Visually excellent book adaptation; a darker turn for the series

Rating: 8/10 (14 August 2013)

The third film of the 'Harry Potter' franchise, 'Prisoner of Azkaban' is a very good fantasy film dealing with wizardry (though, if you are to watch this, you already know what 'Harry Potter' is about). With the change in direction, this film marks a deviation from the more childish style of Chris Columbus first two films, with a darker, more sinister tone employed by Alfonso Cuaron.
Following their tradition, however, HP3 is visually terrific and has excellent special effects; in addition to Hogwarts enchanting visage, we now also have the Hogsmeade village to thank for the good photography. Also, much more of Hogwarts is explored now too; even in the books it feels as if we know very little of the place, despite all that happens.
The creatures, like Buckbeak and the wraith-like Dementors, bring an eerie brilliance to the screen whenever they appear. Some of their appearances late in the film are great to watch; actually, most of the late portion of the film is excellent.
The adult cast is excellent. Michael Gambon respectfully stands to the task of substituting Richard Harris, and both David Thewlis and Gary Oldman (excellent casting choices, by the way) shine in their scenes. The returners from the first two (Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Richard Griffiths and Robbie Coltrane, among others) also bring good performances again. Alan Rickman, in special, is excellent; his interactions with Thewlis are some of the movie's best. Emma Thompson is also present now, though she adds little (her character was one of the least interesting to me, and her acting was rather uneventful).
The younger cast is the same as before, though admittedly more mature (keeping to the tone of the film). Emma Watson is excellent as a more serious Hermione, a truly promising actress; Rupert Grint is likable and funny, truly capturing the book's image of Ron; and Tom Felton does a good job as Draco (the character's flaws are the same as the books, nothing he could correct).
I am not as sure of Daniel Radcliffe, though. He is more mature, and by now it's difficult to think of Harry without thinking of him as the character, but he still lacks a lot in the acting department. There are many good moments that end up lacking in the emotional aspect thanks to his weak acting; he never makes it work on sad, emotional scenes (when he is supposed to be crying, for example), and his facial expressions are often too overdone to the point of hilarity.
'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban' is a remarkable screen adaptation that knows how to play the book's strengths while keeping true to its source (though unfortunately also keeping the book's weaknesses). Knowledge of the first two films/books of the franchise is needed, yes, but that is no problem as the franchise is a very enjoyable one.