Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Awesome. Spectacular. Stunning.
Okay, I think with those words you probably know how I felt about the new Harry Potter movie. Don’t get me wrong, I loved the first two. I thought they were great starts at initiating a wider audience to the wizarding world of Harry Potter. But this new chapter in the Harry Potter saga (at least when dealing with the movies) was a mind blowing experience. From the first frame I could tell that it would be a different interpretation of J. K. Rowling’s world. The cinematography alone was outstanding. The way that Cuaron was able to put the movie together made it more captivating than the first two and move at a faster pace. There was never really any downtime in this film. Steve Kloves did a fabulous job writing the script.
The Prisoner of Azkaban has always been my favorite book of the saga, so I was anxious about how this movie would be. So much occurs in this book. It is a turning point in the Potter saga. Voldemort is no longer the only enemy that Harry faces. We learn more about the death of Harry’s parents and the wizarding world. The book also delves into the relationships between Harry, Ron and Hermione. And we meet some very important people, who will have a great impact on the next couple of books (yay, Sirius and Lupin!). Would this film do it justice? My answer to that question is yes.
Cuaron’s vision of Hogwarts was more realistic than that of Christopher Columbus. The dark and dreary look of the sets created the atmosphere that was needed for the movie. The third book is much darker than its predecessors, setting the mood for the next two books. The new layout of Hogwarts reflected this in the almost gothic architecture of the clock tower. The relationships between the characters seemed to be real relationships. Instead of simply reciting the lines and movements that they were given the children seemed to actually be acting! The conversations that the students had with one another as they moved through the hall and during the first Fat Lady scene showed the kids being kids. They joked around with one another. They antagonized one another (“Dementor!” Malfoy and the gang then going “Oooh.” Haha!) They acted like kids their age should act.
The special effects were a step above the other two films. Whoever created Buckbeak should win an award for the brilliance behind it. Never once did I think that Beaky was a computer-animated image. He moved on the screen as though he were really there. The werewolf, well, it was a great special effect, but not really the werewolf I had imagined. It was decent and the scenes with the werewolf were done very well, but aren’t they supposed to be hairy?
The acting ability of the kids has improved greatly with each movie. They are able to play off one another in their scenes, though there is still some room for improvement. The new cast members did a superb job with their roles. Emma Thompson was great as Professor Trelawney. She looked as batty as she appears in the books, though I do wish she had said the prophecy from the book. David Thewlis’ Lupin was as compassionate as I had imagined him to be. And the boggart scene with him was hysterical. Did anyone else pick up the song Swing, Swing, Swing, from another of John Williams’ movies? Gary Oldman embodied Sirius Black. He was able to play him perfectly as both a raving madman and the not-so-raving man. Michael Gambon did a nice job with Professor Dumbledore. I think that he was able to show some of the qualities Richard Harris’ Dumbledore lacked. Put the two together and then I think we would have the true embodiment of Dumbledore.
My one great criticism would be where the hell was Oliver Wood?!? Dammit, this was the last book he was really in, and I wanted to see him! Gryffindor wins the Quidditch Cup, this is a big deal. Not entirely important to the story but still, I had to deal with no Sean Biggerstaff (who plays Wood). Ah, the sacrifices.
But, beside the fact that there is no Sean Biggerstaff, the movie was a great adventure ride. And really, I could write more, but I think I’ll go and see it again instead.
729
Tom
June 19th, 2004 at 10:56 pm
I loved the swing song in the Boggart scene. I always enjoy music in movies that you wouldn’t normally expect. There’s not enough swing in science fiction either.
While it was a shame I suppose to lose all the Quidditch stuff, it did make the film a heck of a lot more focussed. And, the game makes no sense anyhow. Still, these films really could do with extended editions.
Jack
June 20th, 2004 at 2:07 am
I agree completely. While the Quidditch as seen in the first two films does make for a fun, cool little set-piece, it did kind of disrupt the flow of the movie.
Anyway I loved the birds getting eaten by that tree. Lovely and random.
Tom
June 20th, 2004 at 4:31 am
The tree was brilliant. Though in a way, not random, as it turned out to be an important part of the conclusion of the film. In fact, I can’t think of any scenes that weren’t important in some way to the plot.
Of course, you probably couldn’t have just had one crazy Quidditch scene in the first film, it needed explaining back then. Now we can just cut to Harry chasing the snitch and know what’s up.
Jess
June 20th, 2004 at 9:15 am
The tree also helped show the change in the seseasons. Which was important.
Tom
June 20th, 2004 at 10:54 pm
Did they do things like that in the first two? I had a much better sense of time in this one than I remember having for those.
Shannon
June 21st, 2004 at 12:10 am
Just seeing them in casual clothes made it seem more real too. In the last ones when they were in robes it made it extra fantasical, which isnt necessarily a bad thing, but I enjoyed it more the way it was done in the third. Man. I could go on and on. Simply tops.
Shannon
June 22nd, 2004 at 9:12 pm
Plus a whole lot of other elements, obvioulsy. So many things about the film were really well done. That first warner bros sign was very cool.. The nightbus made me laugh.. I got a bit confused at the leaky cauldron but thats probably cos I haven’t read that book in 3 years (tho it shouldnt matter), just as to why the minister was there.. anyway the minister isnt nearly weaseley enough. I’m almost over my ‘the characters dont look exactly like the ones in my head’ rant by this the third film, but I have to say – poor work on the minister. He has to be that shiny kind of slimy. Also, I must have been truly immersed in the film because i didnt even think about buckbeak as a cgi. The thoughts of ‘ooh i wonder how they did that’ and ‘ooh they was poorly/well done’ and ‘ooh what a bad bluescreen paste’ didnt enter my head once! And that may be nothing special for most people on the planet but for me, the nitpicker of the century, thats huge. I’m always looking at the technical stuff and pondering it, and in this one.. well it only entered my head that buckbeak was cgi when you said it here. I feel like a kid believing in magic again. Its great!It makes me laugh that Fiona Shaw for all of her one scene and possibly one line (but I cant remember if she actuallly said anything) got a fairly highly-billed spot in the credits. I wasnt counting, but she seemed only a handful of names after the kids. I suppose thats what fame in britain is worth. Or anywhere. Oooh ok return of the cynic. That didnt take long.. Um what else? It flowed so very nicely.. Almost too well I might have said. Yes the pacing was super super fast to keep up with the super super fast attention span of 8 year olds, but there were no moments to catch your breath or digest the last thing that happened before we were barrelling onto the next. Not even half a second to think about the ‘Y tu mama tambien’ correlation when Harry, Ron and Hermione shared a tender embrace as buckbead died.. or didnt, but you know. Still, I only thought about that after the film. As I said, inside the cinema there was no nitpicking or second guessing, just me going ‘aaaawww… what a beautiful image’. This has passed into waffleville so I’ll stop.
Tom
June 23rd, 2004 at 5:21 am
I liked the minister. I never imagined him as slimy – just the normal sort of petty, officious man in love with beaurocracy that you see in cartoony british shows like the Goodies or Doctor Who.
And who’s Fiona Shaw?
I thought the pacing was normal. Fast compared to the previous Potters, but normal for an actual ‘film’.