What's new

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

Tom Koegel

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
95
Count me with Ebert in finding this episode a half-notch below the other two. Cuarón, technically and stylistically, made a better film than Columbus did in the first two. (Certainly than in Sorcerer's Stone, anyways.) I understood and appreciated the muted color palate (washed out), the grainy look, etc. And he handles the greater range of emotional content much more successfully than did Columbus in the first two.

Cuarón, of course, has much more to work with this time. The story itself has greater emotional range. And the child actors, with the possible exception of Radcliffe as Harry, were much better this time. Watson/Hermione has more to do here, and demonstrates far more range than before--while keeping her knack for comic timing. Ron/Rupert Grint seems to have dialed it back a notch (well, maybe a half notch) from an over-the-top performance in Chamber of Secrets. The character of Harry, of course, doesn't get to exhibit much range--but Radcliffe doesn't seem to show much talent for emotional range, anyways. I found his efforts to weep after he learns that Sirius is his godfather to be unaffecting. Watson's response, as Hermione, though--was touching and well-acted.

What I found missing in "Episode III" was much of a sense of . . . well . . . fun. Yes, the book is darker than the first two. But there are many moments of joy in the book that seem to have eluded portrayal here. (Griffindor, I gather, does not win the Quidditch cup.) And the scenes that have made it into the final version always seem too abrupt, too rushed. Think of any scene--well, whoops, we're talking about two--with Emma Thompson as Professor Trelawney. They aren't set up well enough to demonstrate the loopy fraud that she is--or to set up the punchline when she has a genuine revelation.

On the level of script, Kloves labored well--if not wholly successfully--to tighten things up. Having Lupin learn of Pettigrew's existence from the Marauder's Map makes sense, hastens the plot, and makes the Shrieking Shack scene slightly less talky. But what the heck was that ridiculous scene in the tavern with the Minister of Magic, Cornelius Fudge, Julie Christie (nearly unidentifiable through the haze of Harry's invisibility cloak) as Madam Rosmerta, and Maggie Smith as McGonagall? "Ah, gee, guys, we've got to find a way to let Harry know about Sirius being his godfather, so let's get a couple of character's together randomly?" Yes, there is a similar scene in the bar in the book--but at least it is written that the characters might conceivably have appeared there together.

There are exceptions to this--the boggart in the wardrobe scene was well set up and well done. Virtually anything with Rickman as Snape works well. And I thought the relationship scenes with Lupin and Harry were well played and filmed.

I came away appreciating that this was a "better film" . . . but thinking it wasn't as much fun.

Tom
 

Matt Stone

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2000
Messages
9,063
Real Name
Matt Stone
I'm still not sure if I like this as much as the other two, but it was definitely much more visually interesting. Cuaron really knows how to tell a story visually, and Columbus is really clueless when it comes to that aspect of film-making. Great choice to have Cuaron direct this one.

I also hated the ending freeze-frame thing. Sort of awkward. The CG did seem a little off, and I didn't like the werewolf design, but I thought the grim was fine.

I really loved the casting. Thewis and Oldman were fantastic. I was iffy on Thewis, because I hadn't seen him in much before, but wow...A+. Oldman is always good, so I was confident, but he really hit it out the the park. I really miss Richard Harris, but Gambon was good.

Overall, really good stuff. I'm not going to give it a rating until I see it again, but it was much more interesting than the other two films.
 

Patrick Sun

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Messages
39,661
So, how many who saw HP3 "tuned out" when the CGI "werewolf vs. the dog" scene occurred? This was one of the complaints lodged against Van Helsing when 2 CGI characters were fighting each other.
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
"Columbus is really clueless when it comes to that aspect of film-making."

Yeah, Columbus is a big dullard, clueless as to how to use a camera.... :rolleyes
 

Kevin Grey

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
2,598


This will definitely be a concern as the films progress since the books continue to get darker. I really don't mind myself but some may be turned off.

One of the challenges for the upcoming filmmakers is that much of the "fun" parts of Books 4 & 5 aren't necessarily integral to the plots and may be the first items on the chopping board.

Off the top of my head there is a wonderful couple of chapters devoted to Harry and Ron trying to find dates for the Winter Ball in Goblet of Fire that will likely be cut pretty drastically if its there at all.
 

Matt Stone

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2000
Messages
9,063
Real Name
Matt Stone


Sorry, Ernest...didn't mean to step on any toes. Clueless was obviously hyperbole, but I do think that Cuaron is much more visual than Columbus.
 

DustinC

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
59
So Ernest, have you actually seen it yet, or are you still too busy defending Columbus? ;)
 

Jim_C

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Messages
2,058
Bloody Brilliant!

