*** Official HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Grey]

Which is exactly what Warners wanted him to do. With a property the size of Harry Potter, the studio doesn't want someone coming in and "reimagining" the series. Columbus was able to assemble a stellar cast and an excellent team of technicians to come in and imagine Harry Potter's world. I found both the first two entries to be great fun and very faithful to the books' spirit.

Columbus has also provided a wonderful jumping off point for new franchise directors like Cuaron to take a few more risks even as Rowling does the same thing in her writing.

 

[Ray H]

I enjoyed the first two flicks under Columbus's direction but there just seemed to be a bit lacking especially with the first film. Sorceror's Stone just seemed to lack a style. It was just bland and stiff. I wasn't a huge fan of its look either. Much of the film just looks way too colorful and perfect to the point where it's sickeningly sweet. Those concerns were fixed a good deal by Chamber of Secrets though in terms of a real visual flair, it seems that Azkaban has finally cracked it.

 

[JonZ]

I think Columbus did a great job with the first film.

My problems with Chamber Of Secrets is the source material not his adaption of it(Although I REALLY dont like the way he did the Harry speaking Parsalmouth for the first time scene).

Leaving work early tomorrow to catch POA before the crowds show up.

 

[Tino]

I agree completely with Ernest regarding Chris Columbus. I think he is a fine "major" director who has also written some very entertaining screenplays.

He is a solid, dependable, reliable director and imo has delivered the goods time and time again. I thought the first two Potter films were very well directed and I also sctratch my head at the hatred and personal insults that are levied against him. Different strokes I guess.

 

[Chad R]

I think this is an important thought that gets lost when people complain about the length or direction of the first two films. Steve Kloves, the writer, spoke with Rowling many times during the adaptation and in interviews would admit to telling her cuts he'd make, and then she'd coyly suggest he not cut those things. She wouldn't out and out tell him what was coming up, only that certain things needed to be left in there.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Indeed. While the first two films had their clunky moments even while taking exactly the right philosophy, one thing I'll be forever grateful to Columbus for is the casting.

A more radical director would have gone with artsy choices. In every single role, Columbus got exactly the right actor for their part.

Robbie Coltrane is the closest a real person could come to taking on the characteristics of Hagrid.

Even once he had become far too feeble for the role, Richard Harris still captured the character's kindly majesty in a way I can't imagine from Michael Gambon (who more could more accurately capture the energy of Dumbledore)

Maggie Smith strikes the perfect balance of playing an older woman who isn't an old lady. While I'd initially pictured a woman of forty-something as McGonagal, Smith captures the stern tenderness of the character spot on.

And point blank, Alan Rickman was who I conjured in my head as Snape when reading the books for the first time. He was born for the role, and no one else could play him so.

They weren't artsy or brave choices. They were simply the right ones. And the kids are a miracle.

That Cuarón was forced to play within Chris's framework is a creative constraint that can only have benefited the film.

The first two were not great films. They were nothing more or less than the book visualized on film (with the exception of the latter's abysmal syrupy ending). And in the end, as a tremendous fan of the books, I think that's what I'd rather have.

 

[Kwang Suh]

I had thought that JK Rowling had more of a say in the casting than anyone else.

As for the first two movies, they were certainly solid - if a little conservative. On the other hand, they were based off two fairly basic books (esp. the first one, which is a very simple story).

 

[Ernest Rister]

Anyone else remember Rosie O'Donnell campaigning for the role of Mrs. Weasley?

 

[Ray H]

Yes. Thank God she doesn't have the part.

Am I the only one who cringes during the shot in Sorcerer's Stone with Voldemort fleeing the forrest? It's just so cheesey looking. It's obviously guys yanking a Voldemort dummy on a string.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Naah. I prefer that to the CGI Centaur.

 

[Ricardo C]

Actually, Voldemort fleeing looked pretty alright to me. The centaur (which they named Firenze in this one), however... Yikes. I thought they were supposed to look more human. I wonder how they'll portray "pretty boy" Firenze in OotP, if he makes the cut. Hopefully they won't use the same CGI model.

 

[Ernest Rister]

They'll probably do some serious mo-cap work, I would think. Its a safe bet we'll see improved centaurs by the time Phoenix hits screens.

I have a sneaky feeling the Centaurs are eventually going to play a Gungan-esque role in either Book Six or Seven...the warrior society who loathes the wizards, the outcast who brings them together, the army that rises to fight alongside the wizards...

 

[andrew markworthy]

Just to elaborate on my 'major director' sarcasm, and then I'll shut up on the topic. I was talking about artistic not commercial merit. E.g. Kurosawa, Welles, Truffaut, Renoir, Columbus?????

