"HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" (2004) Review

 

"HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" (2004) Review

I have a confession to make. I was not much of a fan of the HARRY POTTER franchise - both novels and movies - before the summer of 2004. Before that period, I had seen the first two movies, "HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE" and "HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS". But I had never read any of the novels written by J.K. Rowling. Then in June 2004, I saw the franchise's third movie, "HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" and my views changed.

Based upon Rowling's 1999 novel, "HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" follows the adventures of thirteen-year-old Harry Potter during his third year at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The story begins with Harry enduring a visit by his Aunt Petunia Durnsley's sister-in-law, Marge Durnsley, who proves to be just as boorish, narrow-minded and arrogant as the other members of the family. When "Aunt" Marge makes an insulting remark about Harry's late parents, the thirteen-year-old loses his temper and inadvertently causes the woman to inflate before she floats out of the house and into the sky. Still in a rage over her remarks and the rest of the family's reaction, Harry packs his belongings and leaves the Durnsley home. The Knight Bus - a magical transit bus for Britain's wizarding world - picks him up and transports Harry to London and Diagon Alley, where he is informed by the Cornelius Fudge, the Minister of Magic that a prisoner from Azkaban Prison named Sirius Black has escaped from prison. According to Fudge, Black was a former follower of Harry's arch-nemesis, Lord Voldemort, and vows to kill the thirteen-year-old in order to finish his master's task from years ago.

During Harry's third year at Hogwarts, he has to deal with a brewing conflict between his two best friends - Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger - over their respective pets. Hogwarts acquire a new Defense Against the Dark Arts instructor, an old friend of Harry's father called Remus Lupin. Harry and his friends also acquire two new instructors - Divination teacher Sybill Trelawney, and Rubeus Hagrid, the old gamekeeper who has begun teaching Care of Magical Creatures. Unfortunately, when a hippogriff named Buckbeak attacks Harry's nemesis Draco Malfoy during Hagrid's first class, the animal's life is hung in the balance by the Ministry that is under the influence of Draco's father, Lucius Malfoy. But Harry's biggest problems are the still missing Sirius Black, who has been spotted near the school; and the Dementors - soul sucking creatures from Azkaban, sent to Hogwarts by the Ministry to find Black. Due to Harry's bleak past, the Dementors are naturally attracted to his presence.

The movie's literary source, the 1999 novel, is highly regarded by the franchise's fans. The novel also won several literary awards and nearly came close to being nominated for the Hugo Award. And although I view the novel's main plot as one of the best created by Rowling, I must admit that I found it difficult to harbor such a high opinion of the novel. There were certain flaws that the 2004 movie managed to avoid, thanks to Steve Kloves' script. For me, I was relieved to discover that "THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" only featured one Quidditch match - the first one that featured Harry Potter's second encounter with the dementors. But the novel's subplot featuring Harry and his fellow Gryffindor players' efforts to win the Hogwarts Quidditch Cup was completely ignored in Kloves' screenplay. And I say . . . THANK GOD!. I have never been a fan of Quidditch to begin with. I also found the Quidditch Cup subplot unnecessary to the main narrative. Some fans have pointed out that Harry first met both Cedric Diggory and Cho Chang in the 1999 novel. But the introduction of the two characters were brief and played no real part in the saga's main narrative. Their roles in the narrative became a lot more important in the next two novels. So, Kloves' deletion of their characters struck me as the right thing to do. Aside from one or two matters, Kloves did a first-rate job in adapting Rowling's novel to the screen. This is not surprising, considering that "The Prisoner of Azkaban" was the last "short" novel in the series before the remaining four became "mega novels".

Looking back on the movie, it occurred to me that it possesses a very simple plot. More importantly, the story featured the next set of many mysteries surrounding Harry's parents and the part they played in his current connection to the still formless Lord Voldemort aka Tom Riddle Jr. And one of those mysteries featured their close friend, Sirius Black.

"THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" had a few flaws. Actually, there were two aspects of the story that did not sit well with me. One, I grew tired of Rowling coming up with an excuse for any of Harry's transgressions. In this particular movie, Sirius Black's escape from Azkaban allowed Minister of Magic Cornelius Fudge to dismiss Harry's temperamental use of magic against Madge Durnsley. And thanks to the Invisibility Cloak and the Maurader's Map given to him by Fred and George Weasley, Harry was able to sneak out of Hogwarts Castle and explore the nearby town of Hogsmeade without any trouble or parental permission. Speaking of the Maurader's Map, Remus Lupin revealed that the following was written on the map:

"Messrs Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs
Purveyors of Aids to Magical Mischief-Makers
are proud to present THE MARAUDER'S MAP"

Any fan of Rowling's novels knows that "Messrs Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs" are Harry's father James Potter, and the latter's friends - Lupin, Peter Pettigrew and Sirius Black. Why did Steve Kloves' screenplay failed to reveal their identities to moviegoers? Lupin could have told Harry in one of the movie's final scenes. And why was Kloves so determined to portray Ron Weasley as "comic relief"? I read somewhere that Hermione Granger was one of his favorite characters. I assume this is why he allowed her to speak one of Ron's more famous lines - erasing one of the latter's more positive traits and unnecessarily building up Hermione's traits even more. This final criticism is also directed at both the novel and the movie. According to Hermione Granger, time travel is considered dangerous by the wizarding world. So why did Minerva McGonagall allowed Hermione - third year a student - to use a time turner to attend more classes in the first place? And why did Albus Dumbledore task Harry and Hermione with the story's final rescue job . . . and not do the job himself? I have one more minor complaint - and it involved the verbal showdown between Potions professor Severus Snape and fugitive Sirius Black, both who were former classmates . . . and enemies at Hogwarts. Both Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman gave excellent performances in the film. But I must admit that I found their performances in this little showdown rather over-dramatic. Dare I say it? Hammy? There was more ham and cheese coming from the pair than a high school cafeteria.

When I first read Rowling's novel, I noticed that it did not have much action until the final sequence regarding the Shrieking Shack and Hermione's time turner. And yet, this did not diminish the story one bit. In fact, the story for "PRISONER OF AZKABAN" felt more like a character-driven mystery, with a heavy emphasis on the past. It is the first time Harry really learns about his parents' past through characters like Remus Lupin and Sirius Black. This is the first time Harry had discovered some of the details that led to his parents' deaths. This story marked the first time Harry learned about his parents' close friends - Remus, Sirius and Peter Pettigrew. "PRISONER OF AZKABAN" also marked the first time that one of the franchise's stories had ended on a bittersweet note. All of these aspects of the film's narrative, along with some very satisfying scenes and Alfonso Cuarón's superb and original direction had combined to make the 2004 film a big favorite of mine in the HARRY POTTER franchise.

As I had just stated earlier, there were scenes that struck me as crowd-pleasing or very memorable. I found Harry's ride on the Night Bus both exhilarating and hilarious. Another favorite sequence of mine featured the introduction of the Dementors, during the students' northbound journey on the Hogwarts Express. I thought Cuarón and the movie's special effects team did an excellent job in creating Harry's ominous introduction to the supernatural beings. Speaking of dementors, I also enjoyed the movie's Quidditch match between the Gryffindor and Hufflepuff teams during a thunderstorm. This match featured Harry's second encounter with the Dementors - one that nearly killed him. I also enjoyed the movie's Christmas sequence at the Hogsmeade village. What started as a playful sequence in which Harry used his Invisible Cloak to sneak out of Hogwarts (he lacked parental permission to join his fellow students' excursion into the village), ended on an emotional note after Harry vowed revenge after learning that one of his father's close friends had betrayed his parents to Lord Voldemort.

