cinema derived from books, of course, I am now wiser, having experienced the phenomena first hand). I am in fact concerned about the fate of fourth book – there is so much that happens in Goblet of Fire that attempting to squeeze all of it into a two hour twenty_first_century_attention_span will be grave injustice to the fascinating parable.

posted: 6.6.04

6 Comments

Deepak, isnt that always the case?? I think books are always better than the releated movie as your mind is always more creative..:-)

Anand
http://www.dotnetindia.com

By

Anonymous, at 7.6.04

I think LOTR series is the one which was downloaded 90% out of books to silver screen successfully.

By

Sudhakar, at 7.6.04

I couldnt get Anand to accompany me to LOTR:ROTK...that movie was almost better than the book

[Sriram]

By

Anonymous, at 7.6.04

hey thanks for that spoiler

Have heard about the Hippogrif on all the reviews...hope the DVD comes out soon

Even I wonder what will become of GoF...maybe they'll break it up into GoF I & II?

What I really want to know is , is the actor playing Sirius really doing justice to Sirius Black??

By

Gautam Ghosh, at 10.6.04

Thanks Gautam, it doesn't happen often that one gets thanked for a spoiler :-)

As for Sirius, the character displays serious conviction - full marks!

Anything less than 4 hours for GoF will be a disappointemnt!

By

Deepak, at 10.6.04

I am a bibliophile who repudiates works of cinema derived from books. I think it is NOT possible to compress all the little nuances present in the books within two hours and at the same time keep it interesting.

By

Vivek, at 14.6.04