Wildly entertaining, totally fun, very dark and enthralling. Like a great ride at an amusement park . . . I wouldn't mind doing it over again.

Rating: 10/10 (5 June 2004)

So . . . where to begin? Honestly, I think this is the hardest review I've ever written. It is now two hours after the curtain closed on my first viewing of the most recent entry in the Harry Potter film franchise, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". Numerous thoughts are rushing through my head, some contradictory. I don't think I have yet grasped the full impact of the movie on me, but hopefully, I will know by the time I'm finished writing.
Okay, before entering the movie theatre there are a few things you have to know.
1) This is the third movie . . . based on the third book . . . and if you haven't read and/or seen the first two movies/books, get a refund on your ticket and get to the nearest Chapters or Blockbuster. Caurón wastes no time in explaining characters backgrounds, or explaining situations. For this, I am very grateful. Indeed it is not necessary to once again give the background on these characters. The first two movies have thrown us into this magical world that we must now accept. The focus is no longer on what in this magical world is new and exciting, but rather on how our beloved characters function within their environment. Nonetheless, we are still treated to some tremendous introductions - the purple triple-decker Knight Bus and the extraordinary hippogriff, Buckbeak, just to name a few.
2) Please do accept the world that has been created for us by former director Chris Columbus, but also accept that things are different. If you go in to the theatre expecting a style similar to the first two movies, you will be extremely disappointed. Be prepared for freshness, for a completely different feel. We know much about Hogwarts now, and we no longer need wide sweeping views of its magical contents that last for a long periods of time, allowing us take in the remarkable scenery. We are happy to settle for a quicker pace, faster advancement of plot and more focus on the emotional state of the characters being viewed.
3) This movie is darker . . . much darker. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" was considerably darker than its predecessor, ". . . Philosopher's Stone", but Caurón's work makes Columbus' efforts seem like "Barney and Friends". I am not saying that children should be barred from seeing this film. I think we underestimated children's abilities some times. "The Wizard of Oz", a film I compared the first in the Potter series to, has very many dark moments in it; so does Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" for that matter . . . but children are able to handle it. In fact, I dare say they enjoy a bit of fright at times. On that note, I would say that children who have read the book should see the movie. This movie is not for those who are not old enough to understand the themes, complex plot and dark nature of Book 3.
So . . . what do I think? In short . . . I like it. I like it very much actually. While the first two movies seem like graphic depictions of J.K. Rowling's works, this third installment appears, to me at least, to be the first real cinematic adaptation. The movies of "Philosopher's Stone" and "Chamber of Secrets" do just what the books do - paint the picture of Hogwarts in our minds - establish the scene. In "Azkaban", Rowling finally begins to advance the main story which ties together all seven works in the set (two of which are still to be published). The third book thus serves a very different function from the first two books, and so, the third movie fulfils the same function. As mentioned before, the focus is taken away from "setting the scene" and the result is a fast-paced, action-packed, fun-filled (wow, three hyphenated terms in a row!) drama, truly befitting of the character of the novel. Columbus stayed true to the first two novels by reproducing Rowling's wonderland. This task is much harder for Caurón as he has to deal with a much larger book (exceeding Book 2 by approximately 100 pages). Instead, Caurón stays true to Rowling's work by adopting the character of "Azkaban" and transforming it into a cinematic masterpiece.
The film is visually stunning, perhaps one of the greatest visual achievements of this decade (second only to the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in my opinion). While Quidditch was the triumph of "Philosopher's Stone" and "Chamber of Secrets" was revered for its recreation of both Dobby and the basilisk, the CGI masterpiece of "Azkaban" is Buckbeak, the friendly hippogriff (friendly if your name isn't Draco Malfoy). Seldom is a CGI figure's character (I mean to say "personality" but it perhaps is not the most
appropriate term since we are dealing with a half-eagle, half-horse) allowed to shine through. Most CGI animators focus on producing the requested image, but don't worry about portraying the character's persona. We truly feel for Buckbeak in this film; he is perhaps one of the greatest things in it. We do have the customary "boy riding on animal" scene (which to me was overly reminiscent of "Free Willy") but Caurón avoids the potential cheesiness of this scene by neglecting conventional close-ups of Harry smiling, in favour or showing the beauty of the hippogriff's flight. We experience Harry's emotion not through an extra-long close-up of his beaming face, but through our own reactions to the beauty of the moment. This shows that Caurón puts a lot of faith in his audience, and I admire that.
