I really respect my fellow reviewers but I think that because some of you love the source material so much (Rowlings books) you may be being unfair with this movie. When a movie director adapts a book into a movie he does have a certain responsabilty with the fans of the book but the movie he is about to make is his vision and not the authors. What Chris Columbus did on the first two harry potters was to adapt the books so faithfully that watching the movie was the rough equivalent of buying one of those tape recordings of books and, if you get my meaning, watching it. It was, in a way, too faithful. And it was, also, a much easier job than adapting Prisoner of Azkaban. Not only is it a much more complex book because it juggles with many subplots but it is also a larger novel. In adapting it Mr. Cuarón obviously had to leave some things behind like the quidditch subplot (that some may miss) or the reason for Snapes grudge against Harry (which, in my opinion, takes away the mystery of Snapes character). The movie in itself is condensed. Compared to the book, it does feel like it rushes too much at times. Nonetheless it is a brave re imagining of the Potter world and of its characters. The acting is much better, the kids are no longer stiff (like they were in Columbuss first two movies). And I loved the visual elements in it. I think its a great movie. Theres a sort of aura of nostalgia around it. I liked the way Cuarón worked with the emotional parts. Etcetera. I really thought it was a great movie and should not be judged because it left out some things from the book. It would be like criticising The Lord of the rings. Anybody who has ever read Tolkiens books knows that Peter Jackson left out a huge deal of stuff from the original trilogy. But, hey, thats why it is called an adaptation people!