Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Reviews

Page 1 of 2346
Super Reviewer
July 20, 2012
It's inconsistent with the rest of the franchise in terms of directorial choices, but as a stand-alone film it is possibly one of the best fantasy films ever made.
Super Reviewer
January 1, 2010
Cuarón is definitely a better director for this adaptation than Columbus, since this is a darker, more character-centered story compared to the previous two, and the result is more condensed and not so faithful, which works for the best as it leaves out some of the book's few problems.
Daniel Mumby
Super Reviewer
May 5, 2015
One of the most perplexing and irritating aspects of Hollywood is the way it continues to churn out samey, mediocre fare based purely on the financial success of previous instalments. Having endured the first two Harry Potter films, and seen them gross more than $800m each, we might have expected the series to plod on ad nauseum, with every year or so bringing us another disappointing and inconsequential adventure for the little wizard.

Fortunately for all concerned, this didn't happen. With Chris Columbus leaving the director's chair to spend more time with his family, the time was ripe for a fresh pair of eyes to come in and give the franchise the kick up the arse that it needed. With The Lord of the Rings trilogy now completed, garnering rave reviews and 11 Oscars, this would be the film that would need to justify going on. While Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban never quite comes close to Peter Jackson's brilliance, it is far superior to anything that came before in the series and set the bar very high for all that came after.

Alfonso Cuarón may now be a name toasted among film fans, following his gripping work on Children of Men and the groundbreaking visuals in Gravity. But he was by no means a shoe-in to direct. Guillermo del Toro said that he wasn't interested because it was too "bright and happy and full of light", while Marc Forster turned it down because of his work with child actors on Finding Neverland. In the end it came down to a three-way choice between Cuarón, Thelma and Louise screenwriter Callie Khouri, and Kenneth Branagh, who had appeared as Gilderoy Lockhart in the previous instalment, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

The box office failure of Love's Labour's Lost probably deprived us of the heady excitement that would have been a Branagh-helmed Potter film. But there can be no doubt that Cuarón was a great choice, for one simple reason: he understands how fantasy storytelling works, particularly how any fantasy film must be underpinned by a sense of wonderment. Columbus' pathological desire to faithfully replicate the books on screen had robbed J. K. Rowling's souce material of all its sense of wonder and amazement. Cuarón restores the balance, giving us a darker plot with more developed characters and never losing sight of the magic in amongst the spells.

Put simply, all the details of the world of Harry Potter, and the story in which he finds himself, are more fully and strikingly realised in Prisoner of Azkaban. Cuarón gets a lot of the big stuff right early on, whether it's the light-hearted comedy of the Knight Bus or the chilling design of the Dementors. But he also puts in a lot of effort to make all the little details fit, particularly during the scenes at The Leaky Cauldron. Whether it's the self-stirring coffee, the angular corridors, the carnivorous books or the silently screaming wanted posters, you always feel that what you seeing is magic, rather than constantly being told that something is magic.

This magical feeling is reinforced by the film's colour palette. In my review of The Philosopher's Stone, I likened its visual style to sanitised adaptations of Charles Dickens which are common in America; as a general rule, I argued, British adaptations of Great Expectations, Oliver Twist and the like are more content to leave all the edges on. This film is shot by Michael Seresin, Alan Parker's cinematographer-of-choice who would later team up with Cuarón again on Gravity. Cuarón clearly understands the darker, more distinctly British routes of the series and the genres upon which it draws, and allows Seresin to work his murky magic with piercing blues and encircling blacks, making it look like a horor film for children.

From a narrative point of view, Prisoner of Azkaban benefits greatly from the direct absence of Voldemort. On the one hand, the fact that he doesn't appear physically or personally in the story spares the film from becoming too repetitive or formulaic: it isn't simply retreading old ground and prolonging the inevitable. This is the trap into which the later Potter films often fell: we always knew that things would end with a showdown between Harry and Voldemort, and the more the films went on without it happening, the more irritating the tease became.

On the other hand, the Dark Lord's influence remains a background threat, allowing Cuarón to build a more intimidating atmosphere. In the first two films, Harry was constantly on the lookout for the man himself: we always knew who the bad guy was, even if we didn't know what form he would take. With Voldemort having to prey on Harry indirectly, he is forced to choose his friends more carefully, and learns over the course of the film just how deceptive appearances can be.

