 |
|
HARRY
POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN |
|
|
|
"Give My Movie Four
Stars Or I'll Turn You Into
A Toad!" |
 |
Directed by Alfonso
Cuaron - Written by J.K.
Rowling, Steven Kloves
Starring Daniel
Radcliffe, Michael
Gambon, Gary Oldman,
Emma Watson
Distributed by Warner
Brothers -
2004 - 141mins - Rated
PG |
| |
|
Something wicked this way comes. |
| |
When we
last saw Harry Potter, it was in the conclusion of his second
adventure, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets." It had been a
slow-clap, sentimental, almost unwatchable sequence (it was otherwise
a decent movie, though). The first two entries in the series were
directed by Chris Columbus, who directed such "masterpieces" as "Home
Alone" and "Mrs. Doubtfire." Now, we have third film, "Harry Potter
and the Prisoner of Azkaban." And it's better...much better.
Based on the astronomically popular book series by JK Rowling (and
they are actually excellent reads, and if you haven't read them or
think that they are just for kids, deviate from that thought and read
them at once), the series is about a young man named Harry (Daniel
Radcliffe) with magical powers who attends a school for witches and
wizards. Columbus' films were solid adaptations, but they hung so
close to the source material and never left out a single detail that
they became overlong, overstuffed, and lacking in true artistic merit.
They had the events of the books, but none of the spirit. Enter
Alfonso Cuaron, the Mexican film director who got an Oscar nod for his
foreign film "Y tu Mama Tambien." He may seem like an odd choice for
the director's seat on this film, but he more than succeeds. He takes
the franchise by the horns and does things his own way.
Cuaron's biggest change would have to be the overall atmosphere of the
film. Rather than have the light, often cheerful tone of the first
films, he "Burtonizes" the film, or, in plain tongue, he darkens it
and adds in small eccentricities, many of them not in the book. How
about a talking shrunken head that works on a bus? Or a giant clock
whose pendulum swings just beyond a doorway? Or how the sky is always
gray, and it is raining in every other scene? It's a great look, and
adds to the entire fantasy element. The set has changed to, using
neutral colors almost everywhere. The landscape around Harry's school
has been made more rugged and dangerous, and it looks so much better.
Oh, I must add, that the camera ACTUALLY MOVES in this installment.
Cuaron often uses a handheld camera, and he utilizes more then several
magnificent sweeping shots. Best cinematography of the year? Perhaps!
Cuaron also changes small details of the book, but for good reason.
The story is basically the same, though: Harry returns to school with
his friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson). Soon, it is
revealed that an insane wizard named Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) has
escaped from prison and is coming after Harry because he was locked up
because of his leader, the sinister Voldemort, was defeated by Harry.
The real trouble, though, comes from the Dementors, the tall, black
hooded monsters that are tracking Black, and often attack innocents
for no apparent reason. The Dementors are perfectly realized from the
pages of the book, and Cuaron's little touches make them better. Not a
scene in the book, where Harry is participating in the magical
broomstick game Quidditch, and the Dementors enter the stadium and
cause him to crash. In the movie, he encounters them, flying toward
him, above the stadium, and they engage in a thrilling high-speed
chase. Did the Dementors actually fly in the book? No. But only
serious Potter fanboys will be upset by this because the scene WORKS
SO WELL. They are also wonderfully created by computer effects, just
for the record. Also for the record, the effects have improved across
the board. A half horse, half eagle creature named Buckbeak is a
combination of computer effects and animatronics. A werewolf
transformation is extremely startling for a PG movie* and the wolf
itself is far scarier than the far more expensive effects of "Van
Helsing." Other, non-creature effects, are cool. Cuaron hired
illusionist rather than visual effects guys to get many of them.
Better technology aside, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is
better than it's predecessors for one big reason: it captures the
spirit of the novel. It may not have every little plot detail crammed
in, but it feels more like Harry Potter than Columbus' films did.
