Harry Potter and the Prisoner of...Cuaron

Rating: Null/10 (6 June 2004)

Warning: Spoilers!
First hand let me just say that had the film's expectations not been elevated by the success of the previous two films (The Sorcerer's Stone, The Chamber of Secrets,) and their likeness to the books by the same name, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban might have been something good, impressive even. Director Alfonso Cuaron (Y Tu Mama Tambien) was handed the reins for this third installment in the Harry Potter film franchise, and once again his misguided and often times absurd interpretations as a director, landed audiences a huge disappointment.
As the film begins, the audience looks around uncomfortably. It seems Cuaron forgot he was working on a "big" budget movie this time around, as we are led into the familiar home of the hideous, albeit comical Dursley residence by what appears to be a hand-held indie film camera. After Y Tu Mama Tambien's "brilliant" film work left me wanting to vomit from dizziness, I could feel the gag reflex kicking up again. Thankfully somebody stopped him five minutes into the movie, and we get on with the story.
Ah, the story. Anybody ever heard the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" Not Cuaron. J.K. Rowling's masterpiece of a book was crucified faster than you can say "The Passion", complete with a ruddy storyline that left many of my fellow moviegoers scratching their heads. And that's just the lot of us who actually read the book. Those of you who haven't: Bring a friend who has, my dear, because you'll be bombarding them with questions later.
Given that the story left something to be desired, the actors, on the other hand were superb. Young Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and the blossoming Emma Watson elevate to the task of their roles with alarming maturity and grace. No pimple-faced awkward teenagers here. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) while well on his way to international stardom, has been holding out on us...he's got the goods that make the girls blush. Michael Gambon, who reprised the role of Professor Dumbledore due to the untimely death of Sir Richard Harris, slipped into the Professor's robes so easily, you almost forget that it's not the same person. Well done. Another disappointing aspect of the film was the lack of emphasis on the presence of certain Hogwart's professors: McGonnagall and Snape. We don't see them enough and that is a shame. Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith command much more screen presence than their characters were afforded. In the Hogsmeade scenes, what little time Ms. Smith appears on screen, her character comes off like a babbling gossip queen! But others, Gary Oldman as Sirius Black, and David Thewlis as R.J. Lupin bring their gifts to the screen simply by walking in front of the camera. Very satisfying.
The Special Effects in the movie were also quite good. The Effects team at least seemed as though they had read the book, and depicted in careful detail the descriptions which the book possesses. The demementors are horrifying creatures who will make your skin crawl, and of course the enchanted grounds of Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry were every bit as familiar, right down to the moving pictures.
Overall, fans of the Harry Potter series will most likely be disappointed. Alfonso Cuaron decided to use this movie as his stomping grounds for the indie world by trying to prove that big budget movies, too, can be left up to interpretation. In so doing, he also proved what some of us might have known all along: He can't play with the big boys. Too many similarities took place: Shoddy camera work, too many loose ends, and a penchant for making his main boy look a little too pretty. What do we get? Y Tu Mama Tambien, with a slightly more subtle sexual undertone. Chris Columbus, please come back!