And this comment is part of what puzzles me. Whether or not his style is "better" that Columbus' is irrelevant. I am looking at the film on its own merits, and finding it lacking in a few very important areas. Was it good? Yes. Maybe even very good. But, was it the masterwork that some are claiming here? Not even close.

Lets suppose that someone offers you a nickel (Columbus), and then someone else offers you a dime (Cuaron). Sure, the dime is better than the nickel, but is it a million dollars? Nope.

I would have to agree with this statement ... simply because of the fact that these transitions scream to be noticed and don't blend into the flow of the film, for the most part (though they work for Harry passing out).

I thought it was great cinema. I liked Chris Columbus' take, but the new version was wonderous.

And did I just read five pages of argument about the placement of a tree?

... don't forget the placement of a hut, too.

No, it was five pages of arguments about the change in the placement of a tree. Big difference.

I thought they were pretty well done. The scene transitions were fantastic when the fade wasn't being used, but when they were used it was like watching Auntie Mame again, where all the scenes blacked out after lingering on a face for a few moments.

I didn't find it distracting at all.

It's in the first few pages of PoA. I just checked right now. I'm not sure if it's GoF also, since I don't have my book with me.

exactly. I thought they fit well when the characters were fading out. But the rest of the time it was just screaming out Moulin rouge-ish old time camera film. this "style" didn't work well with me.

While I loved the film, I still had my bones to pick with it. Also, no one seems to have mentioned much about the way he decided to end it with the god awful freeze frame. blah. I dislike freeze frames. I especially dislike it when they freeze frame and use the fade to black in a circle motion effect. I was hoping for the tradictional train departure.

I stand corrected.

I assume you are saying "traditional" in relation to the books. I'll take the ending to POA over the awfull "slow-clap" ending of CoS.

Saw it last night, lots of little kids, pretty well behaved.

Anyways, I think this is the first Harry Potter film instead of being "books on screen". A longer edition might be nice for DVD, but this was lean, mean and to the point. I haven't read the book in a while, so I don't remember everything cut out, but I don't think it was as bad as my wife thinks. I think not everything being explained adds to the mystery. Especially the map. In fact, I think it helps give the Weasley twins a little more depth coming up with something like that.

And Rickman as the boggart was very well done too.

I saw it last night after high school graduation and I loved it. It was easily apparent that there was a new director behind the camera and Alfonzo Cuarron did a terrific job. I liked that this Potter film wasn't so tight knit to the book as the other two were, of which I both loved as well.

The performances of the three leads having been improving with each film, and this they prove that they are absolutely right for the roles, showing some true emotions as they head into adolescence; Harry getting pissed off and wanting to kill the person who betrayed his parents, and the three showing sadness after the beheading of Buckbeat.

The film is also quite funny, basically every scene Ron is in, especially when he's dreaming about the spiders-hilarious. The visual effects were top-notch and served the story well; Buckbeat, the dementors.

I loved the presence of Oldman, even though it was a small role in this film it's great. Some of my favorite scenes were between Harry and Lupin-the dialogue and the relationship between the two characters were nicely done.

John Williams score was great and it was nice to see a lot of new material for the Potter series. The film was full of explosive energy all the way through the last shot. ****/****

Nice credit design too.

The end credits were great.

About halfway through, a set of footprints turn into wolf prints. Nice touch.

Well I hated the pointless clapping, but I hate a freeze frame even more.

Ah, my mistake then. I could have sworn it was when Ron was contacting Harry about the Quidditch World Cup... Though now that I think about it, don't they instead in the fourth book?

SPOILER (ish)-----------------------




Anyone else fiind it odd that Pettigrew grew from rat to man with clothes on but they stayed behind when he changed back to rat? Also, the patronus not being explained was a shame but i guess theyre hinting at it for pt.4 and I have to agree with a previous poster that them not weairng uniforms for alot of the film was a bit of distraction, it felt like school wasnt in session half the time.

my earlier comments were on the story itself. As far as directing, it was a little bit improved, but I have to laugh at the "colubmus butchered the first two, Curon created art" comments. Nothing like selective judgement.

I've thought ALL of the Potter movies have been way to rushed, you miss 75% of the essence of what the books are. This one was the worst.

And can somebody show me where that clock and pendullum are in the books, I don't recall them being in there at all.

