communication breakdown

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

[ 7 / 10 ] When watching the newest Harry Potter film, it doesn't take long to realize that there's something different going on than we've seen before. Alfonso Cuaron, director of the excellent "Y Tu Mama Tambien" (2001), brings a completely fresh perspective to the series, and perhaps injects just the spark that is needed in this, the third movie in the series. I greatly respect Christopher Columbus and really enjoyed his two offerings to the series - you can't help but feel that Cuaron feels like an outsider looking in to the Potter franchise. Nevertheless, he does a good job with what I consider to be pretty difficult source material to adapt...

As Harry prepares to begin his third year at Hogwarts, he receives some troubling news: Sirius Black, the infamous, murderous wizard-criminal, has escaped from Hogwarts. Even worse - his supposed goal is to kill Harry...

This story is considerably darker than the previous two, and I think in the task of capturing this darkness on film, Cuaron is a much better choice than Columbus. He has a gift for capturing human emotion, and as we saw in "Y Tu Mama Tambien", his eye for good camerawork is superb. Both of these talents really come to light in this film.

Be forwarned: there are some real changes in this film - not just from the way the first two movies were directed, but even serious deviations from the source material. As to the latter - some plotlines are removed partially or altogether, while others are "re-imagined" through directorial artistic license. Literary purists might be tempted to raise a fit, but those who have not read the story will likely be unaffected. A key departure from the story is Quidditch - while I would argue that it was a predominant theme of the book, it takes a backseat to more pressing action in the film. I mention this merely to be thorough, not to be critical.

Now, to the former - specifically, Cuaron's directorial style. From start to end, there is a tension which hangs over this film. It is more serious and more grown-up, mirroring the development of the main characters. We see very little of the safe and comfortable confines of Hogwarts - for the most part, the movie takes place outside of the castle, either in the mysterious neighboring town of Hogsmeade, or in the sweeping countrysides around the castle. It is here that the camerawork really shines - the scenes have a distinct English flavor to them and really make it feel that Hogwarts is set right in Britain - which, curiously enough, it is...

The film necessarily must be darker because of the nature of the story - the danger is more serious, more persistent, and more ambiguous than ever before. Cuaron really makes this danger palpable - between the ever-present Azkaban guards (dementors), the close calls with Sirius Black, and the appearance of other magical characters, it feels that the students are never really safe. I think this characteristic is well-adapted from the book.

As far as the acting is concerned, I would say it was pretty good overall. The lead trio are good as always, and David Thewlis is excellent in the role of the new, mysterious Professor Lupin. Gary Oldman even does well in limited time as Black, though he is probably not given as much screentime as his character warrants. On the flipside, I was not overly impressed with Michael Gambon as the new Dumbledore, and I really couldn't stand Timothy Spall as Peter Pettigrew. With Dumbledore, I can't tell if it was that his lines were poorly chosen, or if I just can't get over the loss of Richard Harris.

So, why is it that I seem to be one of the few people who don't think this is the best Harry Potter yet? (UPDATE: Apparently Roger Ebert agrees with me. I knew there was something I liked about him...) To be fair, I really enjoyed it, most likely because it's hard to go wrong with great source material, especially for a capable director. However, when I've both seen a film and read the book on which it's based, I can't help but compare the two. I guess at times I can be one of the literary purists that I talk about above - I expect films to be faithful (notice I didn't say exact) adapations of their books. Cuaron takes some great liberties with the script, and I applaud him for his efforts, but I don't agree they were all necessary.

Another chief complaint of mine deals with the main conflict of the film, which takes up at least half of the movie. At times this part of the storyline gets confusing in the book, and I felt it was important that this be filmed very carefully. However, after seeing the film, I couldn't help but feel that a certain amount of the magic and suspense captured in the book was lost in this part of the film. It is certainly given enough attention in terms of time, but I don't feel its essence was recreated appropriately. It's hard to put this into words, and you'll likely have to just see it for yourself and make your own decision.

And I suggest that you do see it for yourself - it still makes for great fun at the cinema and is well worth the price of admission. The spirit of humor which permeates the book is still there, and the adventure is still riveting. But I can't help but feel that this was a missed opportunity to make an unbelievable movie, based on the quality of the book which it adapts. Maybe I'm wrong - after all, I think great books can never be adequately captured into film anyways. But you have to stick with your gut instinct, and I definitely felt much more fulfilled by the book than the movie.

(In case you're wondering, I currently feel the first film was the best of the series. I feel that it does a spectacular job of capturing the magical wonder and the refreshing originality of the book...)