|
| • Advanced Search • Help |
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban | Year: 2004 Classification: Feature Film Family Directed: - Alfonso Cuarón Actors/Actresses: - Daniel Radcliffe - Rupert Grint - Emma Watson (II) Anorexic There are some sensationalist reviews here that believe the hype that everything Harry Potter is great and give the movie five stars regardless (the book was definitely a 5 starrer) but this movie ain't so great I'm afraid. Prisoner of Azkaban is my fave Harry Potter book so far (and was more than welcome after the weak Chamber of Secrets) but the translation from book to film loses 908f JK Rowling's story. Every single second, every frame of this film is utterly devoted to being nothing but pure exposition for a plot that has no mystery intrigue. If you have read the book then there isn't much point in seeing this as you'll already know the twist. But I didn't want this to bias my opinion so I gave it a go anyway. As I have said, there are no subplots. Everything focuses on the Sirius Black story. Character development and mystery are non-existent. It almost feels as if Harry, Ron and Hermione are the only students at Hogwarts because no one else gets a mention and Draco Malfoy is reduced to wimpy, comic-relief. The strangest change of all is the presence of Dudley (a funny character) with NO dialogue at all. I liked Professor Lupin in the book, he was a rebel, renegade teacher who broke the rules and was one of the best mentors Harry has ever had. In the movie he doesn't do much and the character never really comes through. Same goes for Snape (a character I am liking more and more), he barely has two lines to say. Michael Gambon as the new Dumbledore is cool and naturally authoritive but he's got nowt to do either. Emma Thompson as Professor Trelawny has five minutes of screen time and Hagrid has two scenes. The relationship between every character and situation is very much defined in the book. In the film all of that is stripped away in order to tell the Sirius Black story as quickly as possible. Which would be fine if the Sirius Black story could make the film stand on its own. It doesn't. Alfonso Cuaron may bring a new look to the film and a more modern edge but I blame him and Steven Kloves for the hasty rearranging and muddling of JK Rowling's story. Sure, some sacrifices had to be made in adaptation. But Prisoner of Azkaban dilutes the story to the point of obscurity. The rumors of Goblet of Fire being released as two separate parts (ala Kill Bill) bodes well as it will offer the chance to tell a more complete story. But so far the Dursleys have been cut out and it will start with Harry already at Hogwarts. For a much more atmospheric and exciting mystery try Young Sherlock Holmes. A film with many alarming similarities to the Harry Potter world. This movie may look good with a new director doing a fresh take on the Harry Potter universe but there are so many restrictions weighing this franchise down and it's REALLY beginning to show. Great Adaptation I very much liked Cuaron's vision of the books, particularly in POA, where the story takes a good hard look at the darker side of JK Rowling's detailed world. It's easy to forget that Voldemort does not make an appearance in POA - the darkness comes from fear, prejudice, and allowing yourself to become evil in order to fight evil. Daniel Radcliffe simply is Harry Potter. He is an amazing young actor. Rupert and Emma have grown into their craft, which must have something to do with exposure to fine directors and some of the greatest actors in British theater. Michael Gambon, Emma Thompson and Gary Oldman are excellent additions to the cast, and I'm looking forward to seeing them in future installments. David Thewlis is a great actor, but just did not fit my picture of Lupin. Oh well. Although I generally didn't miss the Quidditch (there are 3 matches in the book and 1 in the film,) I did miss the scene where Harry unleashes his Patronus against what he thinks is Dementors, but is actually Draco I wasn't very happy with the werewolf or the Grim. The Grim looked more like a wolf, rather than my vision of a large bear-like dog (I was thinking scruffy Newfoundland), and the werewolf looked like a thing, obviously not something that would take some observation to distinguish from a real wolf. Back to Cuaron, he paces POA much more briskly, a desperately needed change from the stately (okay, slow) first two installments. Evil's menace and wizardry's potential for chaos are much more evident in this installment. Finally, the grace notes he's added are completely in keeping with Rowling's world. The movie needed more Although I liked the movie it was lacking a lot of important parts. For people who havn't read the books, it was probably real comfusing. The movie didn't really explain how lupin knew harry's father or a lot of the other teachers and a lot of the parts in the story were moved around. I have read the books and thought the movie was kind of disappointing because they left out the really good parts that would have made it more understandable. Although Cuaron had a very good imagination for the movie and made it so realistic, it was kind of hard to understand it. I would still buy this movie though. Buy Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban at Amazon.com Buy posters at Allposters.com Jamster - the latest ringtones for your phone!  Search with Walhello on the Internet on Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban Search with the Priority Search Engine on Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban This page in other languages: Suomeksi | Nederlands | Deutsch
|