However this IS the same screen writer, so I am NOT looking foward to my favorite book, GOF.

Let me start off by indicating that I'm not a Harry Potter fan (never read the books) therefore I have no idea of what was cut or changed from the books.

I watched it last night and I absolutely loved it. I wasn't a big fan of the first two movies however I thought this movie had a better pace, acting and special effects than the first two. The actors playing Harry, Ron and Hermione were much better in this movie than in the first two as is obvious that they are feeling much more comfortable in their roles now. David Thewlis was great as Lupin and Gary Oldman was great in the few scenes he was in.

Kudos to ILM for Buckbeak as he looked incredible and also with the Dementors.

In regards to the discussion about Columbus and Cuaron's directing abilities, I'll like to stay away from that discussion.

One of the reasons I always loved the LOTR adaptations over the Harry Potter ones was because Chris Columbus just took scenes from the book, threw them up on the screen, and expected us to tie them together. It was a total "don't piss off the fans" move. LOTR did a MUCH better job of "adapting" the material for the screen. For example, in LOTR, there is an extended chapter or two in the first book that explains how the hobbits get their swords. In the movie, Aragorn just hands them to them. Considering that how they got them wasn't central to the plot, they wisely skipped it.

The fact is, you have the book. If you want to see every scene, just read the book and use your imagination.

This was a FANTASTIC film. The first two literally bored me to sleep. There wasn't single surprise, because I knew exactly what was coming next. This movie had me guessing, and used the same elements (the dementors, Sirius, Lupin, Peter, Buckbeak, etc.) but put them together in a filmable way.

We got the magic of Hogwarts (something sorely lacking in the first movie), the drama of the story "growing up," some truly frightening moments, a tight, well-written story that followed the spirit of the book and ended up with one HELL of a movie. So far, this is the only Harry Potter film I feel is worth owning.

funny enough, even though it's so quick and not important to the story, etc. i believe this scene was my favorite! terrific acting by both, it just seemed to sum up for me the level of talent the kids have developed now.

You tell those spiders, Ron!

WHAT WERE THESE PEOPLE THINKING???????
This was by far THE WORST OF THE HP MOVIES!!!!!!
If anyone disagrees with that statement then you obviously haven't read the books. There is hardly any resemblence between the book and the movie.
Cuaron did an absolutely dreadful job on this movie. There were so many things left out that it was hardly a Harry Potter movie. Should have been the longest, but was the shortest of the 3 movies so far and had so many crucial pieces of information missing.
JK Rowling should sue Cuaron for this terrible movie and have it remade. Gambon was horrible in the role of Dumbledore and didn't even try to act like Harris had made the role out to be. Thewlis was a bad choice for Lupin, and the werewolf that he changed into was retarted looking.

I'm looking forward to see if this movie even had any deleted scenes.

Ron and the tap-dancing spiders cracked me up. That's a great indication of how much he and the other kids have grown since the first two. They have a better sense of timing, especially comedic, than they previously did.

I thought this film was head and shoulders above the previous two. Yes, there was quite a bit left out but you have to expect that going in, its only logical.

Highlights for me:

Every scene that had a dementor and the way Cuaron depicted the Kiss of Death. I liked the device of showing things freeze to hint at the presence of the dementors before actually showing them. I doubt that Columbus would have been so subtle.

I also loved the Quiddich match, short though it was. The scenes in the first two felt so sterile to me I could practically see the blue screen. But this one was very alive, very exciting. I was thrilled by it.

The transfomation of Lupin into the Werewolf and his fight with Sirius/Padfoot. One of the few things that I had forgotten from the book was this confrontation.

I though the grittier and darker look to the film, especially the interiors was a big plus. The atmosphere felt much more real to me than the previous films. If I'm not mistaken Cuaron was using handheld cameras in the opening shots with the Dursley's which made me feel much more involved with what was happening. This was probably my biggest complaint about the first two. Things were pretty and shiny and were interesting to look at but they never felt real to me. I was always aware that I was watching something rather than being engrossed in the story.

What story?
I think they left that part out.

Yes, the hand-held camerawork often gives the viewer a more up-close sense of the world being viewed on screen. I dug the use of it because it sucked me right into the world of Harry Potter and didn't have that shiny glaze from the previous 2 movies (which didn't do much for me when I saw them).