Harry Potter y el Prisionero de Azkaban

Famosa forma con hermosos escenarios (alrededores de la escuela, montañas al fondo), música mucho más detallada y elaborada de John Williams, y perlas individuales en forma de escenas específicas. Por ejemplo, el vuelo de Harry sobre una gran gallina alcanza las cumbres emocionales de lo mejor de El señor de los anillos. Sin embargo, a medida que pasaban los minutos, la historia en sí dejó de satisfacerme. Si no fuera por la deliciosa última media hora, la película habría caído en un ligero tedio. Pero eso no es una crítica a Alfonso Cuarón, él hizo literalmente un milagro con un guión tan cuestionable. (18.06.2004)

That is how things end up when fantasy material gets into the hands of a playful director with fantasy and his own vision. A crying shame that these movies weren’t like this from the very beginning. The change of environment and costumes improved the result. In the same way that part three was a turning point on its journey away from kids’ books to “more", this picture was crucial for the movie adaptations. It is a blessing that Chris Columbus’ boring and uninventive directing is a thing of the past. The only two downsides are the rendition of the werewolf and a certain absence of any link with past episodes. If somebody really liked the first ones, they might not get over the fundamental change in style and rendition. Even though it was a change for the better from all points of view. Thank god. P.S.: Every time we watched this again (lots), we were convinced again and again that SUCH GOOD, inventive and unique family movies come into being once in a blue moon. Proof of this is that now, more than a decade after the premiere I have still not come across any competition in the field of family movies. And by the way, this is the movie with the best and most tightly knotted time travel I have ever seen. (21.11.2010)

I won't damn Columbus and make a god out of Cuaron here anymore because the first half seems like a thematically precise continuation of the poetry of the first two parts, and a few camera tricks or zooms on a freezing flower (although they are formally perfect) don't change the atmosphere much. They may be beneficial for an unbiased viewer, but for me, as a staunch fan of the book, they are just a minimal decoration. The turning point comes when Harry and Hermione reach the Whomping Willow and an incredible massacre ensues, where the fascinating acting etude of the trio Thewlis-Oldman-Rickman is the least of it. And of course, the climax is in the long-lasting finale with time-playing and all the creatures that can only scare the viewer. The only criticism is aimed at the significant screenplay gap: an explanation of who the Scabbers are would probably help. Nevertheless, I've seen the third part probably the most and perhaps I understand its position as the favorite part. However, I prefer Yates' tricks by a hair. (24.02.2007)

The third Harry Potter didn't charm me either... But it was close. From a filmmaking point of view, it is definitely the best contribution to the trilogy so far – Cuarón works very well with the characters, has less cheesy color compositions and is more attached to the suggestiveness and impressiveness of the environment. From my point of view, however, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is brought down by an overly sparse and flimsy plot that somewhat dissolves in a number of episodes and bon mots. From this point of view, I considered The Chamber of Secrets a much more impressive piece. On the other hand, it is necessary to praise the excellent and variable music of John Williams, the acting of everyone except Michael Gabon (Dumbledore) and to highlight the fact that Harry Potter has ceased to be a shaggy child apprentice and is becoming quite a solid and interesting character. The literal and pandering children's film is turning into something quite impressive and dark... Cuarón did excellent job, but for me, The Prisoner of Azkaban is just a "solid" fantasy film that I would give 70%. (14.06.2004)

I will repeat myself again, I know that as an ordinary Muggle I have no say in this, but fire Radcliffe for God's sake! Although there are slight signs of improvement, he is still very weak and unconvincing especially in details, for example his acting while crying is a tragedy in itself. Moreover, his awful acting stands out in comparison with, say, the talented Emma Watson. But now to the better bits. I'm not going to join the rest with the notorious opinion of what a loser Columbus is (I wouldn't see him as that bad, just an honest craftsman) and how Cuarón, on the other hand, is amazing; they are just two different concepts. Cuarón strikes a darker chord (also thanks to an increasingly dense source material?), the dementors bring a needed light touch of horror and some scenes can give little kids a case of the creeps (keep it up). The Whomping Willow is awesome, Michael Gambon is an excellent replacement for Richard Harris, the visual effects are fine, the werewolf is sad. That’s it. Well, there’s something else. My desire for the Nimbus 2000 has passed, now I'm lusting after a hypogryph, model Klofan. (15.01.2005)