Review: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
June 9, 2004; Regal Falmouth 10 #1
* * * (out of four)
Movies in a series like Harry Potter become increasingly difficult to judge; on one hand, it is the rare movie that turns out better than the book that serves as source material, but on the other, cinema as a medium is very unique because it can express things in ways books can’t, so sometimes, not everything included in the source is necessary to include in the film. Upon seeing this movie, I am four years removed from reading J.K. Rowling’s book, so I do not remember exactly what was omitted from the script; I also can’t say whether or not the film would be improved were these details included. But none of this matters when considering Prisoner of Azkaban as a movie. What is presented here is a decent continuation on the three leads while not showing anything spectacular. The film benefits most from a new director Alfonso Cuarón, and it is a shame he won’t have a chance to continue in the series.
As Azkaban starts, the now-infamous Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is returning to Hogwart’s School of Witchcraft and Wizardry for his third year. He is reunited with best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermoine (Emma Watson), but catching up is soon cut short by news that Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), a wizard convicted of murder, has escaped from Azkaban Prison and plans to seek out Harry Potter. The guards of Azkaban, the ghostly Dementors, have been dispatched to Hogwart’s in search of Black. Between Black, the Dementors, and mysterious new Professor Lupin (David Thewlis), there’s no doubt it will be another very interesting and eventful year at Hogwart’s.
The movie’s biggest strength lies within its new director, Cuarón. While Chris Columbus helmed the first two and firmly established the franchise, Cuarón takes hold of the secure universe and begins to visually twist it into a deeper, more complex state. His approach to the film’s opening scene, in which Harry confronts an aunt who despises him, unfolds more like a Roald Dahl book than anything else we’ve seen thus far in a Potter movie. This darker, more mature tone extends throughout the movie, and builds strongly upon the notion set in Chamber of Secrets that these are not just kiddie movies. Unfortunately, as Prisoner and Goblet of Fire, the next in the series, were shot nearly on top of each other, Mike Newell will replace Cuarón as director for the next installment. Time will tell if Newell will advance the good things that Cuarón put in place.
Also to the movie’s credit is any actor returning to the film from the previous installments, most notably the children. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson (along with Tom Felton as Lucius Malfoy) have decisively claimed these characters as their own. They are growing and changing with the characters, and any attempt to replace any of them in future installments would surely be met with just and proper outrage. Prisoner specifically gives Watson and Felton time to develop and become key players in the story or simply in the every day goings-on of Hogwart’s. Returning professors are impressive as well, with Snape (Alan Rickman), McGonagall (Maggie Smith), and Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) leading the way. While Kenneth Branagh is missed, the additions of Thewlis and Emma Thompson’s batty Professor Trelawney help soften the blow.
Overly conspicuous by his absence is the late Richard Harris as Headmaster Dumbledore. In the wake of Harris’s death it became necessary to recast Dumbledore, and Michael Gambon delivers a solid performance, but there are too many noticeable changes in the Headmaster’s demeanor, energy, and overall feel. I appreciate Gambon making the character his own, but his Dumbledore is nearly unrecognizable compared to what the audience has grown accustomed to. I have to wonder if these differences played a role in a reducing the amount of screen time for the character in this installment.
Beyond all these individual performances, the movie simply wasn’t as solid as Chamber of Secrets. There are holes, albeit small, that were never properly filled – you try to justify to your children why Harry’s assault on his aunt is okay simply because he is Harry Potter. Above all else, the movie drags. I’ve seen it twice now, and both times I lost interest at just about the same point in time. It is impressive, though not in a beneficial way, that this movie feels longer than the previous installment when the running time actually falls twenty minutes short of Chamber.
The Harry Potter film series, much like the books, has the unenviable curse of being held to phenomenal and unmeetable expectations. Despite that, each installment still needs to expand the universe and add to it an amount that will sufficiently keep the viewers interested. Speaking as a viewer who is not a huge fan of the books, the film fell short of that. In addition, fans of the books have expressed disappointment in the amount that was removed in the adaptation process. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a decent continuation of the story that falls short of properly expanding the story. Some characters take great strides, while some suffer. Fairly enjoyable on its own, but hit or miss as a component in one of the most anticipated and coveted franchises in film’s history.