I also enjoyed those scenes that featured Remus Lupin's talent as a teacher, when he taught Harry and his classmates and later, Harry alone, about Boggarts and Dementors. Thanks to Emma Thompson's performance as the eccentric Divinity professor Sybil Trelawney, I really enjoyed the scenes featuring the students' lessons in that subject. More importantly, the movie featured one ominous scene in which Harry witnessed Trelawney unknowingly reveal a prediction regarding Voldemort and one of his minions. But I feel that without a doubt, the film's pièce de resistance proved to be the last third of the plot. I also enjoyed Professor Beginning with Harry, Ron and Hermione's visit to Rubeus Hagrid's hut in order to witness the execution of the hippogriff Buckbeak and ending with Harry and Hermione assisting in jailbreak; the entire sequence is brilliant example of fantasy, action and superb filmmaking from Alfonso Cuarón.

However, special effects and a first-rate narrative were not the only aspects that made "HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" memorable for me. The movie also benefited from excellent performances from a first-rate cast. Now, a cast filled with actors and actresses of sterling reputations is not a guarantee of good performances. I still have memories of this film's successor - 2005's "HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE". Aside from one particular scene, "THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" is blessed with first-rate performances. The movie had its share of solid performances - including from the likes of Richard Griffiths, Fiona Shaw and Harry Melling (who portrayed the Dursley family); a very entertaining Pam Ferris, who portrayed Vernon Dursley's sister, Marge Dursley; Timothy Spall in a brief, yet effective role as Peter Pettigrew and Julie Christie, who portrayed The Three Broomsticks owner Madam Rosmarta. More solid performances came from the likes of franchise regulars like Alan Rickman and his always entertaining performance as the surly Severus Snape, Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall); James and Oliver Phelps as Fred and George Weasley, Tom Felton as Harry's nemesis Draco Malfoy, Mark Williams as Arthur Weasley, Julie Walters as Molly Weasley, and Robert Hardy as Minister of Magic Cornelius Fudge.

There were performances that I found memorable. The movie's three leads - Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson - gave excellent performances as Harry Potter, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger respectively. In fact, I would say this film marked the first time they were able to ditch that heavy-handed style of acting that slightly tainted their performances in the first two films. Radcliffe did an excellent job of conveying Harry's struggles over his discovery that his parents had been betrayed. And I must admit that I found the interactions between Grint and Watson very entertaining as they portrayed Ron and Hermione's constant bickering and unwillingness to acknowledge their growing attraction to each other. I also enjoyed Robbie Coltrane's performance as Hogwarts gamekeeper-turned-Care of Magical Creatures professor, Rubeus Hagrid. I especially enjoyed Coltrane's scenes that featured Hagrid's awkward debut as a Hogwarts professor and his emotional attachment to the hippogriff Buckbeak.

"HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" marked the first appearances of four cast members. And all four gave excellent performances. One proved to be Gary Oldman as the chaotic and desperate Sirius Black, the wanted fugitive who unhappily proved to be Harry's godfather. Emma Thompson gave one of the funniest performances in the entire movie franchise as Divinity professor Sybill Trewlawney . . . who may or may not be a genuine seer. I was very impressed by David Thewlis' subtle, yet dynamic performance as Hogwarts' new Defense Against the Dark Arts professor Remus Lupin. Michael Gambon had a difficult act to follow when agreed to replace the late Richard Harris as Hogwarts' Headmaster Albus Dumbledore. And may I say that he did a superb job of capturing Dumbledore's enigmatic and commanding nature with his own style.

Granted, I had a few issues with "HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN""THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" proved to be one of the most unusual entries in the HARRY POTTER franchise and quite possibly my absolute favorite. In fact, my opinion of the film has not changed one whit in nearly twenty years.

"HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" (2004) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN", the 2004 adaptation of J.K. Rowling's 1999 novel. Directed by Alfonso Cuarón, the movie starred Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson:

"HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" (2004) Photo Gallery

"LITTLE WOMEN" (2019) Review

 

"LITTLE WOMEN" (2019) Review

Ever since its release in movie theaters back December 2019, many moviegoers have been in rapture over "LITTLE WOMEN", filmmaker Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s 1868 novel. The movie did acquire several acclaims, including Oscar nominations for two of the film’s actresses, Best Adapted Screenplay and an actual Oscar for costume design. I never got the chance to see it in theaters. I finally managed to see it on the HULU streaming service.

