Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Cafe Society
1

I’ve finally seen Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. I was a bit disappointed.

One thing that jumped out was that the principles seem to have abandoned their school uniforms. There was just something ‘wrong’ about that. It was distracting.

Daniel Radcliffe seems bored with his role. When Lupin (David Thewlis) informs Harry that he knew Harry’s parents, Radcliffe just stands there without curiosity. In the book when Sirius (Gary Oldman) tells Harry he can come to live with him, Harry is overjoyed. In the film, Radcliffe just stands there like, ‘Oh. That would be good.’ I just didn’t see any energy.

I don’t think Michael Gambon did a very good job as Dumbledore. Part of this is because I’m used to the late Richard Harris’s performance. But the images I had while reading the books are different from Gambon’s portrayal as well.

The editing was different. There were many transitions (and I should know the name of the technique, but I’ve forgotten) where the screen fades to black from the edges like they used to do with the old silent films. This is a classic technique that works in a lot of films – primarily, in modern times, horror/thriller films. Did it work in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban? I’m undecided. On one hand, I don’t think it was too intrusive. On the other hand, it seemed out of place in a Harry Potter film.

Kids get older, even when they’re actors. Radcliffe looked pretty much the same, but Ron Weasly (Rupert Grint) and Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) changed considerably. Hermione (Emma Watson) looked almost the same, but her hair (of which much was made in the books) wasn’t unruly enough.

But the biggest problem with the film was that so much was left out. There was a lot of stuff in the book, and it just wouldn’t all fit in a 1:20 film. The first thing was the permission slip that needed to be signed. They entirely glossed over that bit, and so the tension that built in the book leading to ‘blowing up’ Aunt Marge (Pam Ferris) was lost. And didn’t Sirius give Harry a signede permission slip at the end? Not in the film. There was nothing about Snape (Alan Rickman) mixing the anti-werewolf potion for Lupin. There was very little of the sniping and fighting between Ron and Hermione. There was so much left out, that I don’t think I can list it all in a single post.

Perhaps they should have gone for a three-hour film. Fans would like it, and long films (LotR, e.g.) have proven successful. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban does not bode well for The Goblet of Fire, which is a much longer book. I blame the director (Alfonso Cuarón). It seems he doesn’t have the ‘touch’ for making Harry Potter. He seems to lack the sense of wonder needed for the franchise. His ‘vision’ is out of step with my own. Were I to direct, I would not have accepted some of the performances as filmed.

So to recapitulate:
[ul][li]Too much was left out of the story[/li][li]Performances were not up to par[/li][li]Poor direction[/li]Wardrobe was wrong[/ul]

2

Re: Wardrobe

The thing of it is most of the action took place outside of class time, either at Hogsmeade or around school grounds.

Once again, there was hardly any Snape in this movie. It’s like all of his scenes are either deleted or 80% is cut.

3

I was under the impression (when reading the books) that the kids wore their school uniforms all the time they were at Hogwarts. They would change into their uniforms and robes on the train, and change out of them on the train home.

4

For me, there were as many good things about the movie as there were bad things. Some of the good things I really like:

[ul]
[li]Buckbeak - The way they created Buckbeak was truly amazing. My favourite scene is when Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) is riding on Buckbeak around Hogwarts and the lake.[/li][li]The Dementors - Okay, so my LoTR Fan-friends have told me that the Dementors ripped off the Ringwraith, but I still love them. They looked exactly like I had imagined them to be.[/li][li]Acting - Believe it or not, I actually liked the acting in this movie. I thought Daniel Radcliffe especially improved so much since the first movie, now that he’s older and everything.[/li][li]Quidditch in the Rain - It was different. I liked it.[/li][li]The sets - I really liked the Divination classroom. The CN Tower in Toronto had a set exhibition and PoA was one of the movie sets they were featuring. It was really awesome to sit on those cushions.[/li][/ul]

However, I did not enjoy Gambon as Dumbledore as much as I enjoyed Harris. I thought Emma Thompson (spelling?) was a scene-stealer as Professor Trelawney.

As for what they took, I am a bit disappointed that they didn’t include the Quidditch Cup and the story about the Marauders. But, I am also thankful that they changed directors. Chris Columbus did an excellent job on the first two, but the cast is older now and they needed a director to show their teenage angst and such.

Well, this is just my two cents on this. Even if the movies become a load of rubbish, it’s not going to make me love Harry Potter any less. Did that make sense?

