Not a step forward for this franchise

Rating: 7/10 (20 June 2004)

I need to preface my comments by stating that I'm a big fan of the Harry Potter novels, which means my opinion of the films are somewhat colored by my opinion of the books. While I enjoyed "Sorcerer's Stone" as both a book and a film, they were both, at heart, stories for children. I thought Chris Columbus did a good job of capturing the essential nature of the book, and I appreciated the effort. I gave "Sorcerer's Stone" an 8.
"Chamber of Secrets" is my least favorite book of the five, and so I was not surprised to find that I didn't like the second film as much as the first, either. I give credit to Columbus for, once again, staying true to the spirit, and mostly to the word, of the book, but he was working with inferior material. I gave "Chamber of Secrets" a 6.
In the books, "Prisoner of Azkaban" begins the maturing of the material. Author J.K. Rowling writes her novels in a more complex and adult style as the characters in them grow from children to young adults. As a result, I have found that I appreciate and enjoy the later books in the series more than the earlier ones. "Prisoner of Azkaban" is the first book to take that step toward more advanced storytelling, and it is my favorite of the first three books, but unfortunately that isn't true of the films.
I found that "Prisoner of Azkaban" does not live up to the book in a number of ways, but that comparison may not be fair, as many films cannot address all the material in a book's pages and thus fall short. On its own merits as a film, however, I still find that this film is flawed. First of all, it felt rushed. Cuts between scenes were often harsh. The movie takes significant leaps in time that don't feel that way due to quick edits. This and certain unexplained plot and character changes left me thinking that a lot of film was left on the editing room floor. For example, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) seems to bond awfully quickly with the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, Professor Lupin (David Thewlis), and I kept thinking that we were missing some scenes that included just how their relationship developed.
Another problem I have is that some of the child actors aren't very good actors. I thought this really showed with Ron (Rupert Grint) and Draco (Tom Felton). While their talents sufficed in the two previous films, in this one, they fell short. In don't know if this is due to the difference in directors or if the actors aren't up to the task, but their performances in "Prisoner" were a distraction - not good.
Third, the choice of Michael Gambon to replace the late Richard Harris in the role of Albus Dumbledore was an unfortunate one. Mr. Gambon is a fine actor, and he brings a vigor to the role that Harris could not have provided, but he lacks the screen presence of a legend, and the magic of Hogwarts seems somewhat diminished.
Lastly, characters that were well established in the first two films got short shrift this time around. Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) has little more than a cameo appearance. The wonderfully creepy Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) plays a much reduced role, and we never see a potions class that I can remember. Ron's siblings are barely seen. All of these characters are a big part of Harry's world, and that world seems much changed without them.
Then we have areas where the shortages from the book detract from the film for those, like me, that really enjoyed the printed version. For example, the origin of the Marauder's Map and the identities of "Messrs Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs" go unexplained. Dedicating five to ten minutes of footage to this might have gone a long way towards explaining Harry's relationship with Lupin and also why he warms so quickly to Sirius Black (Gary Oldman).
Another issue is that the films are coming out too slowly, and the kids are thus aging faster than their characters. Harry and company are supposed to be 13 in this film, but they look more like 15. This will only get worse if they continue to have more than a year between films.
Does anyone else find that the film version of Draco Malfoy is a wimp? He comes off as much more of a villain in the book. Maybe this is due to the shortcomings of Felton as an actor, but I blame it on the script and the direction. And his cronies Crabbe (Jamie Waylett) and Goyle (Josh Herdman) aren't near as threatening a physical presence as they ought to be.
Enough complaining. There are still lots of things that are right and good here. The world is still magical, and in this film, more fully realized. Other reviewers have talked about the darker look, but I find this appealing and fitting to the nature of the story. Radcliffe and Emma Watson (Hermione) are fine young actors. (Watson is going to be a real beauty, too, and this is yet another departure from the book, as Hermione is supposed to be buck-toothed and frizzy-haired.) The wonderful adult supporting cast is still there, supplemented this time by Emma Thompson (as Sybil Trelawney) and Julie Christie (as Madame Rosmerta), along with Oldman and Thewlis. And the new version of the Whomping Willow is a fun bit of comic relief. Hogwarts is still a fun place to visit at the movie theaters.
I give "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" a 7.