Anyone familiar with Alcott’s novel knows that it conveyed the tale of four sisters from a Massachusetts family and their development from adolescence and childhood to adulthood during the 1860s. The first half of Alcott’s tale covered the March sisters’ experiences during the U.S. Civil War. In fact, Alcott had based the March family on herself and her three sisters. Unlike previous adaptations, Gerwig incorporated a nonlinear timeline for this version of "LITTLE WOMEN".

There were aspects of "LITTLE WOMEN" I truly admired. I did enjoy most of the performances. Or some of them. I thought Saoirse Ronan gave an excellent performance as the movie’s leading character Josephine "Jo" March. I thought she did a pretty good job of recapturing Jo’s extroverted personality and artistic ambitions. I do wish that Gerwig had allowed Jo to convey some of the less pleasant sides to her personality. Do I believe she deserved her Oscar nomination? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Although I thought she gave an excellent performance, I do not know if I would have considered her for an acting nomination.

But I was more than impressed by Eliza Scanlen, who portrayed third sister Elizabeth "Beth" March. Although her story more or less played out in a series of vignettes that switched back and forth between the period in which she first caught the scarlet fever and her death a few years later; Scanlen did a superb job in recapturing the pathos and barely submerged emotions of Beth’s fate. It seemed a pity that she had failed to acquire any acting nominations. One last performance that really impressed me came from Meryl Streep. I have always regarded the temperamental Aunt March as a difficult role for any actress. And although I do not regard Streep’s interpretation of the aging matriarch as the best I have seen, I must admit that for me, she gave one of the best performances in the film. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Emma Watson, Laura Dern, Chris Cooper, Tracy Letts, James Norton, Louis Garrel, Bob Odenkirk and Florence Pugh, who also received an Oscar nomination for her performance as the youngest March sister, Amy. About the latter . . . I really admired her portrayal of the older Amy March. But I found her performance as the younger Amy rather exaggerated. And a part of me cannot help but wonder why she had received an Oscar nomination in the first place.

Jacqueline Durran won the film's only Academy Award – namely for Best Costume Design. Did she deserve it? I honestly do not believe she did. I did enjoy some of her designs, especially for the older Amy March, as shown below:

 

I found the costumes worn by Pugh, Streep and many extras in the Paris sequences very attractive and an elegant expression of fashion from the late 1860s. Otherwise, I found Durran’s costumes for this film rather questionable. I realize both she and Gerwig were attempting to portray the March family as some kind of 19th century version of "hippies". But even non-traditional types like the Marches would not wear their clothing in such a slap-dash manner with petticoat hems hanging below the skirts, along with bloomers showing, cuts and styles in clothing that almost seemed anachronistic, and wearing no corsets. The latter would be the equivalent of not wearing bras underneath one’s clothing in the 20th and 21st centuries. Someone had pointed out that many of today’s costume designers try to put a "modern twist" to their work in period dramas in order to appeal to modern moviegoers and television viewers. I really wish they would not. The attempt tends to come off as lazy costuming in my eyes. And this tactic usually draws a good deal of criticism from fans of period dramas. So . . . how on earth did Durran win an Oscar for her work in the first place?

I understand that "LITTLE WOMEN" was filmed in various locations around Massachusetts, including Boston and Cambridge. A part of me felt a sense of satisfaction by this news, considering the story’s setting of Concord, Massachusetts. I was surprised to learn that even the Paris sequences were filmed in Ipswich, Massachusetts. However, I must admit that I was not particularly blown away by Yorick Le Saux's cinematography. Then again, I can say that for just about every adaptation of Alcott’s novel I have ever seen.

