RSS 2.0
Being a huge fan of the books, this new Harry Potter movie was one of those movies I was eagerly looking forward to. I had heard all kinds of rumors that it would be much darker and substantially different from the previous two movies directed by Chris Columbus. Third in the series, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban focuses on a more adult audience. This was also prominent in the original novel. Still, many things are the same, including most of the cast, but what is most striking is the large number of differences compared to the Columbus films. Not necessarily bad, though. Azkaban is a whole new experience.
SOME SPOILERS AHEAD
The plot of the third Harry Potter book is incredibly simple. Harry is back at Hogwarts, after he has turned his aunt into a balloon. Very soon the message reaches him that a convicted murderer, Sirius Black, has escaped Azkaban prison and is after Harry. Sirius is held responsible for betraying Harry’s parents to Lord Voldemort.
The way author J.K. Rowling has woven the plot into events that lead to a ‘time-changing’ climax is impressive. Rowling’s weakest point, however, is that she works with a fixed style in almost all Harry Potter books: she introduces a possible thread, that surfaces every now and then and which, eventually, comes to a climax. This is also very present in the movie version of Azkaban. And the weakness of director Alfonso Cuarón (who made the rather sexual explicit teen road movie Y Tu Mamá También before daring to make a new Potter), is that he could have focused more on depicting the dangerous nature of Sirius who is after Harry.
What is most striking is the alienating feeling this film gave me in its first half hour. Everything just looks so different: the colors (or actually: lack of colors), the settings (which I envisioned differently) and even a new professor Dumbledore, played by Michael Gambon. Azkaban was shot in different places than The Philosopher’s Stone and The Chamber of Secrets and this could have threatened the continuity of the movies – especially the way Hogwarts looks. The movie was mostly shot in and around Scotland and the nature and surroundings are more rocky and bushy. Besides this some Hogwarts elements, including the Whomping Willow and Hagrid’s cabin have a different configuration and place compared to the first two Potter installments. And we hardly see any old sets from the previous two films, as if the original sets were thrown away.
Having set this aside, Azkaban, is a wonderful experience. The whole atmosphere is very eerie, which is very promising for future Potter movies. The characters are more mature, and not only in years and looks but also in their acting. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) and Emma Watson (Hermione) have really improved on their acting skills. Michael Gambon (Dumbledore) is totally different than the late Richard Harris. He even looks different and has different clothes, but on the other hand it is commendable he doesn’t repeat Harris’ performance. Emma Thompson plays one of my favorite characters, Professor Trelawney, which she does wonderfully. Gary Oldman, as Sirius Black, is good as ever but does not have as much screen time as one might assume. Most of the special effects are very good. Especially the Dementors (guards of Azkaban prison) and the Hippogriff (for laymen: half horse, half eagle) are very convincing and the scene in which Harry flies on Buckbeak the Hippogriff are truly jaw-dropping. Unfortunately, near the end we get a fake werewolf à la Van Helsing.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was a breath of fresh air. It may not feel right at first but is an improvement on many levels, once the movie has progressed. I only wished Cuarón had taken the time, maybe 15 more minutes, to finish some scenes properly. However, it is impressive to see how he has given his own interpretation on the world of Harry Potter. To be honest, this is the first blockbuster of 2004 that really lived up to its expectations so far. Let’s see what the first British director of the series, Mike Newell, is up to for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, scheduled for a November 2005 release.
__________________________________________________
Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, David Thewlis, Gary Oldman, Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Emma Thompson
Official Website
‘Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban’ runs 136 minutes and is now showing worldwide
Arjan Welles (213 posts)Arjan Welles - law graduate. I work at a bank, I work as a film critic for Dutch and English media. My favorite directors are David Lynch, David Fincher, Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino. I love arthouse over blockbusters.
18 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Nice review Arjan, but should come with a major SPOILER warning
Comment by damian — Thu June 3, 2004 @ 16:34I’m looking forward to seeing this one.
