Why Does Everyone Think Alfonso Cuarón's Awful Harry Potter Adaptation is Great?

With part one of The Deathly Hallows arriving in just two weeks, it seems that Harry Potter Fever has spread through the Internet with the velocity of Bieber Fever. It's gotten so all-encompassing that even bloggers of a certain age like the Jeffrey Wells have trekked into the fray. "No one of any taste cares very much about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1," Wells writes, goosing millions of Hogwarts fans in the process. "The franchise peaked six years ago with Alfonso Cuaron's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban." Except for the fact that it didn't.

Wells isn't alone in his thoughts, of course. Even before I had ever laid eyes upon any of the Harry Potter film adaptations, I assumed Cuarón's The Prisoner of Azkaban would be the best of the franchise lot. After all, not only did the talented filmmaker direct the wonderful Y tu mamá también, but he went on to helm Children of Men, which has to stand as one of the best films from the last decade. "An auteur like Cuarón obviously had to do great things with Harry, Ron and Hermione!" I excitedly thought to myself as I put The Prisoner of Azkaban in my DVD player. "Especially coming on the heels of the hack-work turned in by Chris Columbus in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets."

Then I saw the film.

Here's the thing: I'm a late arriver to Harry Potter, having just finished the books recently, and then, subsequently, tearing through the movies. And while I don't even pretend to be an expert on the world created by J.K. Rowling, I'd like to think I'm aware of two things: Good movies and good adaptations. Cuarón's The Prisoner of Azkaban fails at both.

As an adaptation, it's mostly trash. Though since adapting Rowling's dense narratives has proved almost impossible (the lone exception being The Order of the Phoenix), that can be forgiven; the Harry Potter books aren't the first to be poorly translated into films, and they won't be the last. Specifically, though, Cuarón's film suffers because it simply doesn't make sense -- massive chunks are left out of the story to the determent of logic and enjoyment. (For instance, Harry is never told that Lupin was best friends with his father, something that probably should have been deemed important information; likewise, Harry is never told that Lupin made the Marauder's Map.)

What makes The Prisoner of Azkaban much worse, however, is that the film never captures the spirit of Harry Potter. That's the transitional film in the series -- when Harry goes from plucky boy wizard to tortured tween wizard -- and yet Cuarón and screenwriter Steve Kloves fail to present it as such. Azkaban is visually pleasing -- even if it feels like warmed-over Guillermo del Toro -- but the central story about Harry's push-pull relationship with his Godfather-turned-possible-murderer, Sirius Black, never reaches a compelling fruition. Unfortunately, that failure is something which has negative effects in future installments; as solid as David Yates' Order of the Phoenix is, you can't help but feel that Sirius' death would have had more meaning if a greater foothold was achieved in Azkaban.

All you really need to know about Cuarón's The Prisoner of Azkaban happens in the final moments: Harry gets his Firebolt broomstick from Sirius (never mind that this occurs much earlier in the book), laughs with his friends and flies away into the sky...and into an embarrassing freeze frame. Cuarón is better than that, Harry Potter is better than that, and the chattering class on the Internet should know better than that. Isn't it high time we all stopped pretending Alfonso Cuarón's is the only director to nail Harry Potter?



Comments

  • NP says:

    "Harry is never told that Lupin was best friends with his father, something that probably should have been deemed important information; likewise, Harry is never told that Lupin made the Marauder’s Map."
    Really?? I thought both these things _were_ revealed.

  • richie-rich says:

    love this movie. it's my favorite.

  • Christopher Rosen says:

    I just watched it over the weekend, so it's fresh in my memory: Lupin says he knew Lily, but the connection between James, Sirius, Peter and Lupin is never really made -- and then when the confrontation happens at the end, it's just sorta like, "Hey, we all knew everyone!"
    Nothing is said about the map, though.

  • Christopher Rosen says:

    Really? Ahead of the vastly superior Order of the Phoenix, which actually greatly improves upon what was an overdone book? This stuns me like one of Hermione's stunning spells.

  • Jamie says:

    The big difference is you actually read the book whereas Wells et al almost certainly didn't.

  • Edward says:

    I've never read the books, but as a movie fan I've dutifully seen every film, only to be left confused and bored every time. I'm sure the films make more sense to those who've read the books, but without the joy of seeing favorite scenes translated from page to screen, all I'm left with is two hours of pretty special effects. I've nodded off several times in the series.

  • I think without knowledge of the books, you'd be hard-pressed to follow anything that happens. The Goblet of Fire is actually the worst of them all -- it simply doesn't even bother trying to make sense.

  • Gideon says:

    Christopher, are you effing kidding me? Order of the Phoenix is by far the worst entry in the series other than the Columbus films. My personal favorite is the last one.

  • Christopher Rosen says:

    Maybe because I really disliked the Order of the Phoenix book, but I found that one to be very good. It cut out what needed to be cut out from the source, while staying true to the themes, and the final battle between Voldemort and Dumbledore was awesome.
    I think Half-Blood Prince was pretty solid, too, though the motivations of Dumbledore don't really work as well as they do in the book. I happen to think that is the most amusing of the films though; Radcliffe is really strong there.

  • John says:

    Hit the nail on the head with this:
    "All you really need to know about Cuarón’s The Prisoner of Azkaban happens in the final moments"
    That's precisely the problem I had with the book and, to a lesser degree, the film. What really changes?
    I think what people like about this one is that it's a step away from Columbus. While you're right that Cuaron doesn't capture the angst of the characters' teenage years, it has thankfully moved beyond the almost infancy portrayed by Columbus.
    And I'm definitely with you on Order. Far and away the best of the series.