I agree with the verdict on CC that he's 'safe'. And I think that's the trouble. However, different strokes and all that.

 

[Iain Jackson]

I certainly enjoyed the first two films, and don't have much of a problem with Chris Columbus as a director, but Cuaron just managed to bring a freshness and style to Azkaban that clearly benefitted the film.

As for which my favourite of the first 3 books is, I couldn't say right now (I'd have to go back and read them again). My main problem with Azkaban as a book was that the entire Shrieking Shack scene lasted for ever and felt like it was straight out of a Scooby Doo story (to me). The fact that this was cut down in the film was a pleasant surprise.

In fact, there were only a couple of small bits that I felt were missing from the film that actually bothered me - but at least I know that if I ever want the full story, I can just read the books again, it'll only take me a day or two.

As long as they get all the important stuff in the Goblet of Fire movie, then I'll be happy. Of course, there is a LOT of important stuff in that book...

 

[Mark-W]

Man!
The way some of you are talking about the widely praised first two films, it makes it sound like they were a chore to even watch in the cinema.

I need say I agree with most of Ernest's comments regarding the probability that many critiques crediting the change in directors for all of the reported improvements to the films seems very overstated.

Uh, the kids in the film now have several films under their belts...Ya don't think that mabe they have improved in their performances of characters they have "lived with" now for several years?

Now that we have been fully immersed in the world of Hogwart's, and how things function there, ya don't think maybe it is much easier to just move the plot forward and skip some exposition?

HP's world is so rich that I really didn't need Columbus to indudge in any auteur impulses
to really enjoy those films. (If his film making approach is fairly generic, well, as has already been stated, that seems to be what WB and Rowling were looking for: at the launch of a new film franchise, a "solid" approach is what the studio is going to want, especially for a product with so much
invested in it.)

Visually, yes, I love The Little Princess and can understand the accolades being heaped on Alfonso Cuarón for
making this film visually appealing.
In fact, I hope that many people who find this HP film to be such an improvement over the last two will, at at minimum, watch Cuarón's The Little Princess, which was released theatrically twice: once as a "family film" and once as an "art house film," and neither time it caught much box office.


Still, while I am not exactly a fan of Columbus's work in general, I don't understand why so many are prone to criticising him for make exactly the films that Rowling and WB wanted the first two HB adaptations to be.

 

[Kevin Grey]

The best compliment I can give Columbus is that after watching the first movie I immediately went out and read all of the books.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"The script is a little light in meaningful character development at the expense of plot and revelations of Harry's past."

Well, that describes every Harry Potter book...they're like Chinese Water Torture - you're hit on the head again and again and again with all of the terciary plot developments that all tie in to some mystery...meanwhile, you're just waiting for the meaningful revelations to drop, and you have to wait until the third act or the third act denoument for that to occur. That structure drove me NUTS in Book Five: Order of the Phoenix - I was tired of the formula, I wanted a straight ahead narrative, already. Instead, like following a geometric theorem, the book proceeds just like all the others. It is almost coming to the point where you don't need to read the first 75% of the Harry Potter books, all you need to do is crack open the last 100 pages and learn all you were getting to get from the book.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

In regards to character shifts, perhaps, but that could be said for most books. I disagree with the assertion that you'll get all there is to get from the last hundred pages. The revelations may not come until the end, but the character shifts and plotting make the rest of the book more than worth the time. Much like a Hitchcock film, Rowling builds plot and tension slowly. Book five was a permutation on this. We knew something big was coming, and the anxiousness about the impending event racheted and waned as neccessarily.

If all you're looking for in a book is the plot twists and revelations, you might as well read the Cliff Notes version.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Cuaron is not signed for either Potter 4 or Potter 5. The Malfoy's are more prominent in Chamber of Secrets and Order of the Phoenix than Goblet.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"The Harry Potter books are first and foremost mysteries. As such, it's no surprise that the big revelations, both in relation to character and in relationship to plot, come in the final act."

Well, sure, but must these climactic events always come at the end of the school year? Right before awarding the House Cup? I mean, can't things happen before Christmas? Or before the first six weeks? Why does it always take a solid school year for Harry to figure out the plots of Voldemort or his cronies? That's the formula I'm talking about. You could almost set your watch to the plot of a Harry Potter book by now. That's what left me so disappointed by Book Five. At the end of Book 4, you think all bets are off. Book 5 comes along and *wha-bang!* slams the narrative right back into the standard HP formula.