Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

It must be excruciating to film a year-long story from the disjointed, ever-changing Harry Potter universe, no matter what the filmmakers prattle on about in the BluRay bonus features. Cuarón has thus proven himself a messiah, whose ability to maintain a unified storyline and focus on the details, particularly in individual scenes whose careful selection is the only saving grace keeping the entire adaptation from disintegrating into a series of clumsily pasted together visual sequences. It can be seen that script editing and pre-production played a significant role here. The individual episodes, then, not only make sense to readers of the book, who, in short, want to at least see some of the things they read, but are capable of assembly into a coherent story on their own. Each scene therefore has purpose and moves the plot forward. It was thanks to this meticulous preparation that it was even possible to focus particularly on the filmmaking aspects, and that's why the third installment of all the Potter films has the most interesting cinematography, mise-en-scene, and various small quirks and elements in the second and subsequent layers. (04/03/2016)

That is how things end up when fantasy material gets into the hands of a playful director with fantasy and his own vision. A crying shame that these movies weren’t like this from the very beginning. The change of environment and costumes improved the result. In the same way that part three was a turning point on its journey away from kids’ books to “more", this picture was crucial for the movie adaptations. It is a blessing that Chris Columbus’ boring and uninventive directing is a thing of the past. The only two downsides are the rendition of the werewolf and a certain absence of any link with past episodes. If somebody really liked the first ones, they might not get over the fundamental change in style and rendition. Even though it was a change for the better from all points of view. Thank god. P.S.: Every time we watched this again (lots), we were convinced again and again that SUCH GOOD, inventive and unique family movies come into being once in a blue moon. Proof of this is that now, more than a decade after the premiere I have still not come across any competition in the field of family movies. And by the way, this is the movie with the best and most tightly knotted time travel I have ever seen. (11/21/2010)

I won't damn Columbus and make a god out of Cuaron here anymore because the first half seems like a thematically precise continuation of the poetry of the first two parts, and a few camera tricks or zooms on a freezing flower (although they are 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 a 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 Thewlis-Oldman-Rickman is the least of it. And of course, the climax is in the long-lasting finale with time-playing and all the creatures that can only scare the viewer. The only criticism is aimed at the significant screenplay gap: an explanation of who the Scabbers are would probably help. Nevertheless, I've seen the third part probably the most and perhaps I understand its position as the favorite part. However, I prefer Yates' tricks by a hair. (02/24/2007)

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%. (06/13/2004)

I read in many comments that only now, thanks to the change in director, Harry Potter has got the true Potter atmosphere, that it has finally gone dark, and so on. Well, I think those are pretty misleading statements. After all, how could the previous two films have the atmosphere of Prisoner of Azkaban when they (like their predecessors) had basically nothing going in them that would require it? So in terms of atmosphere, I wouldn't say it's that much to Alfonso Cuarón's credit - he was just lucky to get this part. What is already to his merit, of course, is the film's thrilling pace, the omnipresent playfulness (the scene with the boogeyman, when the camera flies back and forth through the mirror, for example), the suspenseful, even horror scenes with the dementors, and the sensitive direction of the actors, whose heroes start to get beaten up by adolescence, but we don't stop liking them even for a moment. And then, of course, there are the new characters. Both Gary Oldman and David Thewlis are a joy to watch, and when they are joined by Alan Rickman in the Shrieking Shack, the film's best scene is taken care of. Finally, I'd like to mention John Williams' score - Prisoner of Azkaban is the last installment of the series for which he composed it, and he did an absolutely wonderful job. (09/07/2015)