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?
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
I will never forgive the filmmakers for HP6. Seriously, they used 25% of the book and threw 75% out, most of which is Extremely Important Information for the next movie. Important information like..where the horcruxes are hidden. Harry's got to go on this journey in the next movie with zero information. HP6 was adaptation of fanfiction.
Agree with everything you said, Ben. I've not read any of the HP books, but Azkaban was just a great movie to watch -- even if it was just a standalone film. It looks fantastic and dark, John Williams score is one of his best, the characters are very nicely written and acted by the cast, the time-travel elements appeal to the sci-fi fan in me. The only thing I would agree on that's weak is that cheesy freeze-frame at the very end. This movie is considered great because it is.
Cuaron's adaptations are great - i read them when they first came out - having to wait a year for each one and also wait a year for each movie. the anticipation made it worthwhile no matter the director. Prisoner was my favorite book and movie adaptation. Looking forward to pt. 1!
I watch it every time it comes on TV, and it still holds up for me. It was the movie that got me interested in reading the books (I walked out of the first Harry Potter). I do find it interesting that you take note that the movie does not explain that the map was created by Lupin which is pretty insignificant since knowing this does not help move the plot along. Yet, you consider the Order of Phoenix to be superior and this movie left out significant story plots which made the movie seem a little disjointed. I still liked the movie, but no where near as fun as the Prisoner of Azkaban.
Okay, so most of us can agree that book adaptations often fall short of their originals... but isn't that truely the nature of the beast? Yes... accept it or stick to your books and hot tea. And as far as Harry Potter adaptations, were there some issues that could have been resolved better, sure, but look at what was done well. I am no optimist, I am a realist, and the reality is that most movies today are crap piled on top of crap, and the Harry Potter series is far from that. Now, if you're still torqued about all this, I recommend a cocktail, and a night with someone of the opposite sex, it might really help your perspective on the subject.
Nerd, good to see you in a non-Boardwalk Empire post. The point, as stated, was to disprove the notion that the Harry Potter franchise is Cuaron's Azkaban or bust. The film is vastly overrated -- a gorgeous, but soulless, stiff and entertainment-deficient exercise in how to not do an adaptation.
Also, while clearly your opinion is that Azkaban is the best, I know many Potter fans here in the comments, on Twitter and in my own personal experience, don't agree with that statement.
I think the positives of the Potter franchise are the improving performances of the leads, the wonderful casting, the look of the films and the score. The stories have invariably failed when compared to Rowling's original text. For reference, I'd rank them as follows: Order, Half-Blood Prince, Azkaban, Stone, Secrets, Fire. However, the drop between Yates' films and Cuaron's is steep. Here's hoping the final two installments end with a bang.
Since Cuaron no one has ever bothered to create the magic in Hogwarts.They just assumed it will be takesn for granted.
Look behind the characters, in most frames you can see some sort of magic happening. See the chairs rearranging in the Leaky caldron or the wizard reading "Brief history of time' while absently twirling his coffee (a brilliant reference since that exact situation is mentioned in Stephen Hawking's book's last chapter as he describes entropy).
And pardon me for disagreeing with you David Yates versions (both) are pathetic. Half Blood prince which had such amazing potential for drama was reduced to teenage love.
There was such a superb chance to show Ralph Fiennes transformation as he changed from a handsome man into the snake like creature and the director didn't even cast him.
The director couldn't even pause to show Dumbledore's demise properly.
So basically, most people are right, the third movie is flawed but is still the best that will ever come out.
Totally agree with you this was the second worst harry potter movie. The absolutely awful HP movie hands down was the 6th which is a real shame cause it was a really good book.
I actually read most of the books... somewhere around 5 or 6 I just stopped right in the middle of a book and figured I'd just watch the movies. Rowling just isn't the great writer everyone seems to think she is. Some parts of the books are just too episodic, like little cartoons that have nothing to do with the rest of the plot. Also, seven books is just far too many to keep NOT triumphing over Valdemort. And I never liked Harry as a character. Too tentative early on and too stupid throughout. Hermione and Ron were always far more interesting to me, and when they were gone for long chunks at a time, I'd grow bored.
Anyhow, I think the reason everyone says the Cuaron movie is the best, is because he finally got a decent plot (the first book is just tons of origin story, and the second book is just dreadful), and he brought some style to the proceedings. But it certainly isn't as awful as Goblet of Fire, with that endless "Who will defeat the CGI?" contest" or as boring as "Half-Blood Prince" with all the potions and memories which didn't move the story forward at all, and featured so many of the episodic skits that Rowling does not excel at. "Order of the Phoenix" is easily the best, and is really the only movie that I would say is worth spending time on, which is fairly sad since it's right in the middle of the series.
I may be jumping to conclusions, but the author of this article sounds like one of those people who would rather watch Twilight than Lord of the Rings. You sound like one of those people who says that "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a bad film because you're too lazy to figure out what it means or someone who prefers Thomas Kincaid over Renoir. And by the way, Order of the Phoenix is not a "solid entry", its the crappiest film of the entire 8 film series. Please stop claiming to be able to "identify a good film and a good adaptation", because you can't. I'm sorry, but your shallow review demonstrates a simple mind and a lack of taste. ... P.S. Yes, I feel bad about being so rude, but I've spoken my mind, so deal with it.
Someone disagreed with my opinion!! WAAAAH! Honestly, would it have been possible to be a little more grown-up about a movie you didn't write, direct or star in?
Petty much? Well, as long as you brought something to the conversa... oh, nevermind.