By putting Harry on more insecure footing, the film manages to epitomise his adolescent confusion about the world, and the conflict he faces in fulfilling a role which he didn't choose. The first two films often painted Harry as a goody-two-shoes who had perfect parents, but here we get the first hints of things being a little more nuanced than that. When Harry watches the Dementors kill him and Sirius, expecting his dad to come in and cast the patronus charm, he begins to realise that he cannot rest on their reputation if he is to grow as a wizard. While the next film in the series goes into this in more detail, threatening to tear apart the three central friendships, Prisoner of Azkaban does a good job of setting this up.

This brings us on naturally to the time travel element of the story. Anyone familiar with Back to the Future Part II, Twelve Monkeys or Timecrimes will instantly recognise the territory we are in, with the characters constantly trying to avoid running into themselves, and events being repeated from different perspectives. Coming as it does towards the end of the film, our natural instinct is to conclude that it's surplus to requirement, one twist too many. But if we allow it to play out and watch as all the pieces fit together, we discover that it ties into the central themes of trust, and reputation quite nicely. Besides, if we can accept the existence of horcruxes, sorting hats and hippogriffs, time travel isn't much of a stretch.

Despite all its darkness and intimidation, Prisoner of Azkaban also manages to be pretty funny. The scene where Potter beats up Malfoy and his thugs near the Shrieking Shack is a classic piece of British slapstick, with Tom Felton showing excellent timing through his many pratfalls. The interplay between Snape and Sirius is like a double-act in itself, with Sirius' manic energy coming up against Snape's stonewalling seriousness. Throw in the first scene with the boggart and most of the opening section, and you have a film which achieves a fine balance of light and shade.

With the young cast continuing to improve and grow into their roles, Prisoner of Azkaban also has a couple of aces up its sleeve in the adult cast. David Thewlis was an ideal choice for Lupin: he revels in his lanky physicality and whistful delivery, in stark contrast to his more tight-laced performance in Gangster No. 1. Gary Oldman's performance is equally remarkable, being much more operatic in scale but still retaining a gentle humanity. Oldman resists the urge to simply ham it up and play mad, imbuing Sirius with a tormented quality which makes him compelling.

In spite of all its successes, there are still a couple of problems with Prisoner of Azkaban. Despite the best efforts of Cuarón and screenwriter Steve Kloves, elements of the plot are still repetitive or predictable. After three films, it's fair to presume that whoever holds the post of Defence Against the Dark Arts is going to be a villain in some form, and it is equally certain that Dumbledore will pop up at key moments to misdirect, drop hints or mischievously intervene. These tropes aren't enough to derail the action at any given point, but they are pinches of salt to be taken whenever anyone describes this film as ground-breaking.

Additionally, the film still feels longer than it should. This was the shortest of the three films at the time, at 142 minutes, and it remained the shortest until Order of the Phoenix three years later. But while the pacing is better than Columbus' offerings, it still feels like there is an awful lot of plot being squeezed in when the sensible thing would be to cut more stuff out. Cuarón keeps the fans at arms' length, deciding what he wants to shoot and leave in, but another couple of swift edits to get it down to two hours wouldn't have hurt.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a massive improvement on the first two films, justifying the continuation of the series and helping to explain its appeal to those out of the loop. While it's still too long and well-worn in places, it largely makes up for this with strong performances, interesting themes, much better pacing and a visual style that combines horror and fantasy to leave us really impressed. Whether it's the best Harry Potter film remains a matter of debate, but there is no debate that the later films owe their existence to its success.
Super Reviewer
May 14, 2007
The best one in my opinion.
Nikhil N.
Super Reviewer
May 23, 2011
Adds depth to the story-line but can't help but feel as if it diverges from the story a bit. Although the least impacting of the Potter films, its the best acting the three have done to date. Fun filled, faster paced then the other two, a brilliant movie over all
Super Reviewer
½ February 10, 2012
Brilliant sense of style, depth and breadth, and the successive transition of Harry Potter to the wrings of teenage angst makes this movie one of the best, if not the best of the series through wizardlike pacing that was lacking from its predecessors.
Super Reviewer
½ July 31, 2009
A great change in direction for the look of the series and culminating in a fantastic ending. Full review later.
Super Reviewer
½ October 26, 2008
Harry Potter's third adventure is easily my favorite.

