Toto, I don't think we're at Hogwarts anymore

Rating: Null/10 (6 June 2004)

I admit that as a Snape-aholic I had very strong hopes that there would be the oft-promised, never delivered 'more Snape' in this film. After all, Snape figured fairly prominently in the book 'Prisoner of Azkaban,' in a way he hadn't in the previous books. We found out a bit about the motivations for his behavior toward Harry, didn't we? We found out about the relationship between Snape and the Mauraders during their Hogwarts days. In fact, it turns out to be important in a later book, doesn't it? And didn't Rowling once advise us to keep our eyes on Snape because he will turn out to be important?
Not in the movies, apparently. In the second film, he got upstaged by a giant spider. In this one, it's a hippogriff and a whomping willow.
He does become the butt of all kinds of jokes in this film, which perhaps was meant to make up for the lack of a clear explanation of why he's such a meany. There is a hint, but only a quick one, that he once had a problem with Professor Lupin and Sirius Black, but that's about it. About all Rickman can do with the short time he's given (once again) is pretend (once again) to be mean and then in the next breath, (once again), inexplicably try to protect Harry. Anyone who knows Snape only from the films must be totally confused by this (very minor, almost cameo) character by now  starting with why he keeps popping up in the pictures, played by such a great actor. Seems like a waste of time at this point, both for Alan Rickman and for ourselves. The amazing shrinking role of Professor McGonagall must be a similar bafflement for Maggie Smith fans.
Which brings me to the point. The fact is, if you never read the books and only watched the first film, you would be able to understand the plot. Ditto for the second film  I know this from experience, because I saw the second film before I read any of the books or saw the first film.
Not so with this movie. As I watched it, I tried to take myself back to November of 2002 and see it through the eyes of a person who had never read any Potter books or watched any Potter movies. And I came away with the impression that if I still were that person and had only seen the third film, I would have thought that the Potter series was a shallow, plotless mess.
I can credit the new director with injecting a great deal of atmosphere into the film. The first two movies had a sanitized, cotton-candy appearance; this one makes the wizarding world look like an eternal, decaying, nightmarish Halloween night. Hogwarts even seems to have moved to a new location. The downside of this is that for people familiar with the first two Potter movies, the change may be so jarring as to create a huge distraction from what is going on.
I noted a great deal more bald-faced humor in this film than in the previous two; the audience I was in laughed more often than audiences at some comedy movies I've seen. Most apparent to me was the intense spotlight on the main character; formerly, this was a bit more of a trio act between Harry, Ron and Hermione. The next two books make it clear that the further Harry develops, and the closer he moves to his wizarding High Noon, the more alone he will be  so this spotlight is, perhaps, appropriate. But maybe less hippogriff and whomping willow would have allowed a bit more character development among the supporting cast?
For instance, if you really think about this film, it might tell us a lot about the awfulness of Harry's life with the Dursleys that he'd rather live at Hogwarts than with them. Certainly the opening scene at the home of Harry's aunt and uncle is so condensed that we really don't get enough of a sense of who or what they are supposed to be. Aunt Marge doesn't even get much opportunity to insult Harry before she gets turned into a blimp. Someone coming in cold, with no Potter experience at all, would never be able to figure out why if they didn't contemplate that this young boy prefers to live in a place with monsters and killers and mean teachers rather than in a nice, well- kept suburban home with mean relatives.
As I said earlier, a lot of other things get lost as well. And it's a shame.
Of note are several new cast members, one of them Sir Michael Gambon. Although I have a theory about new actors in old roles that I call the 'James Bond syndrome,' (that is, the first film is usually a horror for the new actor in the role), I had thought that Gambon would sail around such problems. He didn't. Perhaps it wasn't his fault; like too many other secondary (but important) characters, Dumbledore simply isn't given much to do in this film. But the late Richard Harris had a twinkle in his eye and an imposing physical presence that Gambon doesn't achieve, and in the role of Dumbledore, that's a problem.
David Thewlis makes an acceptable Lupin. I found him rather cold and formal (as well as too tall), but many fans are avidly discussing the 'odd' conversation between Harry and Lupin in which Harry's mother is mentioned, trying to glean clues from it, and most viewers I've heard from think he's wonderful. So I won't quibble, but I will say that I wish he'd lose the mustache.
The celebrated Gary Oldman makes a handsome, haunted, charismatic Sirius Black. Unfortunately, his time on screen is so limited that he has little more to do than look menacing and then be grateful to Harry and it seems about 30 seconds after they meet, he offers Harry a new home away from the Dursley clan  which must totally jar any non-Potterites out of their seats.
It almost did that to me, as did Lupin's lightning-quick change of mood from Black hatred to Black love, the only development in this direction having been an equally lightning-quick glance at the Maurader's Map (which is also not explained), showing that the formerly-believed-dead Peter Pettigrew was in fact alive. Nothing else is ever explained very well, and unfortunately, the story of Harry's parents' deaths is central to the overall plot of all of the films  and the explanation of who created the Maurader's Map ties into that story.
Then Black is packed off on the back of a hippogriff, and we never find out why Dumbledore believes Harry when no one else does and we're robbed of Snape's Mad Scene, which has long been popular among the fans and which, in fact tells us a bit about Snape and his motivations. If I remember correctly, we don't even find out that it was Snape who snitched on Lupin and got him fired from Hogwarts at the end of the film.
(To be fair, Rickman does manage to wring out one strong Snape moment --in the Shrieking Shack -- but it's brief, so don't blink when you go to see the film.)
The one new character who is given enough time to develop (because she really didn't need much) was Trelawny the Divination Professor, brilliantly acted by Emma Thompson. But there are too many other loose ends.
There is, simply put, no plot. This movie is nothing more than a gorgeous mess.