The third film is, in my own experience, the most divisive among fans. Personally I enjoyed it, but many aren't as into the stark tonal shift from the more jolly first two into the darker third film (a trend that will continue), the mixed up narrative, and the lack of Voldemort. As I see it, there are two main reasons for this. First, it was at this pint that I think Rowing really started planning the details of her series, and found that he couldn't just have Voldemort coming back once a book to e defeated repeatedly by the Harry gang. She also probably realised that more characters and back story was needed to create heroes and villains with depth in future instalments (I'm not saying she's a bad writer, just a rather simplistic young-adult focused one). Secondly, the actor playing Dumbledore had died, and the director of the previous films left the project. The instalment of Michael Gambon and Alfonso Cuarón changes the feeling of this film, especially since Cuarón chose to go with some different stylistic choices (sweeping shots, artistic close ups, stylised cuts - elements that I might dismissively call “better”, but that in reality are dependent on the genre and tone of the film overall). There were lots of long uncut moving shots, which were well executed and set the school environment scenes well. The lighting an editing are also improved, with more subtle differences in scenes that better reflect intended tone. A beautiful example is when they're on the train early on, and the Dementor floats down the hall, and we see the light get cool and dim as we see it through the rapidly frosting glass while hearing the soft chink and crunch of freezing and a soft inhaled breath.
I definitely prefer the appearance of the Dementors in this one to later films.
Some
of the comedy didn't really work for me in this one, or still felt
kind of awkward (the second movie was certainly more fun). I didn't
like the tonal shift from the foreboding dog scene to Harry getting
on to the Night Bus. It suddenly turns into comedic slapstick, and
while the driver, his shrunken head friend and the ticket boy are
nice characters, they're a little over the top and embarrassing.
Not
too many complaints for this one though. Things have moved around
slightly and the sets are finalised for the last five films, and the
wardrobe has gotten a little more realistic (the kids now more often
wear their uniforms in their own ways, and all their ties are tied
terribly - reminds me of m own Secondary). This and greatly improved
acing on the part of the kids (and an excellent adult cast - Gary
Oldman in particular) makes the whole environment feel more like a
real place.
The actual plot? Fine, I guess. They did a sort of weird time travel thing, which wasn't particularly original or fitting with the wizarding world, but was of a good level of complexity for the target audience (this or 'Back to the Future' can be their introduction, then they can move on to the more difficult 'Time Crimes' and finally 'Memento'). The main new thing I liked was the whole Phoenix gang generation, and I'd like there to be a series about them (though with different, younger, actors portraying them I might not enjoy their characters as much).
The actual plot? Fine, I guess. They did a sort of weird time travel thing, which wasn't particularly original or fitting with the wizarding world, but was of a good level of complexity for the target audience (this or 'Back to the Future' can be their introduction, then they can move on to the more difficult 'Time Crimes' and finally 'Memento'). The main new thing I liked was the whole Phoenix gang generation, and I'd like there to be a series about them (though with different, younger, actors portraying them I might not enjoy their characters as much).
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: 49.8