"Tragically underused" is becoming their mantra.

Rating: 8/10 (30 June 2004)

"Tragically underused" is the first term that seems to come to mind for the Harry Potter films. All three tragically underuse the charismatic and talented Emma Watson as Hermione Granger, the second and third tragically underuse Alan Rickman as Severus Snape, the second tragically underuses Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart, and the third tragically underuses Emma Thompson as Sybil Trelawney. They have still risen above these mistakes.
This film is the best of the fine series and is markedly different. The first was a fanciful introduction to this world and our hero characters; the second was an hour and a half of pure fun (mostly provided by Branagh and Watson) with an hour-long horror movie mixed in; and the third is a stylish, dark, more subtle drama with some excellent comic relief (which is, this time, truly relief). Chris Columbus's "Chamber of Secrets" was not particularly visually stunning and was mostly carried by the wildly entertaining characters of Hermione Granger and Gilderoy Lockhart (both played brilliantly), but Alfonso Cuaron's "Prisoner of Azkaban" very quickly makes the point that Cuaron is a master of lighting and has a penchant for the visual metaphor--something all-too-little-used in film. *SMALL SPOILER* Harry runs away from his aunt and uncle and sits in front of a deserted playground (which is a wonderful image under any circumstances) that is lightly wetted with drops of water and is oh-so-beautiful, thanks to angles, the location, and, most noticeably, the lighting. This scene sets us up for what is to come visually and thematically. *SPOILER OVER*
The best way to describe this new directoral direction is "stylish." Where Chris Columbus was a classicist who never really stuck out, Cuaron shows us that he leans heavily toward the formalist side of the fence. The only downside of this new direction is that it does place more pressure on Daniel Radcliffe, who does not appear up to the challenge. The repeating clock imagery was a wonderful subtle use of visual metaphor and the quiet clock ticking during the ending was also a nice, subtle metaphor that added much to the experience. Cuaron should be applauded for this film (honestly, an Oscar nod--not a win, mind you--is deserved)
As for the acting, Daniel Radcliffe seems to be breaking under the strain of an increasingly deep and showy role under a more formalistic director. Meanwhile, the estimable supporting actors, from Emma Thompson to Gary Oldman, were solid as always. Rupert Grint continues to be adequate in the worst role of all of the children, not able to show much but also not needing to. Then there's Emma Watson--she was charismatic and had a wonderful presence from the first time she appeared on screen in "The Sorcerer's Stone," but as her character has become deeper she has only improved and I think that we are seeing a star grow before our eyes in her--especially if she grows up to be as attractive as it seems she will. She has been underused in all three films, but this one is getting it better. While it is probably the most Harry-centric film of the series, Hermione does get a more significant role and the adults are much downplayed (including, unfortunately, the complete departure of John Cleese) in favor of allowing our heroes (Harry, Hermione, and Ron) to take over the film.
All in all, this is a wonderful film and startlingly serious and powerful. Most of the acting is good, with only Daniel Radcliffe standing out as inadequate; the comedy, when it appears, is hilarious; and the film is, plainly and simply, beautiful. It should have enough to keep the kids awake (and those in the theater when I went stayed awake--even though it didn't start until 9:15 PM), but it isn't overly loud and it really plays like a drama. I highly recommend this one.