5

Yeah, I’ve got to say that I found this one the most disappointing of the three Harry Potter movies, and I wasn’t that enthusiastic about the first two. My impression was that Cuaron was so busy trying to make the film all spooky and atmospheric that he forgot about the importance of telling a story – one with a very complex plot that begins a generation back. The whole climactic scene in the Shrieking Shack was, basically, gutted, along with most of the information that would allow viewers to make sense of the plot. I saw the film with a couple of friends who hadn’t read the book, and had to spend half an hour in the pub afterwards explaining 1) how Sirius, Remus, Snape, Peter, and Harry’s parents all knew each other; 2) what a Fidelius Charm is and exactly how Harry’s parents were betrayed; 3) where the map came from; 4) why so many of the characters were able to turn into animals at will. This is basic stuff, and I’m astounded that the scriptwriters didn’t bother to explain any of it. (Worse yet, they have the actors behaving as if it HAD been explained; none of the kids express the slightest curiosity or confusion about any of this stuff, and Harry has that bizarre crying fit after he hears Sirius betrayed his parents, never mind that Sirius isn’t supposed to be anybody to him at this point.)

And some of the special effects … gah. The book says “werewolf.” Not “wereapeman crossed with a naked mole-rat.” (Although that does explain why everybody spends about ten minutes standing around gawking at it rather than actually trying to defend themselves.)

I did think Thewlis’ and Oldman’s performances were spot-on; frankly, they both did an amazing job considering that their screen time was cut to the bone and the script kept giving them these appalling Hallmark lines. I’m hoping they get better material to work with in Order of the Phoenix, although I’m not holding my breath at this point.

Whew, ranted out. I feel better.

6

[QUOTE=Fretful Porpentine]

And some of the special effects … gah. The book says “werewolf.” Not “wereapeman crossed with a naked mole-rat.” (Although that does explain why everybody spends about ten minutes standing around gawking at it rather than actually trying to defend themselves.

[QUOTE]

Oh, yeah. How could I have forgotten the “werewolf”? My friend said, “Maybe they spent so much money getting Buckbeak to look good that they ran out of money for the werewolf?” in an attempt to explain why the werewolf looked so hideous.

7

I envisioned Professor Trelawney as being more ‘etherial’. I thought Thompson’s portrayal was a bit more ‘bat-shit crazy’.

Yeah, they completely left out who ‘Moony, Wormtail, Padfott & Prongs’ were.

Quidditch is the one thing that makes Harry happy. Sure, it can get boring showing the games every time; but I think it’s an important part of the story.

As for the ‘teen angst’, I think that really sets in in Goblet of Fire. Frankly, I thought Harry was being a total prat as he grew older. ‘Oh, poor pitiful me!’ Yeah, I remember being a teeenager. I remember feeling being ‘put upon’ by Adult Roolz’; but I think Rowling was a bit heavy-handed about it without explaining the psychology behind it. (But maybe that’s too much to ask.)

There were some good things, as you mentioned. (I would have done the Dementors slightly differently.) I think the main problem with this film is that it omitted too much.

Fretful Porpentine: I agree with most of your post, though Lupin didn’t match the way I imagined him.

8

Yeah, I think they did pretty poorly with making the werewolf. He should have been much more wolfish to me.
I was also pretty disappointed that there was barely any quiddich at all in this movie, when their third year is so big with quiddich.
I don’t think they did Harry’s dementor fainting spells well enough, like what he heard during them and he sort of didn’t want to stop because he wanted to hear his parents again. They didn’t even mention Harry heard James at all.
I realize that they can’t have everything from the book in the movie, but they left out some pretty important stuff. We’ll just see what happens with the fourth movie. I wonder what all they’ll take out. Still, as dare_devil007_ I won’t stop loving Harry Potter any less if the rest of the movies turn into a load of rubbish. The books are still gold.

9

Regarding too many things being left out, I don’t really think there was any other way to do it, aside from splitting the film up a la Kill Bill. It does have an adult following, but Harry Potter is primarily for the young’uns, and I don’t imagine your average seven-year-old could sit through a three-hour movie, if only because there’s going to have to be a potty break somewhere in there.

10

I liked it the best out of the three, but it was only ok. The biggest weakness is that they didn’t explain the whole padfoot, prongs, et al bit. Quidditch always bothers me. The game makes no sense and everytime I read about it or see it I get annoyed.

11

Glad I’m not the only one. This was my least favourite of the HP films. It was just far too rushed and while every critic under the sun raved about how the director got the kids out of uniform and thus made them more “real” I felt that stole from the special world they had created. I didn’t want to see a HP film acted out by GAP models thanks very much.

12

1:20? The film was 2:12 ( I have the DVD in hand as we speak ), enormously long for what is essentially a children’s film :).