Excellent review! Despite my disappointment at the last 2 HP films, I am desperate to see this one.
Comment by suzero — Thu June 3, 2004 @ 20:38hmm maybe this one will be more of your liking, Suzanna! Why were you disappointed with the first 2 films?
Comment by arjan — Thu June 3, 2004 @ 20:52My comments about Harry Potter being ruined by foreigners more or less sums up what I didn’t like about the first 2 films:
Comment by suzero — Thu June 3, 2004 @ 22:13The biggest spoiler is that you took the words right out of our mouths. That’s a complement
Azkaban is a very different from the first two. As a film, I liked it better. To me, the Potterverse is more interesting and fun than the books or the films. But I must admit that in this third film, tension and excitement were there until the very end. Overall, I liked this darker approach better than the previous all-flavoured beans style. And finally a almost non-overacting Oldman. Brilliant. Lupin is Thewlis’ best performance since Naked imo.
I don’t know how this film works for Potterverse nono’s however. I tried to imagine how it would be if this was the first encounter with Harry Potter. The film seems to assume a basic knowledge of Harry Potter and the viewer is bluntly thrown in.
Comment by reisneus — Thu June 10, 2004 @ 11:21Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azcaban is an excelent film and shows great special effects. I would deffinatly recommed this film to any fantacy lover.
Comment by devilsangel — Fri June 11, 2004 @ 14:38I liked this Harry Potter movie best – I wasnt scared either as the spiders in the second one had me freaked out. I loved Big Bird as well – thought he was like Pegasus only with a beak.
Definitely see this one for the special effects – its good.
Julie K
Comment by Julie K — Mon June 14, 2004 @ 13:08Actually, my heart did miss a beat or two when Harry met Peter Pettigrew in that dark hallway… brrr…
Very cool movie. Less introdution and a solid story. The special effect were so good I barely noticed them! Thumbs up for Harry!
Comment by weefselkweekje — Mon June 14, 2004 @ 16:47I really liked this one. The fact that Chris Columbus didn’t direct it filled me with joy to start with because I think the level of talent that guy possesses is nowhere near enough to bring these stories to life.
Here, the world was alive. I think Cuaron took Chris Columbus’ basic ideas and strectched them where they wanted to go – where they should go. Hagrid now looks like a giant rather than a fat guy in big boots. Although it was strange to see a new Dumbledore andit took a while tog et into the way he approached the character, I really liked Michael Gambon. All the support cast are excellent.
Malfoy dissappointed me though and I thought his scenes were for the most part unnecessary. I’ve never read the books, and I’m sure there’s a fair amount of material that’s been chopped in the adaptation, I thought the story flowed quite well this time.
MINOR SPOILER AHEAD if you haven’t seen anything
What annoyed me though was Harry’s constant fainting, which just seemed like weak stroytelling to me. Every time there’s a dramatic scene and Harry’sd at the point where he might learn something, THUMP. Fade to Black. Then wait another five minutes, here’s a little more information and, THUMP. fade to black.
It annoyed me because it takes all the tension away too quickly. The scenes all build up nicely and then, when I was looking for Harry to find a way to deal with each situation or to use the information he’s learned to good effect. THUMP. NEXT SCENE PLEASE.
It just seemed liked to easy an option to get from one place to another. As usaul with the Potter films, the main thrust of the story only begins in the third act, and it works excellently this time. Hermione’s little trinket makes for a great last half hour.
It’s my favourite of the series by a long way, because stylistically it ozzes confidence and passion. But I still don’t have a great desire to read the books.
Comment by damian — Fri July 2, 2004 @ 9:56Hi Damian,
I’m not sure if you actually liked this movie or not?You say you were disappointed and annoyed so I guess these were only minor points you dwelt on?The rest was ok?
Julie K
Comment by Julie K — Sat July 3, 2004 @ 7:13I just got annoyed at Harry’s constant fainting. I enjoyed the film a lot, trust me.