Cuaron's direction keeps things going at a nice pace (unlike the
others, which seemed too fast at one point, and then immediately too
slow) and he turns the child actors into REAL actors. Columbus never
really made any breakthroughs with the kid actors on his films, but
Cuaron, being the better director, made sure they understand their
characters inside and out, and it really shows (He made them write
several essays on their parts). Radcliffe keeps getting better as
Harry (especially after his rather weak presence in the first film),
Gint (great in the first two) keeps it going strong, and Watson
finally has a breakthrough with her role, and for the first time, it
looks like she may have a future in acting outside of Harry Potter. I
must also mention the extraordinary cast of British veterans: Maggie
Smith as Prof. McGonagall, Alan Rickman as Prof. Snape, Oldman as
Black, Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, and Julie Waters and Mrs. Weasley.
New to the cast, is Michael Gambon, taking over for the late Richard
Harris as Headmaster Dumbledore, Emma Thompson as divination teacher,
and David Thewlis as Prof. Lupin, who is arguably the best character
in the series (in my personal opinion). Every actor and actress
delivers, even though some of them are very small roles.
I do have some quibbles with the film. While the climax is great, the
ending is bad (but not nearly as bad as the second film). Also, most
of the fun subplots from the film are missing. Many events have been
moved around and changed. I can't complain too much about these
though, because the over-reliance on them is my biggest complaint from
the first two films.
In conclusion, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is a dark,
suspenseful, wonderfully directed film with a great cast and some
amazing storytelling. If you didn't like the first two, you will find
nothing to love here, but for fans and for those willing to give it a
chance, it's magic.
*Note to parents: Despite the PG rating, this really should be a
PG-13. There is a lot of violence, and some very frightening images
that disturbed even me. If your child is familiar with the book, than
the violence should be nothing new, but as a critic, I feel that it's
my duty to give the reader caution. |
| |
|
© Written by Jacob Hall -
Email
Me! |
TC Candler's Comment
A nice
change of pace for the series.
Richard Propes' Comment
"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban"
presents Potter's third year at Hogwart's and
the film's first year on director Alfonso Cuaron,
who gives the series an edgier, darker feel than
his predecessor Chris Columbus. I have to be
honest and say I have little investment in these
films, and have not seen a Potter film in a
theater. I've not read any of the books, and
doubt I ever will. In all honesty, I find the
characters a tad irritating and even after three
films haven't really bonded with the characters
on any level.
Yet, there's nothing I really dislike about the
films and I find them visually appealing. Yet,
for some odd reason the films hit me much like
that old Disney series "Witch Mountain".
Visually appealing, sort of fun...but, as soon
as I leave the theater I've forgotten them.
The film was nominated for two Oscars (Visual
effects & music), and yet this film reminds me a
lot of other "technically" wonderful films that
seem devoid of other cinematic necessities (like
acting).
The film doesn't have the presence or impact of,
say, the LOTR series...yet, it suffers from the
same problem of below average to average acting
surrounded by lots of technical wizardry. After
three films, I should care about someone in this
cast...and I simply don't.
The cast of youngsters returns again including
Daniel Radcliffe as Potter, Emma Watson and
Rupert Grint. In the UK, it's quite the honor
nowadays to appear in the Potter series so each
film seems to include more and more Brits...Gary
Oldman joins this cast, and does quite nicely as
the evil Sirius Black. Michael Gambon fills in
nicely in the role of Dumbledore, and the rest
of the returning cast is appropriately Potterish.
There's much to enjoy about this film, and I
definitely find myself preferring its darker
edge...yet, I still find the Potter series
largely vacant of any real soul. I find that I
don't care about the characters, and there's
little or no anticipation for the next film.
I can't really say that I enjoyed this film, but
it impressed me and I found myself enjoying the
"world" of Harry Potter. Now, I simply wish I
could CARE about Harry Potter.
|
