Wonderful, despite some changes and omissions

Rating: Null/10 (4 June 2004)

As an avid fan of the books, and of the first two films, I went to see "Azkaban" at the very first available showing in my area (as I did with the first two). I came away excited, and a little disappointed, too.
Let me pontificate a moment, regarding other reviews I have read. The first two movies (and books) introduce us to the set of characters that are crucial to the whole series. That introduction begins when Harry turns eleven. He is a child. He's thrown into a world he knows nothing about and has to cope with some pretty amazing things that others seem to take for granted. A wonderful story. He meets other children of the same age and they all act like ... children ! What else would one expect? He begins to learn about his past, his parents, the events surrounding their deaths. The information trickles in very slowly and continues throughout all the books. We learn along with Harry. The first two movies stick very close to the books, and in both of the books, these kids are pre-adolescents.
In the third book and movie, the kids are growing up. They act more mature because they ARE more mature. One should expect to see better acting from the actors, and their characters appear more "meaty" because the actors are more mature, too. The third movie is "darker" than the other two because the third book is "darker" and is the foundation for books four and five (and presumably six and seven as well). The third book reveals a whole lot more about Harry's parents, about the events surrounding their murders and about their relationships with other characters in the story. Notice that there are few references to Voldemort, unlike in the first two tales. Right there is a clue to the fact that this story is a brief respite from the conflict between Harry and Voldemort, in order to lay down a foundation.
The new director made some changes to the Hogwarts scenery. Folks have complained about that, but think for a moment: Chris Columbus set the whomping willow near the buildings and in an open field. That makes it very difficult for someone to hide and overhear conversations that take place near it. Much better if it's on a side hill with some trees and rocks and bushes for cover. Maybe the problem was in the second movie and not in the third.
The book has the children going down the hill to Hagrid's cottage. The third movie sets it down the hill. The first two make it appear to be fairly close to the castle and down a knoll - not much of a hill at all. I like the new location better, and it prepares things for the next books, where Hagrid's cottage and the dark forest play important roles. You can't have the cottage too close to the Hogwarts castle. Another minor goof by the director of the first two films, corrected by director Cuaron.
Now for my criticism of Cuaron's interpretation of "Azkaban". I was very disappointed that Lupin didn't explain the meaning of "Mooney, Padfoot, Wormtail and Prongs" as authors of the Marauder's Map. I thought that was a crucial fact that built upon James Potter's character for Harry, and it would have been so easy to put into the movie (maybe it was, and wound up on the cutting room floor, but if so, what a shame).
I was disappointed by the almost complete omission of the adolescent spat between Hermione and Ron over Crookshanks and his apparent "eating" of Scabbers. The kids are now adolescents, with raging hormones, and that spat was very significant, but was brushed over by Cuaron with only token reference at best. At least he did get in the explanation of the rat's long life (because it wasn't a rat at all - but Peter Pettigrew). Pettigrew, by the way, looked rat-like, didn't he?
Where was the humor regarding Percy's insufferable pomposity at being named head boy, and the twins' constant tweaking him? We only heard Percy once in the movie - if the pomposity was to be overlooked, we didn't need to even hear from him at all. And I missed the humor generated by the Weasley twins.
The patronus charm that Harry cast at the lake was in the shape of a stag. But Cuaron did nothing to explain WHY it was a stag. If he had only had Lupin explain "Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs" in the first place, then maybe it would have been easy for Lupin to explain to Harry why the patronus looked like a stag. I think the entire audience would have liked to know who those four were, as it is highly significant and Ms Rowling put it in there to enlighten us all. For those who did not read the book, Mooney was Lupin, Wormtail was Peter Pettigrew (betrayer of Harry's parents), Padfoot was Sirius Black, and Prongs was none other than James Potter, Harry's father. The four friends were inseparable during their days at Hogwarts. Three of them were animagi (wizards who could change into animals) and the fourth, Lupin, was a werewolf (called Mooney because of the effect of the full moon on him). These facts were a crucial piece left out of the film, in my opinion. They would have enlightened the audience members who never read the books, and it wouldn't have added much time to the film.
I don't recall the Dementors flying in the book, but I give the director some room for "poetic license". However, in this third book, despite losing the first match of the Quidditch season, Griffindor comes back to defeat Slytherin and win the Quidditch cup for the first time in years, with Harry on his "Firebolt" broom. We got to see the "Firebolt" but its significance was totally lost in the movie, and might just as well have been left out altogether if it wasn't to be used to win that cup. We all (I speak for the audience) wanted to see more Quidditch, and it was there, in the book.
Cuaron also glossed over the manipulation of time that Hermione was using to take a double class load the whole year. Yes, he had her popping into classes and Ron several times commenting on it, but a more obvious explanation of what she was doing BEFORE the end of the movie would have been helpful. When she finally did the "three turns" to run time backward, I'm thinking that a lot of the audience had no idea what she was doing or why she had that necklace in the first place. A tiny bit more explaining would have cleared that up.
I cannot criticize Michael Gambon for his portrayal of Dumbledore. Unfortunately, Richard Harris died, and someone had to replace him. Credit Gambon for NOT trying to play Richard Harris, but instead playing Albus Dumbledore. It's a bit of a shock to those of us used to Harris, but hey, the show must go on, and I don't think Harris would have wanted someone to play HIM instead of Dumbledore, so Gambon's performance was fine, and hopefully he'll continue with the part in the remaining set of movies and we'll all like him and forget the differences.
All in all, I liked the directing, the tone of the movie, the set changes and most of all the maturing of the young actors in their roles and in the story itself. Azkaban sets the stage for the stuff to come next. Harry is learning more about his family, his heritage and at the same time, about himself, and is gaining confidence without losing his humility and sense of loyalty. The character is growing just as he did in the books, and I can't wait for the next set of challenges he must face up to in "Goblet of Fire".