There were scenes from "LITTLE WOMEN" that I found memorable. Those include Jo March’s initial meeting with her publisher Mr. Dashwood; Amy March’s conflict with Theodore "Laurie" Laurence over his behavior in Paris; Jo’s rejection of Laurie’s marriage proposal, and especially the montage featuring Beth March’s bout with scarlet fever and its consequences. However . . . I had some problems with Gerwig’s screenplay.

As I have stated earlier, "LITTLE WOMEN" is not the first movie I have seen that utilized the non-linear plot technique. I have seen at least two adaptations of Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, "Jane Eyre". Two more famous examples of this plot device were the 1995 film, "12 MONKEYS" and two of Christopher Nolan’s movies – 2000’s "MEMENTO" and 2017’s "DUNKIRK". How can I put this? I feel that Greta Gerwig’s use of non-linear writing had failed the film’s narrative. It simply did not work for me. Except for the brilliant montage featuring Beth’s fate, it seemed as if Gerwig’s writing had scattered all over the place without any real semblance of following Alcott’s plot. If I had not been already familiar with Alcott’s story, I would have found “LITTLE WOMEN” totally confusing.

I also feel that because of Gerwig’s use of the non-linear technique, she managed to inflict a little damage on Alcott’s plot. Despite the excellent scene featuring Laurie’s marriage proposal, I felt that Gerwig had robbed the development of his relationship with Jo. I also believe that Gerwig had diminished Jo’s relationship with Professor Bhaer. In the film, Bhaer had expressed harsh criticism of Jo’s earlier writing . . . without explaining his opinion. But he never added that Jo had the potential to write better stories than her usual melodrama crap. Why did Gerwig deleted this aspect of Professor Bhaer’s criticism? In order to make him look bad? To set up the idea of Jo ending the story as a single woman, because that was Alcott’s original intent? Did Gerwig consider the original version of this scene a detriment to feminist empowerment? I am also confused as to why Gerwig allowed the March family to push her into considering Professor Bhaer as a potential mate for Jo? This never happened in the novel. Jo had come to her decision to marry the professor on her own perogative. She did not have to be pushed into this decision. Come to think of it, exactly how did Jo’s fate end in the movie? I am confused. Did she marry Bhaer after rushing to the train station in order to stop him from leaving for California? Or did she remain single? Whatever.

And why on earth did she position Amy and Laurie’s first meeting after the former’s hand had been caned by her school teacher? Gerwig had transformed an incident that had taught Amy a lesson about self-respect and generated the Marches’ righteous anger against a schoolteacher’s abuse to one of comic relief and a cute rom.com meet for Amy and Laurie. What the hell? Someone had once complained that Gerwig may have assumed that everyone was familiar with Alcott’s story when she wrote this screenplay. And I agree with that person. Earlier I had questioned the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ decision to award the Best Costume Design statuette to Jacqueline Durran and nominate Florence Pugh for Best Supporting Actress. But I also have to question the organization’s decision to nominate Gerwig’s writing for Best Adapted Screenplay. I honestly believe she did not deserve it.

There were aspects of "LITTLE WOMEN" that I found admirable. I was certainly impressed by some of the film’s dramatic moments. And there were a handful of performances from the likes of Saoirse Ronan, Eliza Scanlen and Meryl Streep that truly impressed me. But I cannot deny that the other members of the cast gave either first-rate or solid performances. In the end, I did not like the movie.

I believe "LITTLE WOMEN" should have never been nominated for Best Picture. Greta Gerwig’s use of the nonlinear technique did not serve Louisa May Alcott’s plot very well. If I had not been familiar with the novel’s plot, I would have found this movie confusing. Aside from Ronan’s Academy Award nomination for Best Actress, I feel that the other nominations and Best Costume Design win were undeserved. And a part of me feels a sense of relief that Gerwig had never received a nomination for Best Director.

"LITTLE WOMEN" (2019) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "LITTLE WOMEN", the 2019 adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's 1868-69 novel. Adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, the Oscar nominated film starred Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh, Emily Watson, Eliza Scanlen and Timothée Chalamet:




"LITTLE WOMEN" (2019) Photo Gallery