June 9, 2004; Regal Falmouth 10 #1
* * * (out of four)
Movies in a series like Harry Potter become increasingly difficult to judge; on one hand, it is the rare movie that turns out better than the book that serves as source material, but on the other, cinema as a medium is very unique because it can express things in ways books can’t, so sometimes, not everything included in the source is necessary to include in the film. Upon seeing this movie, I am four years removed from reading J.K. Rowling’s book, so I do not remember exactly what was omitted from the script; I also can’t say whether or not the film would be improved were these details included. But none of this matters when considering Prisoner of Azkaban as a movie. What is presented here is a decent continuation on the three leads while not showing anything spectacular. The film benefits most from a new director Alfonso Cuarón, and it is a shame he won’t have a chance to continue in the series.
As Azkaban starts, the now-infamous Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is returning to Hogwart’s School of Witchcraft and Wizardry for his third year. He is reunited with best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermoine (Emma Watson), but catching up is soon cut short by news that Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), a wizard convicted of murder, has escaped from Azkaban Prison and plans to seek out Harry Potter. The guards of Azkaban, the ghostly Dementors, have been dispatched to Hogwart’s in search of Black. Between Black, the Dementors, and mysterious new Professor Lupin (David Thewlis), there’s no doubt it will be another very interesting and eventful year at Hogwart’s.
The movie’s biggest strength lies within its new director, Cuarón. While Chris Columbus helmed the first two and firmly established the franchise, Cuarón takes hold of the secure universe and begins to visually twist it into a deeper, more complex state. His approach to the film’s opening scene, in which Harry confronts an aunt who despises him, unfolds more like a Roald Dahl book than anything else we’ve seen thus far in a Potter movie. This darker, more mature tone extends throughout the movie, and builds strongly upon the notion set in Chamber of Secrets that these are not just kiddie movies. Unfortunately, as Prisoner and Goblet of Fire, the next in the series, were shot nearly on top of each other, Mike Newell will replace Cuarón as director for the next installment. Time will tell if Newell will advance the good things that Cuarón put in place.
Also to the movie’s credit is any actor returning to the film from the previous installments, most notably the children. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson (along with Tom Felton as Lucius Malfoy) have decisively claimed these characters as their own. They are growing and changing with the characters, and any attempt to replace any of them in future installments would surely be met with just and proper outrage. Prisoner specifically gives Watson and Felton time to develop and become key players in the story or simply in the every day goings-on of Hogwart’s. Returning professors are impressive as well, with Snape (Alan Rickman), McGonagall (Maggie Smith), and Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) leading the way. While Kenneth Branagh is missed, the additions of Thewlis and Emma Thompson’s batty Professor Trelawney help soften the blow.
Overly conspicuous by his absence is the late Richard Harris as Headmaster Dumbledore. In the wake of Harris’s death it became necessary to recast Dumbledore, and Michael Gambon delivers a solid performance, but there are too many noticeable changes in the Headmaster’s demeanor, energy, and overall feel. I appreciate Gambon making the character his own, but his Dumbledore is nearly unrecognizable compared to what the audience has grown accustomed to. I have to wonder if these differences played a role in a reducing the amount of screen time for the character in this installment.
Beyond all these individual performances, the movie simply wasn’t as solid as Chamber of Secrets. There are holes, albeit small, that were never properly filled – you try to justify to your children why Harry’s assault on his aunt is okay simply because he is Harry Potter. Above all else, the movie drags. I’ve seen it twice now, and both times I lost interest at just about the same point in time. It is impressive, though not in a beneficial way, that this movie feels longer than the previous installment when the running time actually falls twenty minutes short of Chamber.
The Harry Potter film series, much like the books, has the unenviable curse of being held to phenomenal and unmeetable expectations. Despite that, each installment still needs to expand the universe and add to it an amount that will sufficiently keep the viewers interested. Speaking as a viewer who is not a huge fan of the books, the film fell short of that. In addition, fans of the books have expressed disappointment in the amount that was removed in the adaptation process. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a decent continuation of the story that falls short of properly expanding the story. Some characters take great strides, while some suffer. Fairly enjoyable on its own, but hit or miss as a component in one of the most anticipated and coveted franchises in film’s history.
posted by Matt S. at
5:05 PM
1 Comments:
Just to let you know, Tom Felton plays Draco Malfoy, not Lucius Malfoy. Lucius Malfoy is Draco's father. And, I relize that the movie did have a few holes, but I thought the movie was BRILLIANT!
By
Anonymous, at 5:32 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home