Review of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) by Luke N — 04 Sep 2013

I don't intentionally set out to disagree with everyone else, but ... I think this was the worst of the entire series. Typically, it's the most freaking popular as well. I just don't get it, and here's why.

The director, Alfonso Cuaron, is remarkably talented - (I only say this because he directed 'Children Of Men') - but, in my opinion, 'Harry Potter' doesn't need the visionary kind of director that Cuaron aspires to be.

He certainly makes it an eccentric and entertaining movie, with some very interesting (they weren't all bad) ideas on how to deliver the film's more dramatic moments. But I don't want just "quirky" and "interesting", goddamit.

The novel was flipping amazing, and significantly darker than the last two books. And although I love the second novel, this was the first one to really explore the dramas and relationships between the teenage characters.

And don't give me that shit about this film being the darkest of the lot - it's NOT. It's bleak, and it's gothic - creepy in a Halloween-at-primary-school sort of way - but every attempt it makes at genuine scariness is crushed by the director's insistence on infusing the same childish humour so perfectly captured in the first two films.

That ... or the film just comes across weird. Like, what's with Lupin's dopey face when he first casts away the Dementor on the train? The scene was awesome until that moment. And then there's the entire sequence in the Shrinking Shack (that's its name, isn't it?) which unravels more like a bunch of drama students performing in their classroom; go watch it again, and tell me that Snape's sudden entrance has the slightest effect on you.

I'd prefer not to go into the freeze-frame at the end, with Harry screaming "yeah!!!" as he takes off on his broom. That's my main problem with the film; it's considered to be the darkest - some douches even call it the first "decent" one - but I think it gets ruined by the director's egotistical determination in making it so totally unlike the others.

Even the acting doesn't seem as natural this time around, and the script is often nonsensical when it made complete sense in the book - such as the part when Harry just happens to spot Dumbledore and McGonagal in Hogsmeade, who have come all the way over to some nondescript pub, for the sheer purpose of describing Harry's relationship with Serius Black with people who have nothing to do with anything; in the novel, Harry overhears them in the dining area, because they naturally come onto the subject in conversation, so why couldn't the film just do that? In the end, it's all about Alfonso Cuaron, and how "original" he can be.

The source material, the well-written drama between Ron and Hermione - basically everything I loved in the book - is here cast into the wind. And as punishment, the film has been heralded as the most lasting of all the 'Harry Potter' movies.

Like I said ... I just don't get it.