Directed by:
Alfonso CuarónScreenplay:
Steve KlovesCinematography:
Michael SeresinComposer:
John WilliamsCast:
Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Pam Ferris, Emma Thompson, Tom Felton, Geraldine Somerville, Lenny Henry, Matthew Lewis, James Phelps (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry, Ron and Hermione, now teenagers, return for their third year at Hogwarts, where they are forced to face escaped prisoner, Sirius Black, who poses a great threat to Harry. Harry and his friends spend their third year learning how to handle a half-horse half-eagle Hippogriff, repel shape-shifting Boggarts and master the art of Divination. They also visit the wizarding village of Hogsmeade and the Shrieking Shack, which is considered the most haunted building in Britain. In addition to these new experiences, Harry must overcome the threats of the soul-sucking Dementors, outsmart a dangerous werewolf and finally deal with the truth about Sirius Black and his relationship to Harry and his parents. With his best friends, Harry masters advanced magic, crosses the barriers of time and changes the course of more than one life. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (2)
Reviews (11)
I will repeat myself again, I know that as an ordinary Muggle I have no say in this, but fire Radcliffe for God's sake! Although there are slight signs of improvement, he is still very weak and unconvincing especially in details, for example his acting while crying is a tragedy in itself. Moreover, his awful acting stands out in comparison with, say, the talented Emma Watson. But now to the better bits. I'm not going to join the rest with the notorious opinion of what a loser Columbus is (I wouldn't see him as that bad, just an honest craftsman) and how Cuarón, on the other hand, is amazing; they are just two different concepts. Cuarón strikes a darker chord (also thanks to an increasingly dense source material?), the dementors bring a needed light touch of horror and some scenes can give little kids a case of the creeps (keep it up). The Whomping Willow is awesome, Michael Gambon is an excellent replacement for Richard Harris, the visual effects are fine, the werewolf is sad. That’s it. Well, there’s something else. My desire for the Nimbus 2000 has passed, now I'm lusting after a hypogryph, model Klofan.
()
Brilliant form with beautiful production design (the school setting, mountains in the background), much more detailed, elaborate music by John Williams, and individual pearls in the form of specific scenes in general. Harry’s flight on Buckbeak, for example, reaches the emotional heights of the best moments from of The Lord of the Rings. However, as the minutes passed, the story itself somehow lost its appeal for me. If it wasn’t for the delightful last half-hour, the film would have slipped into being slightly boring. But that’s not a criticism of Alfonso Cuarón, since he literally performed a miracle with a questionable screenplay.
()
The third Harry Potter didn't charm me either... But it was close. From a filmmaking point of view, it is definitely the best contribution to the trilogy so far – Cuarón works very well with the characters, has less cheesy color compositions and is more attached to the suggestiveness and impressiveness of the environment. From my point of view, however, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is brought down by an overly sparse and flimsy plot that somewhat dissolves in a number of episodes and bon mots. From this point of view, I considered The Chamber of Secrets a much more impressive piece. On the other hand, it is necessary to praise the excellent and variable music of John Williams, the acting of everyone except Michael Gabon (Dumbledore) and to highlight the fact that Harry Potter has ceased to be a shaggy child apprentice and is becoming quite a solid and interesting character. The literal and pandering children's film is turning into something quite impressive and dark... Cuarón did excellent job, but for me, The Prisoner of Azkaban is just a "solid" fantasy film that I would give 70%.
()
Harry Potter has always been a bit of a light rip-off of Peter Jackson's opus. It cleverly borrows various details, not very conspicuously, but I’ve found several very similar scenes or specific things in all three parts. In the third part, it is clearly the Dementors, who annoyingly resemble the breathtakingly executed Nazgûl. However, the truth is that this part is the darkest and least childish in the whole series. For the first time, there are horror elements, which will probably escalate further in later parts. It's not significantly better than the previous two parts, maybe just a little bit.
()
I won't damn Chris Columbus or make a god out of Alfonso Cuarón here anymore because the first half seems like a thematically precise continuation of the poetry of the first two installments, and a few camera tricks or zooms on a freezing flower (though formally perfect) don't change the atmosphere much. They may be beneficial for an unbiased viewer, but for me, as a staunch fan of the book, they are just minimal decoration. The turning point comes when Harry and Hermione reach the Whomping Willow and an incredible massacre ensues, where the fascinating acting etude of the trio of David Thewlis-Gary Oldman-Alan Rickman is the least of it. And of course, the climax is in a long-lasting finale incorporating time-play and all the creatures that can only scare the viewer. My only criticism is aimed at a a significant gap in the screenplay: an explanation of who Scabbers was would probably have helped. Nevertheless, I've seen the third installment probably the most out of all of them and perhaps I understand its position as the favorite. Still, I prefer the ones by David Yates by a hair.
()
Ads