Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Premise

After a decidedly unfriendly and unexpected departure from the Dursleys, Harry Potter finds his way to Hogwarts for his third year amid the hysteria in the wake of the famed Sirius Black's improbable escape from Azkaban Prison. As Potter and his friends learn more about Black and his designs for revenge at Hogwarts, they find themselves again in danger.

The Review

This third film marked the departure of Chris Columbus as director (though he stayed on as producer) and the introduction of Alfonso Cuaron ("Y tu mama tambien", "Great Expectations"). Under Cuaron's direction, the film seems more vibrant and alive. While Columbus's efforts were solid and did a remarkable job of translating a beloved book into a movie, they seemed somewhat mechanical and ... for lack of a better term ... "literal". Cuaron experiments more (with a variety of cinematic devices), and as a result - takes a greater risk which pays off (but which ultimately may put off fans who wanted to see another verbatim transcription to the silver screen absent 'artistic' touches).

Most amazingly, the relationships and the core elements of the Harry Potter storyline (the best parts of the first two films) remain intact - and Cuaron managed to leave them untouched while presenting his vision of the story.

While a great deal of the book is left out of the movie (with good reason given its length), "Prisoner" manages to string together the key portions and present a compelling narrative. The filmmakers managed to update the film a bit (with regard to the character's dress and the incorporation of some of the elements of the modern era), and they also added a darker, more adult edge to the film that will help carry it into the next two sequels.

I was disappointed, however, that one of the most important elements was left out: the explanation of "Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs" and its connection to Harry's history (and his parents). There was an opportunity at the end of the film to tie this all together that was inexcusably missed. Anyone who hadn't read the books would be missing out on some of the warmer and most well-written elements of the storyline.

The visual effects are a dramatic improvement over the first film, and don't become gratuitous at any point. The "Buckbeak" scenes were gorgeous, as were the scenes involving Lupin's tutelage of the students in "Defense Against the Dark Arts".

The acting from the principal Hogwarts trio (Radcliffe, Grint, Watson) is better, but still shaky at moments - especially when dealing with the most serious and emotion-laden material. As always, the supporting cast is what makes the movie. Robbie Coltrane IS Hagrid. Bonnie Wright and Mark Williams ARE Mr. and Mrs. Weasley. Alan Rickman IS Professor Snape.

David Thewlis has a brilliant turn as Professor Lupin, and I'm looking forward to more of him in the later films. Emma Thompson was excellent as Professor Trelawney. Though he wasn't given much to work with, Gary Oldman filled out well as Sirius Black, and I'm looking forward to seeking him in the next two films.

(On Dumbledore)

Of particular note was Michael Gambon's performance as Albus Dumbledore: no one could replace Richard Harris (I think we're all agreed). Given the direction that the later books take, it's almost fortuitous that the filmmakers were able to cast a new Dumbledore because it would have been difficult to picture Harris meeting the needs of the pictures Harris in his later years. He was perfect as the kindly and grandfatherly schoolmaster, but the Dumbledore of the third, fourth and fifth books is more of an active and serious (yet mischievous) wildcard. I see this role fitting Gambon like a glove; he's got the fire to pull off the Dumbledore portrayed in "Goblet of Fire" and "Order of the Phoenix". So there's my editorial on that.

All in all, I loved the movie and I'm looking forward to watching it many more times.