The difference between a workmanlike adaptation and cinema art

Rating: 8/10 (5 June 2005)

The first two Harry Potter movies were faithful, efficient adaptations of their respective books. I enjoyed them, although since I had read the books and they just retold the story of those books I felt they would have been more fun for someone who did not already know the story.
This third movie is something entirely different. Directed by Alfonso Cuarón, who helmed the brilliant, magical A Little Princess, Cuaron adds a lyrical quality to the magic and brings Hogswart alive in a way Chris Columbus, the competent but unimaginative director of movies Like Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire, failed to do in his movies. Columbus brought the sort of magic you get from a stage magician, Cuaron makes magic come alive.
Skimming the other reviews I get the impression a lot of people were put of by the darkness of this film. Having read all the Potter books I am ahead of the movies in terms of grimness: I am so used to the darkness of later books that it didn't even occur to me this one was dark. I must warn those who don't read the books that things are going to get much, much grimmer in the succeeding movies. Honestly I wish the books weren't getting so brutally tragic, but I still find them fascinating.
Sadly, none of the future Potter movies are to be directed by Cuaron, and I won't be surprised if this is the most artful of the series.