Alfonso Cuaron took over as director, and he was an interesting choice. That he started taking things in a new and more serious direction was also a good thing.

Potter's third year at school is overshadowed by news that a wanted criminal associated with the death of his parents has escaped from an infamous magic prison, and that Harry may be his next target as a result. This also involves the (literal) soul sucking guards of said prison being employed to stand watch over the school. But Harry doesn't have to go it alone. As usual, his loyal friends Hermoine and Ron are there to help him out as he tries to deal with this looming news as well as further uncover the mysteries of his past.

I loved how drastic of a turn this one made from the last. Sure, it's not completely serious, but having it start to get that way is quite refreshing. This series has always had some good art direction and set design, but Cuaron really delivers the goods with some quite moody, eerie, and atmospheric stuff.

The effects are good as per usual, the music great, and once again, the core cast provide great performances.

Definitely check this one out. It's quite a ride.
Super Reviewer
½ July 3, 2007
By far the most artfully realized and beautiful vision of the Potter universe of the entire series (with Half-Blood Prince a close second place). Even if I don't consider it the best movie of the series, it is easily the most appreciated film just because of the directions it took the series and how it allowed the future directions to build off of. Ironically its the lowest grossing film of the series because it's the least mainstream. Here Cuaron put a stamp on the series that was unmistakably his and took the series from the whimsical magic of the previous two into the darker and much more mature story that it becomes. The special effects take a significant leap forward, as does the acting. The only reason this isn't my favorite in the series is because it is probably my least favorite story-wise. It has an anti-climatic feel to it, despite some hefty realizations towards the end that are fantastic. That happens at times in middle chapters of a long running series, but Prisoner of Azkaban is still wonderful and one of the best films overall in the whole series. It has a huge following from the critical side of the spectrum.
Super Reviewer
½ August 11, 2012
With new director Alfonso Cuarón, the film takes on a more adventurous toll and emotional depth, and it's nothing short of spectacular. As the main stars grow more realistically as well as into their character, so does their performances and chemistry. 'Azkaban' executes as a thrilling installment and the best from its predecessors. 4.5/5
Super Reviewer
October 29, 2011
A mater film with a strong potent smell of good action, a strong performance from the magic trio and a brilliant adventure.
Super Reviewer
August 12, 2011
At the end of it all, this is the best one. Cuaron's got style. It's probably the best stand alone story of the series, which helps, but it is filmed with some individual style, wit and slickness- staying faithful but not sycophantic like the first two. Yeah, it is darker, but darker with conviction and purpose, not for the sake of it, or to try and be taken seriously. Fantastic performances from Gary Oldman and David Thewlis top it all off, and Michael Gambon has a remarkably assured and faithful go at Dumbledore- and is a lot better than in the next couple of films. The production design, visual effects and editing work brilliantly together, creating a new, chilly, steampunky world that makes the story both more relevant and cinematic. Well done, everyone.
Super Reviewer
½ August 27, 2011
And here it is. The review I've always been afraid to write. I have several friends who absolutely love the books that hate, HATE, this film. Yet, even though I've read the book and know this film deviates quite a bit from the book, I still enjoy this film more than almost any film in the entire series. Why? Because in my opinion, this was the first film in the series to actually try and make a warped world of fantasy. As accurate as Christopher Colombus' versions of the first 2 films were, he never actually managed to make it anything beyond generic fantasy. It's one thing to transcribe every word of dialogue into a screenplay, it's another to capture the spirit of the book while extracting the parts that make it good (ala "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" or the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy). Whenever I read the Potter books, I always imagined a world that was extremely warped, but slightly recognizable. "Prisoner of Azkaban" captures that spirit, but at the price of deviating from the source material, causing it to be one of the most hated films in the franchise. In terms of cinematography, style, and direction, this is arguably the best film in the series. It introduces the characters of Sirius Black and Remus Lupin very well. One thing that this film does mess up is introducing the new actor for Dumbledore. He does a great job, but the director could have done a better job of introducing him subtly instead of scarring fans. The final (and biggest screw up, in my opinion) is Lupin's wolf form. The transformation is more hilarious than scary, and the final form isn't that much better. I always felt that this film was a good segue into the darkness that would emerge very quickly in The Goblet of Fire, so I have always loved it. But now that the saga is complete, I can say with a lot of confidence that the best in the series is easily The Deathly Hallows (both parts combined). Now, let's see how long it takes for Potter fans to murder me.
Super Reviewer
½ July 31, 2011
Best HP movie up to this point, and easily one of the best out of all 8.
Super Reviewer
January 12, 2007
...and now we come to what I feel to be the best entry of the series, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. This time around, backstory is thrown out the window, mystery lag is left mostly in the dirt, character-driven plot & action reign supreme and the pacing has finally been nailed down - losing the extraneous details. As I've stated to many people, I'm not a die hard fan of this series, but if I was to recommend one film from the entire run, it would be this one. This not only has some of the series' best acting and filmmaking on display, but it's also a bit more accessible to a wider range of people due to it's moodier atmosphere. This makes it much more adult than the previous entries without overdoing it, which is one of the reasons why I love it. Complaints have been made that it isn't quite as faithful to the book as Chris Columbus' previous efforts, but I believe that's an improvement. It takes more serious chances and comes off a much better film with a stronger narrative as a result.
Super Reviewer
October 29, 2006
I may be a little biased, since I'm an Alfonso Cuarón fanboy, but this is probably the best "Harry Potter" film. The editing's improved, as well. Part Three is where the franchise really started to go darker and more mature. The themes and the cinematography reflect that. Emma Thompson joins the cast as Sybil Trelawney and Gary Oldman does as Sirius Black. Both amazing.
Super Reviewer
½ February 9, 2011
Professor Snape: Well, well, Lupin. Out for a little walk... in the moonlight, are we?