The one CGI moment I found out-of-place was the werewolf scene. I found it look rather fake, and not nearly frightening enough. He seemed like a shaved dog howling because he was too cold and wanted to borrow somebody's coat. Nonetheless, this disappointment was quickly overcome once more scenes with the werewolf were introduced - frightening scenes which capture the viewer's complete attention.
The acting in this film far supersedes its predecessors. For starters, the main trio has grown up, and they have grown considerably in their talents. For the first time, I sensed a genuine understanding of the role from Daniel Radcliffe, who plays the infamous boy wizard. Radcliffe shows great depth in some particular scenes and great chemistry with all the actors her interacts with, particularly David Thewlis, who plays the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, Remus Lupin. (Look up the root of "Lupin" and try to figure out what CGI character he might relate to.) I could have done without a particular scene featuring Harry and Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), but I understand it's importance to the plot. Nonetheless, the scene seemed like an anomalie in this film. Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley provides the perfect amount of comic relief and I think he has established himself as the most lovable character of all in this film. Easily, the most despicable character is Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) who, though he seems to have worsened in his contemptuous attitude towards muggle borns and their friends, appears wimpy when faced with unflattering circumstances. Among the child actors, the highlight is Emma Watson, who plays Hermione. From the very first film I pinned her the best of the three, and now I know that I was right from the start. Watson exhibits are star quality not as easily apparent in the others. She has big things ahead of her. Grint's Weasley and Watson's Grainger have an adorable chemistry on screen and I look forward to seeing it develop, particularly in the fourth movie with the introduction of Bulgarian seeker Viktor Krum.
The adult cast is to be admired as well, though they are sadly, yet understandably, underused. Thewlis is splendid in his performance as Lupin while Alan Rickman's Snape is as vicious as ever. It is only our knowledge that he is indeed on 'the good side' prevents us from hating him with all our being. Emma Thompson has to be one of my favourite actresses and I absolutely love her in this film. Though her scenes are short, she commands the screen whenever she is on it. Her final scene is not particularly how I imagined it, but is effective nonetheless, and she concludes it with the perfect amount of humour.
Most impressive in the new cast is newcomer Michael Gambon. While I enjoyed Richard Harris' brilliant portrayal, I admire the direction Caurón has decided to take with the character, as opposed to Columbus' interpretation. I also found the character of Dumbledore lacking in the first two films. The movies seemed to capture his brilliance and his compassion, but never his eccentricity, which I also considered to be the quality that made him most appealing. Columbus opted to portray an old, wise Dumbledore, always there to offer insight to a young up-and-coming wizard. I find this new 'hippie' Dumbledore a much more accurate portrayal of what Dumbledore ought to be.
This is my favourite of the five books published, but I am hesitant to call it my favourite movie. It is hard enough for me to discern which is my favourite out of the first two films. I find the cinematic achievements behind 'Chamber of Secrets' more fulfilling, but the story behind 'Philosopher's Stone' is more appealing. I now struggle with whether I even want to compare Potter No. 3 to its older siblings. It differs in appearance, mood, character and plot. Yet, if I take it upon myself to draw up a list of my ten favourite films each year among a wide array of film styles, I should be able to choose between three films based on the same theme.
I think it all comes down to this . . .
'Philosopher's Stone' is purely magical and, in my opinion, is destined to become a classic - a film that children will watch for ages to come. 'Chamber of Secrets' is a step up in cinematic technique, and a thrilling sequel, much like 'Empire Strikes Back' is to 'Star Wars'. 'Azkaban' is a cinematic achievement far surpassing the efforts of the first two film. In fact, it is essentially the first real cinematic venture in the franchise. The first two films still seem to me to Chris Columbus' depiction of J.K. Rowling's universe, while this third film is Alfonso Caurón's theatrical rendition of Rowling's masterpiece. I think it is a damn good film.
I do not think that 'Azkaban' will enjoy the same treatment that will be given to 'Philosopher's Stone' in the future. It will not be considered a classic. It will be just one film in a series of seven. Nonetheless, when it is all said and done, and all seven movies have been made, 'Azkaban' will be looked upon as the one that changed the franchise; the one where everything matured. I for one hope that Warner Bros. continues the trend of finding new directors for each entry. I think it will add so much to series. I look forward for Mike Newell's 'Goblet of Fire'. I do hope, however, that he takes more pages from Caurón's book than he does from Columbus'. While Columbus' style is so appropriate for the first two films, it would ruin the fate of the other books. The future of the Harry Potter franchise lies within building upon what Caurón has done.