The IMDB and Moviefone lists the running time of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban at 136 minutes. Movietickets and Fandango lists it as 139 minutes.
Doesn't that seem rather short, given how much material is in the trailer? I mean, it looks like they are adapting quite a lot of the book... how can they squeeze it down to such a short length... and, furthermore, why bother? The second film was rather long, but it was totally engaging throughout.
My brother was just complaining about Michael Gambon replacing Richard Harris as Dumbledore. Apparently, he wanted for Gambon to simply do a Harris impersonation, and is disappointed in the fact that Gambon is making the role his own.
While I certainly understand that there is a breach of continuity in the film series now because of Harris' death, Gambon is an extremely talented actor, and I'd rather have somebody doing something a little bit differently but well over somebody who can just do a Richard Harris voice.
The concept of different actors having a unique take on a character may be a difficult one for my brother to get his head around. I understand this, as I myself took a while to really sort of "get" this. Of course, the Harry Potter films can not continue without a Dumbledore, so somebody had to come in to replace the late, great Richard Harris. The casting of the Hogwarts staff is perfect, but nobody could have forseen Harris' death (apparently, least of all himself). Gambon is a bold and interesting choice, and I don't think that anybody will be complaining after the film comes out. He had my complete confidence, at least.