Alfonso Cuarón's Interpretation of "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban"

Rating: Null/10 (4 June 2004)

I saw this movie at the midnight premiere in my town. I am well read in the Harry Potter series (almost obsessively so), and I have seen the previous two film adaptations of the books. In all objectivity, this film left a great deal of things out that were important in the book (such as the makers of the Marauders Map, how Black knew you-know-who was you-know-where, how Black escaped from Azkaban). In all objectivity acting was done really well - Emma Watson, whom I was previously slightly disappointed with, turned in a particularly beautiful performance. Cinematography was undoubtedly stronger than in the first two movies, it had much more depth. As for all the add-ins peculiar to the movie, there were things I did like and things I didn't like. I did like the addition of the ghosts, and the dorm room scenes, which helped to show the excitement and joy of Hogwarts life. I did not, however, like the Jar Jar Binx-esque co-navigator shrunken head on the Knights bus. The screenplay was really well written, but a lot of the main plot was either very rushed or left out, and a lot of more emotional points were put in ("You can always find [the ones you love who've left you] - in here [indicates heart]").
All of the returning actors were at top notch, particularly Alan Rickman and as mentioned before Emma Watson. As for the actors new to this movie  most specifically Michael Gambon (playing Dumbledore), David Thewlis (playing R.J. Lupin), Emma Thompson (as Sybil Trelawney) and of course Gary Oldman (as Sirius Black). Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore was hilarious and wonderful, I think not only did he do an excellent job, and I respect the fact that he didn't just try to ride the late Richard Harris (may he rest in peace)'s coat tails as far as character was concern. I think he really got the measure of the eccentricity that is part of the character, and it was pulled off beautifully. Thompson was incredible, but was there ever any doubt? She totally stole the screen while she was on it, and she looked and acted perfectly like her book counterpart. Gary Oldman was brilliant. There's nothing else to say but that. His gruff voice and yet rolling of his 'r's as though his character was cultured before incarceration (which was true to the book) was incredibly, I loved Black's voice, the way he walked, his interaction with Lupin and his interaction with Harry. I thought it was totally brilliant. I think Oldman really stole the show, and so it doesn't surprise me that they didn't bring him out until the latter part of the movie. Thewlis turned in a good performance as Lupin, and even though he was not quite like I had imagined him he did really well, although he made Lupin seem a bit awkward, and he very often swaggered about as though intoxicated  but to every man his interpretation, I guess! That was really what this movie was all about  interpretation! It wasn't a whole lot like the book, but it wasn't bad either. I think if one keeps an open mind, and lets go of their expectations, and really just sinks in to watch a film-makers interpretation then they will not help but laugh, and perhaps cry (I nearly did), and love this movie!