Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Stars: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint
Runtime: 142 minutes
Synopsis: Sirius Black, a dangerous wizard involved in James and Lily' murder, has escaped the inescapable magical prison of Azkaban and is coming after Harry.
Performances: 7/10
Screenplay: 8/10
Special Effects: 8/10
Costumes/Makeup: 9/10
Editing: 7/10
Cinematography: 8/10
Score/Soundtrack: 8/10
Screenplay: 8/10
Special Effects: 8/10
Costumes/Makeup: 9/10
Editing: 7/10
Cinematography: 8/10
Score/Soundtrack: 8/10
Verdict: "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is considered by many to be the best Harry Potter film in the franchise. And while I don't particularly agree with that statement, I have to concede the fact that it's probably the first really good movie in the series. Alfonso Cuaron chose to give the film a more mature tone that reflects the changes our main characters are going through. A tone much darker than its predecessors, and that fits perfectly with the story and its themes. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are growing before our very eyes, and so are the actors portraying them. They now fully understand the traits and motivations of their characters, and their performances is much better in this film than in the first two. "Prisoner of Azkaban" also introduces to us fan favorites Remus Lupin and Sirius Black, incredibly portrayed by both David Thewlis and Gary Oldman respectively. It also features a wonderful Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore for the first time, after Richard Harris' unfortunate passing in 2002. Alan Rickman is back as Severus Snape, one of my favorite characters, and as always (no pun intended) knocks it out of the park.
Now when I was younger, I also considered this entry to be the best in the franchise. I mean, it had dementors, the best DADA teacher, a great boggart scene, and Hermione punching Malfoy in the face. But what today made me reconsider this status is the last third of the film. I am not a fan of time turners. I am not a fan of time traveling in general. And I believe that their introduction to the franchise was not J.K. Rowling's best idea, which is probably why they were all destroyed later on (except for one, which gave us "The Cursed Child" recently). This is basically my only issue with a sequel that is better in every way, from special effects to performances, than Chris Colombus' contributions, and in my opinion the first Harry Potter film that still holds up perfectly to this day.
Now when I was younger, I also considered this entry to be the best in the franchise. I mean, it had dementors, the best DADA teacher, a great boggart scene, and Hermione punching Malfoy in the face. But what today made me reconsider this status is the last third of the film. I am not a fan of time turners. I am not a fan of time traveling in general. And I believe that their introduction to the franchise was not J.K. Rowling's best idea, which is probably why they were all destroyed later on (except for one, which gave us "The Cursed Child" recently). This is basically my only issue with a sequel that is better in every way, from special effects to performances, than Chris Colombus' contributions, and in my opinion the first Harry Potter film that still holds up perfectly to this day.
Final Grade: 8/10
Comments
Post a Comment