I'm surprised that "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" got away with a PG rating. I'm not saying that it shoulda been rated R, but it's definitely closer to a PG-13 movie than PG. There's no real violence to speak of, no nudity, and the harshest language is the occasional"bloody hell," but there's some stuff in this movie that will terrify young children. I'm not saying this as a complaint, I'm just warning those who think that this film will be okay to bring their toddlers to see. It probably isn't.
I loved the first two "Harry Potter" movies. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is a great movie, and almost exactly like the book it was based on. Very little was changed, and the film did an excellent job of bringing the book to life. It was a whimsical movie for kids, but it was the kinda thing that adults could enjoy, too. Since it deals with wizards, sorcery, and magic, it's a little dark, but it's still the kinda film that anyone of any age could watch and enjoy.
"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is a little darker than the film before it, but it was still a PG rated movie that could be watched even by the youngest of children. Both films are fun movies, and both were directed by Chris Columbus, a person who I thought was a poor choice to direct the "Harry Potter" films, until I saw what he did. Chris Columbus proved me wrong and made two very good "Harry Potter" movies.
When it was time to make the third "Harry Potter" film, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," Chris Columbus stepped down and decided to have someone else direct it. That person was Alfonso Cuarón. I've seen three of Cuarón's films, "Y Tu Mamá También," "Great Expectations," and "A Little Princess," and I liked all three, but was he the right choice? "A Little Princess" was a movie for kids, but his most recent film was "Y Tu Mamá También," an excellent Mexican film that was about two young guys on a road trip with an older married woman. The movie has lots of nudity and lots of graphic sex. Was he the appropriate choice to direct the third "Harry Potter" film? I was interested in seeing what kinda movie he'd make, and it turns out that he made the best "Harry Potter" film so far.
The first two "Harry Potter" movies were very bright, and very colorful, but with this third film, the colors were desaturated, so not only was the story darker, but so were the images on the screen. There are lots of grays, and at times, it's as though you're watching a black and white movie. I LOVED the look of the film, but I wouldn't be surprised if some in the audience weren't as pleased. To me, the darker look seemed appropriate, and the one Quiddich match of the film was during a dark and dreary rainy day. Perfect!
"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is very, very different from the first two films, and not just with story and imagery. The kids are older, subtle romance is brewing between two of them, and several key characters are introduced. There are quite a few things from the book missing in the film (the absence of "Cho" is just one example), but the film still manages to be relatively faithful to the source material.
The man responsible with turning the novel into a screenplay was Steve Cloves, who has adapted all of the "Harry Potter" films so far. I gotta say, he's been doing a great job of it. It looks like he'll be adapting all of the "Harry Potter" films, and that's certainly a good thing. Of course, the movies are based on the great novels by J.K. Rowling, and if you like the movies, I highly, highly, highly recommend the books.
Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson are all back (as "Harry Potter," "Ron Weasley," and "Hermione Granger," respectively), and I'm very happy about that. I really identify with them as those characters, and even though they're getting older, I hope they're able to stick with the entire series of films. I don't think I can see anyone else playing those roles.
"Professor Dumbledore" was played perfectly by Richard Harris in the first two films, but sadly, he died just before "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" was released. For this third film, he was replaced by Irish actor Michael Gambon (he's been in a ton of movies, but I only know him from "Sleepy Hollow" as "Baltus Van Tassel," the father of Christina Ricci's character, and from "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover," where he played "Albert Spica," the thief). I thought that he was pretty good, but Richard Harris was irreplaceable. Still, Gambon did an admirable job.
New characters are introduced in this movie, and they're played by some of Britain's finest, which is par for the course in the "Harry Potter" films. David Thewlis (I remember him from a great movie called "Gangster No. 1"... he was also in Mike Leigh's film, "Naked") plays "Professor Lupin," and he plays him well. Physically, he's not the person I imagined when I read the book, but he still did an awesome job. Emma Thompson (she's starred in a ton of great movies, my favorites being "Remains of the Day," "Much Ado About Nothing," and "Dead Again") plays "Professor Trelawney," and she's awesome! She's very loopy and over-the-top, but that's exactly how she's depicted in the book. Finally, there's Gary Oldman, who plays the vital role of "Sirius Black." Gary Oldman was the perfect guy to cast in the role, and he nails the performance. The character is mentioned throughout the film, but only in the last 20 minutes does he actually appear (not including the "Wanted" posters hanging all over the place). Think "Harry Lime" in "The Third Man." With that sorta buildup, you expect a lot from the character, and Gary Oldman delivers.
I'd been a fan of Gary Oldman since the late 80s, when I saw him play "Sid Vicious" in the great film, "Sid & Nancy." It was a great movie, and Oldman's performance was astonishing. He's one of my favorite actors, and he knows how to play a great villain. He played the villain in "Air Force One," "The Fifth Element," "The Professional," and Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 "Dracula" film. My favorite performance, however, is when he played "Drexl Spivey," the pimp in "True Romance." If you've seen the movie, you know the scene I'm talking about. Gary Oldman is one of the best actors working today, and I'm thrilled that he was cast as "Sirius Black."
"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is a great movie. It's the shortest "Harry Potter" film to date, but at almost two and a half hours, it still drags a little. That being said, it's still the fastest paced of the three films. I really liked this movie a lot, and I look forward to the next one. It'll be hard to match this third film, though.
I'm often very critical of Warner Bros., a studio that does a lot to piss me off, but they've managed to get a lot of things right with the "Harry Potter" films. I imagine that a lot of it has to do with J.K. Rowling's involvement, 'cause I can't see Warner Bros. getting so many things right deliberately. Despite Warner Bros. being the studio producing the films, the "Harry Potter" movies have been excellent so far, and "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," the third film in the franchise, is the best yet. But you may wanna think twice before bringing your 3-year-old.
Scale of 1-10: 9