Bloody Brilliant

Rating: Null/10 (23 July 2004)

I beg to differ from the people who think that Harry Potter is just a child's' movie. While the storyline may be designed for children, I know of many adults who have enjoyed all three films so far.
Harry Potter and his friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger return to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry for their third year, but they return to the mystery surrounding an escaped prisoner who could seriously endanger Harry's life. Gary Oldman plays Sirius Black, the Prisoner of Azkaban and a threat to Harry; Michael Gambon plays the role of Professor Dumbledore, Hogwarts' most celebrated headmaster for years; Timothy Spall plays Peter Pettigrew, an old schoolfriend of Harry's deceased father, James Potter; David Thewlis plays Professor Lupin, the new Defense Against the Dark Arts Professor who bears a mysterious secret; Pam Ferris plays Harry's evil Aunt Marge; and Paul Whitehouse portrays Sir Caddogan, the batty old Knight who becomes the guardian of Gryffindor Tower temporarily. Harry's third year is made undoubtedly worse by the Dementors that are guarding the school. The guards of Azkaban, the Dementors have amazing powers, powers that have an undesired effect on Harry.
David Thewlis in particular gives a strong performance as Remus J Lupin. He is able to play the Defence Against the Dark Arts Professor exactly the way I imagined him when I was reading the book. Caring, understanding, clever, just the impression I got from the book. As always, I was impressed with the maturity and the quality of acting from Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Tom Felton and the ever pretty Emma Watson and Bonnie Wright. Rupert in particular seems to have come out of his shell. If you'd care to look back at Chamber of Secrets and Pilosopher's Stone, you'll see he tends to be a lot quieter and shyer than the others. In Prisoner of Azkaban he appears to be much more confident, and his acting benefited because of this.
I wasn't overly happy with the casting of Sirius Black. Don't get me wrong, Gary Oldman gave an excellent performance as the escaped prisoner, but I don't think I'm alone when I say I was expecting somebody a little younger. Sirius Black is supposed to be a young, carefree, handsome man, and Gary Oldman just didn't fit this criteria.
Also, Michael Gambon didn't bring the character of Dumbledore to life the way Richard Harris did. Michael Gambon was far too active to be Dumbledore, who is generally a thoughtful, quiet, slow, steady kind of guy.
Another thing that really bugged me was that the grounds of Hogwarts had totally changed. I remember reading that it would be intentional, but I'm sure there isn't a hill near Hagrid's hut mentioned in the book. Yet, this hill has suddenly materialised in the film. I know that's a problem with all movies that are made from books, the film isn't exactly the same as the book, as we would want it to be. But there's no excuse for just adding new things right out of the blue. As a point of interest, I'd like to know if Alfonso Cuarón has ever even read PoA?
Moaning over. Overall, I was impressed with every aspect of the film. I would recommend it to everybody, not just Harry Potter fans. Even if you totally hate the boy wizard, you'll enjoy the film because it's a pleasure to see kids acting and giving it their all. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban will go down as one of the greatest films in history, and it deserves it.