I saw the new Harry Potter movie last night-ask me anything

[DrBB]

A special preview at the IMAX theater where I work--we got to take one guest and see it for free.

Clearly the best of the three--I thought the first two were fairly insipid. Today's gets it about perfect:

This is surely the most interesting of the three Potter movies, in part because it is the first one that actually looks and feels like a movie, rather than a staged reading with special effects. "Sorcerer's Stone" and "Chamber of Secrets," both directed with literal-minded competence by Chris Columbus (who has stayed on as a producer) may have been more faithful to Ms. Rowling's text, but "Azkaban" attempts, and for the most part achieves, a trickier sort of translation. This film may disappoint some dogmatic Old Hogwartsians: a few plot points have been sacrificed, and Mr. Cuarón does not seem to care much for Quidditch. But it more than compensates for these lapses with its emotional force and visual panache.

Mr. Cuaron's wizard world, shot by the gifted New Zealand-born cinematographer Michael Seresin, is grainier and grimier than Mr. Columbus's. It feels at once more dangerous, more thoroughly enchanted and more real. While the two first episodes took place mostly in the corridors and classrooms of Hogwarts, this one lingers in the shadowy forests and damp meadows outside the school walls, a setting that emphasizes Mr. Cuarón's knack for evoking the haunting, sensual power of the natural world.

I'd highly recommend it. Three stars, anyway.

[LWolf]

1. What are the "few plot points" that have been sacrificed?

It drives me crazy when the plot/story is morphed into something else. I want the stories in books to stay the same story when they become movies.