A more "grown-up looking" Harry Potter adventure, held back by lacklustre plot and over-active camera work.

Rating: 6/10 (24 August 2009)

The third Harry Potter film has a better 'look' than the previous two. The colours and photography are much darker, presumably to reflect the darker turn taken by the story. It's clear that new director Alfonso Cuaron is intent on moving the series into a more grown-up, emotionally engaging, self-consciously moody realm of film-making. What lets Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban down is the absence of a truly compelling storyline (it hovers constantly on the verge of something really good, but never quite gets there). There's also an irritating over-emphasis on the camera work, more of which will be said later.
Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) returns to Hogwarts, but things at the school are not at all well. A notorious prisoner, Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), has escaped from Azkaban Prison and many fear that he will head for Hogwarts. Black has spent years imprisoned for being an ally of Voldemort (the bad wizard who murdered Harry's parents) and it is feared that he wants to track down Harry and kill him. Dementors, demon-like guardians from Azkaban, are placed around the school perimeters to intercept the escaped villain – yet they seem just as dangerous to the safety of the pupils, Harry most of all. Rather than sit around and wait for trouble to come to him, Harry tries to piece together more of the events that led to his parent's demise all those years ago, in the hope that something from his past will help him in his quest to stay alive.
Like the previous two films, Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban is geared towards fans of the book more than casual viewers. There are occasional incidents and bits of dialogue that seem incoherent or flawed, yet those more familiar with the book seem able to fill in such gaps in narrative logic quite readily. On the positive side, though, there are favourable things to say about the film. Its dark mood is nicely maintained; the child actors finally seem to be getting better; there is a more fulfilling sense of character development; some of the plot developments are quite unpredictable. The film is certainly equal to – possibly a fraction better than – the first one, and considerably improves on the underwhelming number Two. One thing which really mars this film, though, is the restless camera work. In every shot – even a scene as mundane as a conversation or a lesson – the camera pans and zooms and prowls needlessly, to the point where it induces headaches. Photographer Michael Seresin has tried to be a little too showy for his own good, and the effect merely lessens one's enjoyment of the film.