"Have You Seen This Wizard?"

With Prisoner of Azkaban, Alfonso Caurón contributes is only film to the Harry Potter franchise. He got one shot at it, and he didn't miss. Many considered this the best film in the franchise(I believe that has changed for most). I still do like two or three movies in the series more than this one.

There's a lot to like here. Harry, Ron and Hermoine finally lose that innocent feel they had in the first two. They are growing up and as they up the tones of the movies begin to feel darker and darker. My favorite thing about this one is the fact that Gary Oldman is involved. He plays Sirious Black and although he doesn't have any screen time until the last part; he is still very good and has a powerful presence. Sirius Blacks presence overshadows the entire movie though; even though he is not onscreen. Sirius has broken out of Azkaban Prison and is now on the hunt. We learn how Sirius is connected to Harry and his parents. Also, we learn a lot about Ron's pet rat, "Scabbers."
The way the scenes where Harry and Hermoine go back in time were handled great. It's kind of funny seeing all those things that I thought were just coincidence.

This movie starts the progression into darkness that will occur in the rest of the movies. That innocence from Sorcerer's Stone is now completely gone. Caurón really deserves great for his excellent contribution to the franchise.
Super Reviewer
January 22, 2011
Prisoner of Azkaban is one of the best written, and best made of the Potter series. What it also is, is quite boring and tends to prolong it's scenes when it should be faster paced. I can understand that it was based off of the book, and that's fine, but I was still bored. What makes the film great is the fantastic performance from Gary Oldman, who is brilliant as Sirius Black. Recommended.
Super Reviewer
½ July 16, 2011
HP has always been an emotional series but the first few acts (and closing scenes) are directed with such reverence you finally get a real feel of character's inner conflicts.

Unfortunately... once you hit the half mark this movie turns into a mosaic of incoherent events that unfold clumsily like a series of scenes from a High School Play. (like Black & Lupin confronting Pettigrew? So stupidly staged. Or them conveniently stumbling into 30 dementors?)

And the whole time traveling thing... Uh, overpowered magic much? Why wasn't/isn't it abused in future and past movies when they needed to get out of tough situations? Why the hell did a teacher give such a device to a student?! It's all so very, very stupid. Y'know what's also stupid? A Werewolf PROFESSOR who fails to check the calendar to make sure there's no full moon out that particular night.

All these plotholes really kill the "complex story" experience as the events all finally come together and "make sense" in the final acts of the film.
Super Reviewer
May 26, 2007
I don't get why everybody says this one is so great. Just because Alfonso Cuaron was responsible for this one doesn't mean it's not as frightfully boring as the other two. There's a frigid - almost documentary style - air to Prisoner of Azkaban, which sometimes works for it but most of time doesn't. Yeah, it's loads better than anything Chris Columbus could dream up, but that's not really saying much considering the comparison.
Page 1 of 2346