The least cartoon-like of the three films

Rating: 8/10 (27 October 2005)

Finally, an installment in the Harry Potter series that has a serious amount of intelligence. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is probably the most film-like of the three movies, and definitely the least cartoon-like. It looks like Warner Brothers made a smart move by replacing the director with a professional: Alfonso Cuaron (the new director) sure gives the impression that he knows what he's doing, unlike Chris Columbus' clumsy work on the first two Harry Potter movies. Then again, Cuaron directed some great films, such as "A Little Princess" and "Y tu mama tambien", while Chris Colombus' major credits are Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire. It is quite understandable (and obvious) that Cuaron is the more professional of the two.
One of the things that annoyed me the most about the first two films is how pastoral the world looked, especially the Hogwarts grounds. I always thought that the Quiddich sequences in the first two films looked abnormally fake, and they were my least favorite parts of both films. I'm not sure why I thought they looked so fake, but it was probably a combination of the shiny, spotless witness stands, the smooth, bright green grass and the perfect blue sky, and a very "fake" filming style. Cuaron changes all this. His most obvious addition to the series is just how dark he managed to make the Harry Potter world. Quiddich never looked so real. Then again, in Prisoner of Azkaban you never really see the Quiddich field, as it's raining cats and dogs (not literally). The filming style of the Quiddich came, though, is so much better than that of the Quiddich games in the first two films. Also, the Hogwarts grounds are no longer so green and perfect: they are now very muddy, with ugly, pale weeds growing all over the place, and the entire place is littered with gray rocks and boulders. It just looks so much more real than the flawless, bright green grass in the first two films. Also, there is almost never a blue sky: it's always cloudy and very murky. This was a great touch, and it was a great decision to change the pastoral look of Hogwarts to a gloomier appearance.
Another thing I must praise Cuaron for is the acting he managed to squeeze out of his actors: Daniel Radcliffe's (Harry) performance in the first two films always annoyed me, but Cuaron really managed to turn him into a pretty good actor. He does a great job in expressing Harry's emotions in this film, which was very important since this is when they really start getting turbulent. Rupert Grint (Ron) doesn't really have much to do except whine and look terrified, and Emma Watson's (Hermione) acting never really bothered me. But, as usual, the actors that really shine are the adults. Alan Rickman, as usual, is stunning in his role as Snape: he truly was the perfect choice. The three newcomers were also great. David Thewlis was good as Lupin, although I always imagined Lupin's character as a much more sympathetic one, but then again his condition probably really agitates him, so his attitude in some scenes is probably appropriate for his character. Gary Oldman, as usual, is excellent in his role as Sirius Black. While we're supposed to sympathize his character, at the end of the film he still looks ruddy, dirty and slightly crazy. And last but not least, Emma Thomson was excellent in her somewhat small role as Professor Trelawney: the filmmakers made her exactly how I imagined her to be.
The main problem with the film is some bad storytelling at some points. For someone who read the books, watching the movie is really no problem, because they can fill in the gaps themselves according to what was in the book and not featured in the movie, but for people who haven't read the book, the movie looked to me as very difficult to understand. There were quite a few points that something wasn't explained on screen that made somewhat of a difference in the scene, and some cases in which I wouldn't have been able to understand what was going on unless I'd have read the book (which, as I mentioned before, I did). Bottom line is, it might be a bit difficult to see this film unless you know what's going on.
To sum it all up, Alfonso Cuaron, the new director, certainly proved himself as someone who knows what he's doing. He's managed to improve this film from the first two in almost every aspect: acting, mood, production design, cinematography, visual effects, and of course, direction. It's really too bad that Cuaron's not directing the fourth film, Harry Potter and the Goblet of fire (this is due to the fact that filming on Goblet of Fire began while Prisoner of Azkaban was still in post-production), and I really hope that the new director will take a few leafs out of Alfonso Cuaron's book. The great thing about this film is that he's so much of a professional, movie buffs (like me, for instance) who enjoy watching "artsy" movies, will probably like this one as well, for its artistic merits (check out some great use of time as an artistic tool near the end of the movie, mostly usage of the giant clock installed in the school in some shots I described before). But, a few things that bugged me about this movie lower its value a bit. Also, the fact that I just don't like J.K. Rowling lowered its value a bit. Final evaluation: definitely worth seeing, but it might be too complex (and quite scary, at times) for the younger ones.