Review of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) by Eric M — 28 Jan 2015

Out of the eight Harry Potter movies, only one stands out as both A) Being well-directed, acted, and scripted and B) Not ruining my childhood and in turn my enjoyment of Harry Potter in general. This momentary respite from the drudgery of the films is The Prisoner of Azkaban, the outlier of the series and a strong film all around. However, let me stress that this movie is an anomaly in every sense of the word, and in no way sets a standard for the series as a whole. In fact, after this movie, things just started getting even shittier. But I still remember the brief period of time in my life where I actually had some hope for this franchise. And it's all thanks to this film.

The third film in the Harry Potter franchise is based off of the best of the books, The Prisoner of Azkaban. In this movie, the man who gave away Harry's parent's location (allowing for them to be killed) has escaped a highly guarded prison and is now on the run. A great skinny of this movie's charm comes from this character, Sirius Black, who is played by Gary Oldman. Oldman is possibly one of the most underrated actors working today, and has a habit of completely immersing himself in his roles. He fills the gap in the movies left by a massive lack of good acting. But fortunately, he's not alone, because this is the film with which Emma Watson actually solidified herself as a good actress. Among all the silliness of the movie, she delivers a very non-magical and much-deserved punch to Tom Felton's sneering face. God, that guy will never live this role down.

Of course, Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert "The Soulless Ginger" Grint remain just as uncharismatic and wooden as ever, but they're helped along by the mysteriousness of the plot and the sheer mythology of many of the scenes. Sure, they're not good actors, but when the Dementors are sucking their souls out, the audience couldn't care less. And yes, there are massive plot holes here... for instance, why the fuck can't the Dementors tell the difference between Harry and someone who actually, you know, poses a threat? But the plot holes here are far less glaring and noteworthy than in the previous two films, and it also does away with a lot of the cliched, corny dialogue that is sure to sicken audiences to their cores.

A lot of this film's assets are owed to two things. The first is director Alfonso Cuaron, who also is responsible for the spectacular film Children of Men and the far less interesting yet still critically acclaimed Gravity. Cuaron has a knack for visual flair, but also knows how to actually give his actors some motivation in their scenes. He even manages to squeeze a few decent lines out of Grint and Radcliffe, a feat unmatched in the rest of this franchise. Also, a better Dumbledore and David Thewlis as a werewolf/teacher (whoops, spoilers) makes the acting a lot more interesting. It is Cuaron's cinematography and enchanting visuals that really makes a lot of this film, though, especially the scenes with Buckbeak, as well as the final sequence with the Patronus. God, I sound like such a friggin' nerd.

The second contributing factor to this film's half-success is the plot. I'm a sucker for time travel stories, and this one is a doozy. When people try to pick apart time travel stories, it never ceases to irk me-- Sure, there are paradoxes set up. That's kind of the point. You can't possibly complain about the Kyle Reese/John Connor paradox in The Terminator, because James Cameron could easily have omitted that whole endless loop if he wanted to. It's an intentional paradox and an artistic choice, neither of which you can fault a movie for. Also, the way Cuaron re-imagined the time turner was fantastic. Altogether, the final act of this movie is unexpectedly great and far surpasses anything that Chris "Piss" Columbus could manage. It does kind of set up plot holes for the rest of the movies (I can think of plenty of instances in which that time turner would have come in handy), but that's their problem.

Final Score for Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: 6/10 stars. Out of all the Potter films, this is the only one that even comes close to matching the brilliance of the books, with stronger characters and a far better story. If Alfonso Cuaron had stuck around for the other films, this series could have made a serious recovery. But instead Cuaron moved on and the next film in the series went to the genius behind Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Oh, joy.

On the plus side, Emma Watson is almost old enough to be hot! But only if you're 14. -1.

STAY TUNED FOR THE FOURTH INSTALLMENT OF THIS SPECIAL EDITION OF TUT'S TUTILLATING REVIEWS: HARRY POTTER AND THE RAPE OF MY CHILDHOOD! Coming soon!