I loved this film. I know that PoA is a stronger book than the previous two but I believe that the source material is only about 50% of why this film is so much better than SS and CoS. I felt that I could inhabit Harry Potter's world this time around. Hogwarts and the grounds felt so real in this film. Cuaron really knows how to visually portray an environment. I also really appreciated not being hit over the head with reaction shots or explanations of what just happened and why.

I thought the actors did a great job, especially Thewis. If I had one complaint, it would be not enough Snape. Rickman shines in this role.

Like others, I didn't care for the final freeze frame shot of Harry.

Finally, I really enjoyed the previous two films so I'm not dissing Columbus with my comparisons to PoA. It's just so satisfying to see Harry Potter's world portrayed so well on the screen. It's a shame that Cuaron isn't directing GoF. I hope to god that Newell maintains some of Cuaron's aesthetic. I'll be very disappointed if he doesn't.
 

Quentin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
2,670
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Quentin H
I had a feeling the opinions on this film would break the way they have...

Personally, I DETEST the first two films. Can't bear watching even 2 minutes of either. Wooden, over the top, on the nose, drivel.

But, I really like this film. It still suffers from some basic plot problems that tend to plague the novels, but I had fun with this film, felt a sense of joy, felt immersed for the first time in the magical world of Hogwarts, and cared about what was happening.

I think most people who disliked the first two feel this way about the third. My observation, anyhow.

People who liked the first two - don't enjoy this film as much.

Yep...exactly like I thought it would break down...
 

Chad R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 14, 1999
Messages
2,183
Real Name
Chad Rouch
I think the praise for Cuaron is too quickly offered. Personally, many of his choices were wrong, and there were at least a few instances where his direction was shoddy.

First, where the aunt was "blown up" was awkwardly staged with really no eye towards this type of farce. The Dursleys just sat there stupidly, watching her get bigger when they knew who was doing it. At this point in raising Harry, they wouldn't look on dumbfounded, they would react angrily towards him, immediately.

I think the decision to dress the kids in 'modern' clothes ruins the timelessness of the series. In the books, there was a sense that the wizarding world didn't have much care for pop culture and its ilk, and I got that sense as well from the first two films.

I also felt that Columbus's classical style (tripods and dollies as opposed to hand-held) also lent the films that sense of timelessness.

I also didn't like the treatment of Hogsmeade, it didn't have any of the grandeur and wonder that was in the book, and not even as much as Diagon Alley had in the first film.

With that said, I still think the film was enormously successful, but no more or less than the first two. This book was, at this point in the series, the best, and I think that the film succeeded due to the source material rather than the director. He didn't spoil it in any way shape or form, and I did enjoy some nice touches such as the nod to the passing of time (something Columbus failed miserably at) and the extremely old fashioned irises, but I still lump the multitude of praise on the young actors and the tight adaptation of Steve Kloves.

I also loved that John Williams took a cue from his score for Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and didn't rely on the original theme so much, instead growing a wholly organic score from the same motif; but one that can stand on its own.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,972
Location
Albany, NY
This is what really frustrates me. The films, atleast the first two (I'm seeing PoA tomorrow) have their share of plot problems. But pretty much all of them are due to liberties taken in adaptation (For instance a month disappearing during the Diagon Alley scene in SS/PS.) The books themselves are near immaculately plotted.
 

Kevin Grey

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
2,598


I disagree here. I didn't think the kids were dressed in a fashionable way at all- They could have been from the early 80's for the way they were presented.

I was very, very impressed with this one. A lot of attention has been lavished on Cuaron's visual sense (rightfully) but what really impressed me on this one more than the first two were the quiet moments. In particular almost any scene between Lupis and Harry, with the bridge scene being my favorite. I thought Radcliffe was significantly better in this outing and Watson once again seemed to be leaps and bounds ahead of all the other kids. The article in EW this week mentioned that Watson thought about leaving before GoF and is considering bailing before OotP and I certainly hope that doesn't come true.

I don't really have any quibbles with the adaptation- they hit all of the key points although the day to day school stuff was pushed to the side moreso here than in the others. There were much fewer classroom sequences this time around. Not really much choice, though.

I did find the editing a bit "off" during the beginning until they got to the Leaky Cauldron. I will say that the 140 minutes just flew by.

The EW article mentioned that Cuaron wanted to be even more radical but was talked into remaining a bit more faithful to the previous work. Evidently he was also responsible for talking Cloves into adapting GoF into one film vice two. I expect that one to polarize fans a lot more- there will be tons of material cut out for that one (the ELF liberation movement seems to be an immediately obvious choice for removal).
 

