Almost great, but lacking explanation and continuity

Rating: Null/10 (4 June 2004)

***SPOILERS***
Just saw Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Alcatraz (sorry, I meant Azkaban) and I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. The first thing I noticed was that this is a very different type of film. It's nothing like the first two, and if you hadn't read that the series had a new director, you'll spot it instantly.
Unfortunately this is my main problem - it's different. Nothing is the same as the previous two films. The kids dress differently, the whole geography of Hogwarts has changed (Hagrid's hut is now a long way from the school, at the bottom of a steep hill, rather than being right next to it), even the music is different, despite still being written by John Williams. It doesn't feel like a sequel, it feels like a completely different film. Despite what people say, I liked the first two films and would have liked Chris Columbus to have come back. The camera in this film is really lively, rather than what now seems a rather stationary, rigid affair before. But the camera never stops moving. It just keeps zooming in, through windows, through clock workings, through eyes, through that clock AGAIN, through eyes AGAIN, through yet more clocks. Honestly it never stops. At least we didn't get any of Peter Jackson's spinning camera.
But not all change is bad. The music is a lot different this time, but better for it. The previous outings never had anything as majestic as the music when Harry first rides Buckbeak. The special effects too seems somehow different, but also a lot better than the first film's cartoony CGI.
Buckbeak is incredible, as are the dementors. The SFX give a real sense of power to the magic.
The film opens immediately with Harry illegally practicing magic under his bedclothes, trying to avoid waking his uncle. Then immediately we cut to the next night when Aunt Marge comes over, whom Harry immediately takes a dislike to, and immediately turns into a giant balloon. He then immediately storms out. Notice a pattern? The film never let's up, but because of this it lacks explanation. We don't really know what the Knight Bus is, or who the other passengers are. If time travel is so dangerous, why let a 13 year old girl do it just to attend extra classes? It's never explained how come Lupin knows about the Marauder's map yet Snape doesn't. Why did Harry's patronus charm look like a stag? Who are Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs? We aren't explained anything very well. It's like bits are missing. The whole thing's got a very cyclic explanation in the book. Padfoot is Sirius Black (because he can change into a dog), Wormtail is Pettigrew (rat's tails look like worms), Lupin is Moony (changes into a werewolf on a full MOON), and Prongs is Harry's dad. Harry's dad could change into a Stag (antlers=prongs). And that's why Harry's patronus is a stag. Simple see? Why couldn't they have put that in the film? It's only a couple of lines.
Overall I've got mixed feelings. Well, actually no, I haven't. I thoroughly enjoyed the film. I want to see it again. Is it the best Harry Potter film? I don't know. I really hated the discontinuity. Time will tell.