Movie Review - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
User Rating:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
2004 / 142 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz
Just as the “Harry Potter” novels seem to get better as they go along, so do the movies based on those novels. But this film represents a surprising leap ahead from the first two. Whereas the films are still not as good as the novels they are based on, I am happy to report that the quality of the films has gotten a few nudges closer, and that’s mostly due to the involvement of director Alfonso Cuaron.
Prior to this film, I had only seen one Cuaron movie, and that was “Y Tu Mama Tambien”. I thought that movie was highly overrated, personally. For all its critical acclaim, I thought the movie was no better than a Mexican version of “Porky’s” only with a little more pathos and better character development. I guess I can see why critics enjoyed it, but it did nothing for me personally and I found it largely uninvolving. So it was with a sense of trepidation that I approached this latest installment in the Harry Potter film canon, but my trepidation disappeared shortly after the Warner Brothers logo appeared onscreen. It is evident from this film’s first moments that much of the clunkiness and ponderous respect that was evident in the first two Harry Potter films has been thankfully jettisoned. I liked the first two films and I thought they were very true to the novels upon which they were based. And while that was an admirable thing, it also proved an odd drawback. The films were so slavish to the books that they never quite soared in the way that the books do. Reading the J.K. Rowling novels is a breeze, the pages seem to fly by as the reader is so gloriously immersed in her richly imagined worlds. Watching the Potter movies, the first two, at least, takes more of an effort. Sure, they’re good, but they’re just not transcendent. They don’t seem effortless, they seem so eager to be faithful that they haven’t got the sense of fun that they should have. They come off as more austere and a little boring. They’re trying too hard. “The Prisoner of Azkaban” suffers from none of this. It’s a lighter, more fleet-footed film all around and also one that seems to better understand the undercurrent of darkness that gives the books such weight and charm. The Potter books are ones that kids can enjoy, but that have layers and a tone that adults can probably appreciate even more. “Prisoner of Azkaban” is the first movie of this bunch that really gets that right.
If you’ve read the book then you know the plot. If not, then here it is: Harry is going back to his third year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry only there is a convict loose from the wizarding prison of Azkaban and, apparently, that dark wizard (Sirius Black) has some manner of fixation on Harry. The whys and wherefores of this are the great pleasure of the movie, and so I shall not ruin them. I shall only say that it was brilliant of them to cast Gary Oldman as Sirius Black. Those who have read the novel know why and those who have not will understand why as soon as the final revelations of the movie are made. Oldman has a limited amount of screen time here, but he makes the most of it and delivers a haunting and memorable performance that will stick with you. I also loved David Thewlis as kindly professor Lupin, who has a secret or two of his own. The kids are all back and they seem to be getting more comfortable with their characters in each installment (that’s to be expected, really, I think the majority of their present time is now spent in character as Harry or Hermione or Ron or Draco). They all do great jobs here (congrats to you: Rupert Grint, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson). I also loved the fact that the filmmakers have finally allowed Alan Rickman to play Professor Snape with full Alan Rickman mannerisms firmly in place. Rickman is a great actor who is finally allowed a chance to breathe in this film. He seemed too reigned in in the others, but here he actually gets to liven things up. And, of course, Robbie Coltraine is great as Hagrid, as he always has been. The only actor that doesn’t really work for me is Michael Gambon as Professor Dumbledore. He’s a good actor, but he just seems to hit the wrong note in this portrayal. Not that it’s really his fault. I doubt anyone could bring to the role what the late Richard Harris managed to do with it. From this point on, I doubt I’ll be able to watch any of these movies without feeling a pang of loss for Harris and his undeniable gifts.
Cuaron is a more magical filmmaker than Chris Columbus (whose script for the film “Gremlins” remains my favorite thing that he’s done) and that much is amply proven with each frame of this film. The production design is just as grand as in the first two films, going a long way toward bringing Rowling’s novels to glorious life. And John Williams’ score is one of his best in ages. The music for this film seems to sparkle and pop in a way that the scores for the first two just didn’t quite manage. All in all, everything seems a little peppier this time. The only complaints I have with the film are that the film seems as though it could have been about five minutes longer. Some of the explanations and little details from the book that have been cast aside for the movie are crucial and I think that people who have not read the book may find it a little difficult to know exactly what’s going on. Then again, that just illustrates why the books will probably always remain better than the movies. Rowling effortlessly weaves detail and background into the novels that the movies would have to stop to establish. The first two did stop to establish this and felt slightly clunky. The new one is breezy and yet could have a little more background in it. Will this series of films ever achieve perfection? I do not know. I have high hopes for the fourth film (which is, so far, my favorite of the novels, though I am still reading the fifth book) and cannot wait to see if the movie made from it can match the one in my imagination as I read, but I still have a suspicion that the movies in our minds when we read Rowling’s dazzling fantasies will remain above those of any Hollywood mogul. That is the power of novels, when they are truly great, and that is why I firmly believe most movies should be only movies and most novels should exist only as novels. There are a few exceptions (the “Lord of the Rings” films were remarkable, as were “High Fidelity” and “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Jaws” was vastly superior to the book on which it was based) but for the most part, that’s my feeling on the matter.
But this is still a fabulous movie that is rousing and magical. I was remarking to Jones the other day that the Harry Potter movies are rather like the Bond films. They adhere to a certain formula every time and there are certain scenes that are in every Bond movie and every Potter movie or book. In the Bond films there is always the pre-credits action sequence, the Q scene, the scene where he gets his mission, and the scene where he orders a martini “shaken, not stirred”. These are traditional. In the Potter universe there is always the Dursley scene, the scene where they arrive at Hogwarts, the Quidditch match, and the Hardy Boys sort of scene at the end where everything gets explained and the problem of the school year is finally dealt with. If that is the case, then think of “Prisoner of Azkaban” as the “Goldfinger” of the Potter series. It’s the best of the bunch so far, and may emerge as the best of all the films when all is said and done.
But my favorite of the Bond films is still “From Russia With Love” and I’m hoping that the Potter equivalent is still somewhere just down the road. Until then, I shall be waiting with anxious anticipation.