Galen_V

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 12, 2003
Messages
352


I mean, while it was a nice change of pace to go to the Quidditch World Cup at the beginning of Goblet, it seemed as if Rowling went a little overboard with the side trips in Phoenix (especially when you consider that it takes 200 pages just to get to Platform 9 3/4). Using your Indiana Jones comment as a metaphor, it was as if Spielberg had decided to make the fourth movie fresh by tinkering with the pacing and flow of the film wihtout realizing that it was the original "formula" that made the movie be Indiana Jones to begin with.
 

DanaA

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 21, 2001
Messages
1,843
Well, I'll cast my vote with Cuaron over Columbus. He's demonstrated his ability to tell a story in his other films. A Little Princess is a gem of a picture. And, I do think he has a good sense of how to paint a picture with a camera. He also seems to bring out strong performances with actors.

As for the film, it is my favorite of the three Potters, despite its having veered away from the story most. I agree that the opening scene wasn't the best, but his treatment of everything from the ride on the magic bus to the dementors were all excellently done to me.

My youngest daughter, on the other hand, felt this was the worst of the three Potters.

As for the darker, scarier aspect of the film, that's what I look most forward to as the films continue.
 

Dan Paolozza

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 4, 2000
Messages
149
While it's true that this film doesn't have the "fun factor" for the characters, those moments of happiness, wonder, and mischief that the previous two episodes had, I think is was a much better film, and more fun for me, the viewer.

Philosopher's was fantastic in it's sense of wonder, aided a lot by it being the first to film and in the series - it's always easier to ditch emotional and plot baggage when there's a lot of introduction to be done, so many things to be seen for the first time. However, each scene felt hacked together, and the story told almost as if someone reading it did so in monotone and abruptly stopped after each chapter, taking several seconds to turn the page, and then to begin again in monotone.

Chamber slowed to a crawl very soon after the introductory scenes. The same lightness and cut-and-paste feel picked up right where the first film left off. With only the slightest increase in character developments and "new" things to see (ie Dobby), these bonuses were quickly covered by the slow and steady "movie by numbers" approach and piss-poor direction. Performances were overacted, and it was as if the entire movie was shot from a stationary tripod. An anticlimactic ending with yet more page-to-screen exposition washed down the plain oatmeal with a lukewarm glass of water.

Azkaban was refreshing and engaging from the get go. It wasn't quite as fulfilling to its source material as say, Spiderman was, but it was very good. And compared to the lull I was in from the first two movies, this film had my attention the whole way through, enjoying the tension, the darker and more mature ambience, and the more well-rounded performances of everyone involved. Scenes from the book that were pages upon pages of exposition were not simply cut back, but the information was revealed visually and logically along the way. Time transitions, camera angles, camera movements, lighting - the whole bit - were leaps and bounds ahead of the previous two. Cuaron relays in several seconds what was several paragraphs of description, and/or exposition in the novel...sometimes with a simple shot.

Yes, the character's fun-times were largely removed. However, I didn't feel robbed of anything significant in that manner, and knowing this film had to be streamlined, the production team did an excellent job at containing it and making it a fun, interesting experience. For me, at least. I'm going to miss Cuaron in the next one.
 

florence franks

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 23, 1999
Messages
133
Wow. I just seen this few hours ago and I totally shocked its gotten anything near B rating from critics. It really makes you wonder how many people remember or have read the book as this was butchered so bad. Changing the settings was unforgivable and drunken hippie Dumbledore was shocker. It was so choppy and fastpaced even I was confused what going on.
 

LorenzoL

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 20, 2004
Messages
313
Real Name
Lorenzo
Let me start off by indicating that I'm not a Harry Potter fan (never read the books) therefore I have no idea of what was cut or changed from the books.

I watched it last night and I absolutely loved it. I wasn't a big fan of the first two movies however I thought this movie had a better pace, acting and special effects than the first two. The actors playing Harry, Ron and Hermione were much better in this movie than in the first two as is obvious that they are feeling much more comfortable in their roles now. David Thewlis was great as Lupin and Gary Oldman was great in the few scenes he was in.

Kudos to ILM for Buckbeak as he looked incredible and also with the Dementors.
 

Kevin Grey

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
2,598
Yeah, I really do have to highlight the Visual Effects. Probably ILM's best work in years. What was remarkable was how well integrated into the film space the effects were, which would seem to be a difficult proposition considering the washed out color palatte and heavy grain Cuaron utilized. Then again they did a great job the last time they worked on a film with a similar visual style (Minority Report) so maybe its easier to integrate. Wonderful work.

Kudos also to John Williams for his score. Far more subtle than his work on the first film.
 

Dome Vongvises

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 13, 2001
Messages
8,172
I think one of the nice touches I liked with this film that went with the color palette was the use of irises. I haven't seen a creative use like that since a silent film.

The only thing this film failed to capture was Hermione's sense of exhaustion from using the time gizmo. It was very evident in the book, but not so in the movie.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,821
Messages
5,123,967
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top