"That's a nice-a donut."

Monday, July 18, 2005

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

As millions of people around the world - children and adults - read the new Harry Potter book, I thought I would take a look back at the third, and most recent movie from that series, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Certainly the plot of the story is well known, given the countless number of people who have read the book (or even listened to it on audiotape). Suffice to say, it's more of the same old, same old. Of course, we begin with Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) home with his terribly mean caretakers - though this time he finally leaves for good - and then there is a zany adventure as he makes his way to Hogwarts, the school for witchcraft and wizardry, for another year. As we have come to expect, there is also a new Defense Against the Dark Arts professor (David Thewliss). Meanwhile, the deadly murderer Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) who has escaped from Azkaban and intends to hunt down and kill Harry. Supernatural Dementors are now protecting Harry from Sirius, but strange things continue to happen to him and his pals, Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint).

I can't say what the differences are between the book and the movie, or what was included and what was not, or what was changed and what wasn't. And frankly, I don't care. What does it matter? As Ash Wakeman so eloquently pointed out in a recent Shaking Our Fists at the Sun column, books and film are two different mediums. Sure, the quality of the source material is important, but a movie needs to be able to stand on its own.

But there is quite a bit to appreciate about the movie. There are some very fun, first-rate special effects. The magic tricks, especially during one of the classes that Harry and the gang attend are very neat. A triple-decker bus early in the movie is a treat, and some of the oddball side characters are great too. I really like Oldman as the very creepy and mysterious, Sirius Black. The way I see it: if you cast Gary Oldman in a key supporting role, then you've made a very wise choice. Alan Rickman (in the role of Professor Snape) is fine too, but I can't help thinking of Hans Gruber when I see him on screen. The young actors are okay, especially Emma Watson, but I haven't cared much for Rupert Grint's performance in any of the three films.

Compared to the first two movies in the series, the Sorcerer's Stone and the Chamber of Secrets, the Prisoner of Azkaban is rather different in mode and tone. The director is different (with Alfonso Cuaron replacing Chris Columbus) and with this comes a different look for the design of Hogwarts. Very few long shots are used to establish time and place, which feels very awkward at times. And the pacing is slow and plodding. It is a very long 140 minutes, and often boring. I imagine that faithful readers of the books enjoy seeing things on screen that they only visually imagined when they were reading the story, but it only serves to bog the movies down by including so much. This feels all over the place, trying to accomplish ten different things at once. That's swell... another game of quidditch. What purpose does it serve right in the middle of the movie like that, other than to tack on another five minutes to the running time? Many things are completely unexplained; they may be answered in the book, but only servesto weaken this film laden with numerous plot holes in the confusing story.

I'm sure the books are great works of art, but based on the quality of the Harry Potter movies so far I don't imagine I'll be giving them a chance anytime soon. There are some great ideas, and some good acting, but overall things are just too sterile for a feature-length film. Especially if you aren't already a reader of the books. Actually, an original television series of Harry Potter adventures might be quite interesting. I'd watch that.

The Verdict: C+.

Michael Bentley 1:09 PM

"That's a nice-a donut."

Monday, July 18, 2005

Archives