  • Kaylie says:

    You're right. As an adaptation, this film was the worst. Huge chunks missing. While some critics praised it's style, fans were disappointed. It is the lowest grossing movie of the Harry Potter franchise, despite it being many people's favorite book of the series.

  • tms says:

    The reason the Cuaron version stands out is that it was the first time anyone watched a Harry Potter film and said, "Oh, this isn't just for 10 year olds. These movies can actually be entertaining and well acted." Maybe it doesn't hold up as well for you, but I still consider it the best of the series, followed by the next one in the series. I'm sure it has something to do with you actually reading the books before viewing the movie (thus leading to a lot of "the books were better" and "the left out BLANK" talk) and the desire of so many to want to be contrarians in life (I take the road less traveled, I tells ya, THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED!!!!!). The last two have been... zzzzzzzz. Er what? Where am I? Oh yeah. Sorry, thinking about the last two Harry Potter films make me... zzzzzzzzzz. Huh? What's going on? Where am I? Dumble who?

  • Christopher Rosen says:

    As you probably noticed, my goal wasn't to be contrarian. I wanted and assumed Azkaban would be the best of the franchise. It isn't entertaining, nor well-acted -- though, yes, it is one million times better than the first two films. It's just, well, there.
    BTW, I think the fourth film is actually the worst of the franchise. Guess we just have different views on HP.

  • Colander says:

    Wow. I cannot believe this argument is being made with such certainty. Ok, I can see disliking Cuaron's movie, esp if you liked the book, and I may have a soft spot for it, because the 3rd film got me into the movies, which got me into the books, which I loved. But to say OotP is the best movie is completely ridiculous, it is a merely passable adaptation of the novel, which I guess you can blame on Steve Kloves not being involved, but seriously, mmmaybe if you said the 4th one, or even the 6th one, but this feels kinda like Armond White inceptioned this into your mind or something.

  • Emotionally Retarded says:

    I have read all the books, and went to see Prisoner of Azkaban with friends who were not quite as familiar as I (they had seen the movies). I remember after it was over feeling so bad because I thought there was no way anyone who had not read the book would have been able to figure out anything at all that happened in that movie. But isn't that really Steve Kloves' fault?
    I liked Order of the Phoenix best, too, because Imelda Staunton really rocked. Half-Blood Prince had some disappointing aspects (I thought some scenes needed a little more emotional heft), but in some ways all of the Potter movies -- even the Chris Columbus ones -- are entertaining and decently made, with good actors around the edges.
    I am not sure what to make of the last two coming up, though. Much of that book was downright boring.

  • Christopher Rosen says:

    I'm interested to see how the last films come out, too. Specifically the second part of Deathly Hallows. Yes, the Battle of Hogwarts should be cool, but there is a LOT of exposition in the final chapters of that book. If it isn't handled properly, it'll be like the Oracle explaining everything at the end of the third Matrix.

  • kwithanh says:

    I agree that Prisoner of Azkaban was awful- it was my favorite book, and when I left the theater I was sorely disappointed. Not only was the story not very well explained, but Hogwarts itself had been changed from the layout in the first two (which seemed unnecessary and irking when I watched it last). But I don't think it's the worst in the series- that would have to go to Goblet of Fire. The movie translation leaves out HUGE chunks of plot, and is confusing to watch even for someone who has read the books.
    I am really looking forward to the last two movies, I'll be waiting in line at my local theater hours before midnight!

  • richie-rich says:

    It's my favorite Harry Potter movie thus far.

  • Ben says:

    I'd never heard of Cuaron nor seen any of his films when I saw Azkaban in the theatre. I have also not read the books.
    I was blown away by it. It is the only installment that ever comes close to feeling like a real movie. The rest are what they are: plodding, by the numbers adaptations, clearly lifted from richer, better books. I completely understood that Lupin and the Potters were best friends, and I sensed that they probably made the map as well. Cuaron is a director who reveals information without the need for exposition.
    It is the only Harry Potter movie I have liked so far. It is visceral, visual and emotional, as a film should be. I cared about every one of the characters and their bonds to each other. In fact I loved it. I cannot say the same for the rest of the series.

  • Christopher Rosen says:

    Goblet of Fire is the worst. I simply don't know how that was allowed to be released. It literally does not make any sense, as you said, whether you read the books or not.

  • zooeyglass1999 says:

    "Why Does Everyone Think Alfonso Cuarón’s Awful Harry Potter Adaptation is Great?"
    Because of the simple fact that it is great and it is the best of the series.

  • OhReally says:

    I stopped taking Rosen seriously when he said "Salt" would murder "Inception" in the theaters.
    http://www.movieline.com/2010/07/5-reasons-why-salt-will-be-bigger-than-inception.php

  • Christopher Rosen says:

    But it isn't great. That's the problem. When was the last time you watched it?

  • Jake says:

    Lol, I'm going to have to agree with OHREALLy after that post.

  • Nerd says:

    What exactly is the point of this article? To point out how different your view of the HP franchise is from every other fan in the world? I don't understand why someone would want to spend time writing a negative article like this when they could easily write about one of the many positive things from the franchise. Perhaps you should change your name to Debbie Downer.
    You made some very valid points regarding the holes in the story etc., but compared to the other films those problems are pretty insignificant. Im pretty sure that next to nobody thinks The Order Of The Phoenix is the best film, everyone I've ever heard talk about it thinks it is one of the worst, if not the worst, because it is so boring and uneventful.