The best so far.

Rating: 8/10 (8 June 2004)

Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban is a curious movie. It is probably the best of the 3 HP films so far, being a bit more sinister & gothic in both the look & content. It has, on the whole, better performances from the cast than the other movies. It doesn't seem to drag like the first 2 did in places. And the special effects are dazzling. Yet, as I pondered the movie a couple of hours after I had seen it. I found myself thinking `Yes it was probably the best of the 3 HP films so far, but what was missing' Well I eventually realised what was missing after watching the HP & the Chamber of Secrets' with my kids later that evening. I shall come to the missing ingredient a little later. It's Harry's 3rd year at Hogwarts School of Wichcraft & Wizardry, & yet again he is caught up in mysterious goings on. The mass murderer Sirius Black has escaped from the wizard's prison `Azkaban' & is making a B-line for Hogwarts & in particular, it seems, Harry himself. It transpires that Sirius Black was the wizard responsible for the Death of Harry's parents, at the hands of the evil Lord Voldemort. As a result, the guards of Azkaban, or Dementors (think floaty Ringwraiths), have been stationed at Hogwarts to try to stop him. They do seem more intent on trying to suck the soul out of our hero. (That's what a Dementor does to its victim. It sucks all of the goodness out them until they are nothing but a living shell of a human). Add to this a Werewolf, a Hippogriff (a half horse, half eagle that can fly) & a menacing black dog that seems to be stalking Harry, & you have movie choc full of mystery & marvel. Now to the positives & negatives. Alfonso Cuaron has managed to get the best out of Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter). He seems to be more at ease in front of a camera, when delivering his dialogue & you get the feeling that he has actually been given the proper encouragement & coaching. He seems to be a far more confident actor than the wooden puppet of the previous films. The other child actors are also very good, with both Emma Watson & Rupert Grint (Hermione Grainger & Ron Weasley) showing that they could have big careers ahead of them. In fact, the cast as a whole are pretty damn good. Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane & Dame Maggie Smith all slide comfortably back in to their usual rolls & are, as usual, excellent. The new members of the cast are also very good, with David Thewlis excellent as Professor Lupin and the magnificent Gary Oldman (chewing up & spitting out every scene he is in, with relish) as the sinister Sirius Black. The actor with the hardest job out of the whole cast was Sir Michael Gambon. He had the unenviable task of replacing the late Sir Richard Harris. Thankfully he slips in to Dumbledore's robes with the minimum of fuss, playing it more as a bumbling old hippy rather than the imperious & imposing Harris' Dumbledore.
The only real disappointment in the cast is Emma Thompson as Professor Trelawney. She over compensates for limited screen time, with over the top, hammy nonsense. The visual effects, as you might expect, are top notch. Cuaron seems to have taken a leaf out of Peter Jackson's book, letting the visual effects fit around the movie rather than the George Lucas style of let the visual effects be the movie. The pacing of the film is just about spot on as well. It's not too long & it manages to stick to the book fairly well (although the lack of explanation about the origins of the Marauders Map was fairly irritating).
But. There were a few minus points as well as that missing thing I mentioned earlier. Again, as with the first two movies, Alan Rickman is woefully under-used as the bitter & twisted Prof. Snape & the same goes for the glorious Gary Oldman & his movie stealing performance. And the biggest thing to be missing was a standout action set-piece.
In both previous movies, there have been major spectacular set pieces that have really stuck in my mind. In the first one (The Philosophers Stone) there was Harry's first Quidditch match & the Giant Chess match. In the second (The Chamber of Secrets) there was the flight to Hogwarts in the Weasley's Ford Anglia, another impressive Quidditch match, the escape from Aragog's lair (Aragog is a giant spider) & the battle with the giant Basilisk (Snake). Yet in Azkaban, there is nothing that stands out (apart from performances which some would say isn't a bad thing). Harry Potter films need a good set piece or two. Don't get me wrong, there are a couple of good action sequences. The journey by Knightbus, Quidditch in a thunderstorm, a Hippogriff flight sequence & a werewolf/dog fight. It's just that you get the feeling that you've seen similar before, so there is no real wow factor.
On the whole this is a mightily impressive movie. Alfonso Cuaron delivered a movie as magical as the first two movies but with more depth & much better performances by the impressive cast.