Comment by damian — Sat July 3, 2004 @ 15:00This was the more mature one of the lot. It was different, but I cannot say if it was better. The first two seemed more targetted to a younger audience but had a fantastic look to them; one of those Christmas-holidays-looks, all nice and fuzzy.
This one looked much harsher en scarier. I totally agree with Damian that in this one there seem to be a lot of corners cut. Malfoy is nothing more than a charicature and seems only there to annoys Harry and his friends. I haven’t read the books, but my feeling is that he will become more important as the story develops (and become Harry’s greatest adversary?). This also goes for Ron Weasly, who only seems to walk in the way as some dumb guy.
The only thing where I differ from Damian is that the ‘third’ part of the movie was too long for my taste. They took too long to explain the whole time-travel thing and it was obvious that everything was prepared to introduce the next movie. I would’ve preferred that time spent on the others characters and give them more rounded parts. Now it was all about Harry, Hermoine and Lupin (excellent role by Thewlis) and the rest was backdrop.
Comment by Paco — Fri July 9, 2004 @ 12:07It was very bad film!!!!!!
:D:DP:P:P:P:P:):):):):(:(:(:( :/:/:/:]:]:]
Comment by Draco — Tue August 3, 2004 @ 15:57What a relief to see this after the dog’s breakfast that Chris Columbus made of the first two. How did someone with that little talent ever get to be a Hollywood director? Any doubts I may have had about a non-Brit directing such a British film were unfounded. Alfonso Cuaron did an excellent job in my opinion, although I must be careful not to confuse his (good) direction with my relief at a better film than the first two if you see what I mean.
David Thewlis was excellent and Gary Oldman was barely recognizable as there were very few close-ups of him during his scarce screentime. The three young actors playing Harry, Ron and Hermione had obviously matured, but I think credit goes to Cuaron for directing them better rather than them having suddenyl developed better acting skills. There were still some moments that made me grimace at the bad delivery of lines, but muuuuuch less than in 1+2 (sorry, I cannot help but keep comparing).
Arjan, you mentioned the changing of the sets quite negatively, which I can understand in terms of continuity, but to be honest, I am glad Cuaron dared to break with Columbus’ brightly coloured versions. this looked so much more like England / Scotland, with cloudy skies and thunderstorms.
The visualization of the Dementors was totally different than I had imagined whilst reading the book, but worked very well. Cuaron succesfully used IMAGES to convey certain information in a beautiful and subtle way compared to Columbus’ reliance on dialogue (delivered badly most of the time).
As it is such a long time ago since I read the book, I was not aware of exactly what they left out in the screen version, although it was obvious they left out quite a bit. I agree with an above comment that Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) deserved more attention, although I lean more towards positive attention rather than making him scarier.
****SPOILER****
In the book, Harry’s feelings of relief at being able to go and live with his godfather rather than the Dursleys is enormous and the let down all the more great when it turns out he can’t. That is important for the next films/books and could have been clarified more here.
All in all, I enjoyed myself.
Comment by suzero — Thu December 30, 2004 @ 8:58I thought the film was great! J.K. Rowling does a fantastic job writing the stories. My two favorite authors of all time are J.K. Rowling and Lemony Snicket. You are awsome authors!!!!!!! Great job.
Comment by Amy — Sun January 2, 2005 @ 6:18I heard, Warner Brothers has announced the release date for the sixth Harry Potter movie.
“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” will open in theaters on November 21st, 2008, just in time for the holidays. No director has been attached to the project.
The Half-Blood Prince arrived in bookstores last summer and sold 6.9 million copies on its first day of release.
The upcoming fifth movie of the popular fantasy series, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” is due out on next summer. I just can’t wait it!
Comment by mp3 player — Wed September 6, 2006 @ 17:27Daniel Radcliffe is a good actor and good looking too.-’;
Comment by James Garcia — Tue May 18, 2010 @ 18:13i wonder what would be the future carreer of Daniel Radcliffe;:~
Comment by Nicole Ellis — Mon August 30, 2010 @ 18:03