Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

As a missionary during 2004, I did not watch any movies. I was home though when “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” was released on DVD. Upon my first viewing, I was a little disappointed. The book was at that point my favorite in the series, having read it back in 2002, and I felt that the film was not what I had imagined as I read. The first two movies were very true to the book while this film made alterations not just with the story but also with the mood that was established in the first two movies. The passing of Richard Harris affected things, as did other factors. Because of the story however, I like the third film. I am impressed with the new cast members and how the spirit of the book was partially maintained.

If you are going to change the style of a film series, you should do it in the second film so as to establish that every film in the franchise will not be the same as ones preceding it. Because Chris Columbus directed “The Chamber of Secrets”, I feel that a distinct style was set up for every following film. By ignoring that style, the film feels out of place and disconnected from the preceding installments. The third film felt quite different from what I had imagined while reading the book in that a stylized character-driven approach was taken with the filming of this story. Kenneth Branagh, who played Lockhart in the second film, was considered as a replacement for Columbus as director and I can only imagine what that would have been like. That would have made me so happy because I liked his films “Hamlet”, “Much Ado About Nothing” and more recently "Thor". Hogwarts also feels slightly more like a boarding school than a magic school like it did in the first two films. Hogwarts is less of a wonderous, cozy place. The locations of various places have been changed like the entrance to Gryffindor tower and Hagrid’s house. The fact that many of the actors have hit puberty adds to the lack of a link with the first two films. As much as I like how they filmed on location in Scotland, we did not see such realism in the first two films. This creates further separation. I have identified a flaw in the film’s plot also. From what I can recall, I believe that the book has Harry & his friends behind Hagrid’s hut during the “execution” of Buckbeak and therefore were unable to set him free the first time. The movie does not follow this and so I have to wonder why our heroes did not try the first time to free Buckbeak as they run away from Hagrid’s house. The look and locations of Hogwarts do not change much after this film. This creates a definite division in the series. The type of magic and charm of the previous movies is gone in "The Prisoner of Azkaban". Even John Williams’ score seems different in this film. A good thing is that after this movie, the filmmakers made no more extreme changes to the style of the franchise. While look and layout of Hogwarts don't alter in later films, the franchise does seem to gravitate slowly with each subsequent film back to the original mood of "The Sorcerer's Stone" while at the same time increasing the drama. I am grateful for that.

The acting is fairly good in “The Prisoner of Azkaban”. Dan Radcliffe’s acting was getting better with each passing film as is the case with many of the child actors. Michael Gambon does not sound old enough in his portrayal of Dumbledore. I agree fully with Harris’ family that Peter O’Toole should have been Harris’ replacement. To have future Oscar-winner Gary Oldman play Sirius was a real treat for me. His persona creates the great contrast needed for this character in that he is a good man who was thought to be a monster. His costume helps with this contrast. I was first introduced to Oldman in “Air Force One” and he always impresses me with every performance. His best performance in this movie is when he expresses his desire for Harry to come and live with him. This role appears to be a transitional one for the actor with some symbolism. Before "The Prisoner of Azkaban", Oldman was known for his villainous roles such as on "JFK", "Lost in Space" and the aforementioned "Air Force One". After his first Harry Potter film, he found himself playing the good guy such as in "The Dark Knight" trilogy, "Disney's A Christmas Carol" and "Darkest Hour". I liked David Thewlis in "Black Beauty" and as I see it, he was better as Lupin than he would have been as Quirrell (he auditioned for that role). I first saw Timothy Spall in Branagh’s “Hamlet” but “The Prisoner of Azkaban” was my formal introduction of him. I first saw Emma Thompson in Branagh’s “Much Ado About Nothing” and I am glad that she finds a role in the Harry Potter films.

The Harry Potter film series lacks emotional continuity because of the approach taken with the third film. I am not questioning the talent of director Alfonso Cuaron (he would later in his career receive two Oscars for his film "Gravity"). I just think he was the wrong choice to bring "The Prisoner of Azkaban" to life and retain what was wonderful about the earlier installments in the franchise. Another problem as mentioned was that Richard Harris was no longer around to play Dumbledore but this movie is still good in my view because of its story. This third film received Oscar nominations for its musical score and visual effects but as with "The Chamber of Secrets", the competition at the Oscars was too great to compete with that year. I like the subsequent Harry Potter films much more than this movie because the third film was too much of a change from what I was used to.

4 Stars