I just watched it finally as well ( three nights ago, actually - have to remember to return the DVD today ). The more accurate criticism would be that they spent a great deal of time telling relatively little story. But frankly I’m just not sure it could be helped. Unless they start going to epic length movies as you suggested ( and it is doubtful the youngest fans coulds tolerate that ) this sort of progression is inevitable as they start dealing with longer and longer books. Really only the first Harry Potter book was short enough to fit most of it in a standard feature.

I disagree about the child actors - I think they have improved, though some more than others. Watson maybe the most - she seemed noticeably less wooden than I remember from the second film. Radcliffe maybe the least - he can’t do angst very well at all. The Draco character for some unaccountable reason was reduced to a sniveling worm ( more so than the books ) and that kid hammed it up big time in those scenes.

Visually I the series took a huge step forward. Frankly IMHO it was much better looking than the first two. And frankly I scarcely noticed the clothing thing - it neither detracted nor added anything.

Now what I will agree with is that the film comes off as rushed, especially the climactic sequence in the shack. But really the whole movie. I think a couple of minor plot points ( like the authors of the Marauders Map ) were needlessly left out - their inclusion wouldn’t have added much running time. And I agree Gambon makes for a weaker Dumbledore, but then they really cut down his presence quite a bit in this one so it is harder to tell - no heartfelt alone moments with HP this time.

Still, I found this one much more watcheable than the second ( a poor effort IMO ). The first was more coherent story-wise, but then it was much shorter and designed to introduce characters and setting, which makes that a bit easier. This one suffers very much from the ‘Two Towers syndrome’ - it really feels like an unresolved middle chapter. But I appreciated the darker, more mature tone, which I think mirrors the progression in the books ( and I should come clean and say that I think the books are just fine light entertainment, but nothing truly special ).

Overall, a good effort and in terms of visuals and tone the best of the three.

  • Tamerlane
13

My bad. I meant 2:20. (Or 2:22.)

14

I’m on record since the movie’s theatrical release as being in the “disappointed” camp, my problems with it being pretty much what the other disappointeds have already said (except that I had no problem with Gambon, I thought the transition from Harris to him was pretty seamless).

I was very much hoping that the scenes from the book that we missed seeing in the movie would be “Deleted Scenes” on the DVD, but that, too, was a disappointment. There are only a few deleted scenes, and none of them cover the Moony, Padfoot, etc. stuff, or the Quiddich game in which Malfoy et al pretend to be dementors and get their behinds nailed for it.

I sure hope they do a better job of translating Goblet of Fire to film. It’s my favorite of the books so far.

Oh, and slightly off-topic, I think Rowan Atkinson would be a perfect Mundungus Fletcher in movie # 5.

15

I though the third HP movie was the best of the three, actually; the time constraint pretty much forced it to aspire to be more than just a strict translation of the book. Whether or not you think the changes make for a better story, I think they made for a better movie, which was kind of the point.

16

It’s my favorite of the three movies as well. Of course, that is greatly helped by the fact that I dislike the second movie (and book).

While there was definitely a lot left out, I don’t mind that much, since I know it all anyway, and, as karomon said, I don’t really see how it could have been helped.

The werewolf bothered me at first, but upon repeated viewings I’ve actually come to like it. And I think that Remus’ transformation scene is really good regardless. Peter Pettrigrew as Rat-Man still grates a little, though.

17

As Chris Columbus proved, slavishly sticking too closely to the source material makes for a stilted movie. The only way to make a good movie out of a good book is to approach it as a movie and not as an adaptation.

I agree that explaining the creators of the Marauder’s Map would’ve been good, but outside of that I disagree with every other point. The werewolf looked excellently creepy, Daniel Radcliffe’s acting when hearing of his parents was appropriately poignant and sad, and Dumbledore had more of a spark of mischievousness, which was sorely lacking from the first two.

18

I agree, I think more of the fairy-look of Carol Kane in Scrooged - that pretty gibson girl blond with wispy ringlets just worked…

19

I thought it was by far the best movie of the three. Easily the best story…but I thought the plot of the second one was kind of lame.

I think I remember reading somewhere that they’re saving the Marauder’s Map revelation for a different movie.

20

I watched the movie last night, and of the three Harry Potter films it’s by far the best. The first was essentially a book directly transcribed to the screen, and that just doesn’t work: the timing, exposition, and everything else was all off. The second improved on it slightly, but this one is the first that actually stands on its own as a movie.

Yes, there are many details left out from the book, but there’s no way you can avoid that with any adaptation. If you look at The Bourne Identity or The Bourne Supremacy, you’ll see that the essential theme and story is still kept when going from the page to the screen, but lots and lots of stuff has to altered to make it work.