It's funny how you say "Internet should know better than that" and think Children of Men is a great movie. It's just a series of long takes, and there's nothing to think about. It's like an album filled with 10 minute guitar solos, who cares..
You Sir, obvisiously are under-read and under-schooled in film-making. The justs of setting for the viewer of the final chapters of this wonderous escapade yield remarkable forethought and familiarity of the subject matter. Who else has been so sucessfull in maintaining a certain cast and mood throughout such a lengthy series of films....Bond....not so much. From my 54 year perspective. Cheers!
Oh, William, I am dealing with it. It's difficult, but yes. We'll get through it somehow.
I had to stop reading this article at the point where you called that RIDICULOUS PIECE OF CELLULOID SHIT "Y Tu Mama Tambien" "wonderful" ... that was THE WORST movie I've ever seen, and I've seen "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" MULTIPLE times.
Interesting. I watched it a few months ago, and I could have sworn there was some sort of unspoken wink/nod about the map in the very end, but I must be mistaken.
Also, I come at this from an entirely different perspective since I haven't read the books--I've only seen the movies.
I think the idea that people loved Cuaron's entry so much (at least partially) because it immediately followed Columbus's films makes a lot of sense.
My problem with this article isn't that I disagree with it, rather my issue is that there's no actual analysis or film criticism here. You say the movie doesn't make sense or that it fails to capture the spirit of Harry Potter but you never go further and actually explain why you feel that way. I can't fault someone for disagreeing with my take on the series, but I do fault them if they throw a bunch of opinions out there without actually supporting those arguments.
For what it's worth, I, personally, rank them:
6. Sorcerer's Stone
5. Chamber of Secrets
4. Goblet of Fire
3. Order of the Phoenix
2. Half-Blood Prince
1. Prisoner of Azkaban
I'm slowly trudging through a top 101 of the decade and here's my write-up for Azkaban (#46):
The Harry Potter series might be one of the most impressive accomplishments of the decade in film. Not just because the entire series is actually going to get made (this never happens, just ask the Narnia producers), but because the series has actually grown in quality since its inception. The series began with two doggedly faithful adaptations to J.K. Rowling's original work from director Christopher Columbus. Neither film is particularly compelling, but their genius is in the casting that shines through in the later films. Every single actor in the series is perfectly cast, without exception. The third film deals specifically with the escape of a deadly wizard named Sirius Black (Gary Oldman). The story is far more menacing than the first two as Black represents a tangible and frightening threat to our heroes.
It isn't until this story that the core trio of Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron) and Emma Watson (Hermione) really get a chance to shine. Gone is the mugging for the camera seen in the first film, replaced with legitimate performances. Radcliffe in particular begins to show himself as a soulful and effective actor. Alan Rickman is incredibly amusing as the hated Professor Snape. Michael Gambon, replacing the deceased Richard Harris, manages to improve on the performance of a cinema legend. Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane and Jason Isaacs are also effective. David Thewlis joins the cast as a professor who had known Harry's now-deceased parents. He brings a tender nurturing quality to the role that's incredibly effective. Gary Oldman is one of the most versatile actors around and he's at his best here. There's a sense throughout the whole film that all the actors really believe in this material and embrace it.
Now what distinguishes Prisoner of Azkaban from the other Potter movies? The spectacular direction of Alfonso Cuaron. Cuaron's glimpse into the world of Harry Potter is so effective because the magic takes a backseat, it becomes a natural part of the world the characters inhabit. The film is beautiful to look at, everything from the set designs to the special effects (the Dementors are a frightening visual creation) to color palette of each scene all work to enhance the mood. Cuaron, as well, captures the loneliness and longing that underlies the Potter character in a way that has eluded the other directors. There is a sadness in Harry - he grew up friendless with an aunt and uncle who never wanted him after his parents were murdered - and Cuaron embraces that aspect of the character to great effect. While the first two films, Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets, are full of wonder at the world of wizards, Azkaban, to its benefit, acts as a more focused character study. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is one of the finest fantasy films of the decade.
I should mention that the series has gone on strong since Cuaron's film. The fourth movie, Mike Newell's Goblet of Fire, is, while a step down from Cuaron's work, an improvement on the first two. For the fifth film director David Yates took over to great effect. He returned for the sixth film and is currently putting the finishing touches on the seventh and eighth films (the final book is being produced as two films). His dark and spectacularly well made take on the series in Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince was a very near miss for my Top 101.
It is precisely because Cuaron doesn't hit you over the head with overexposition that I love this movie. That and Gary Oldman's incredible acting. He went from madmen, to lunatic, to loving Godfather in like 30 seconds! If you knew the book, you were blown away by the casting and the dead-one performance. Even the new Dumbledore was the Dumbledore from the book - not the imposter that came later.
Cuaron filmed the movie for the book lovers. If book lovers didn't like the movie, then they really didn't understand the book at all.
Just a vote for Prisoner of Azkaban - I read the books first, too. I liked it because it FELT magical, that cute whomping willow season change, the nasty dementors. I'm sure the plot was missing lots from the book, but...who cares?
Actually no they don't. I'm a HUGE fan of the book, but I can only stomach the first two movies, the rest are AWFUL. We don't see Bill or Charlie, we've never seen Kreacher, Doby just disappeared from the movies. I know you can't put everything in the book, but why they choose to put some of the things in the movie they did is so beyond me. Why did we need to hear Hogwarts students singing "Something Wicked this way comes?" Why did we need to see the Whopping Willow hit a bird? Alfonso Cuarón is a horrible director and should NEVER direct another film again. I saw Children of Men, and I don't care what anyone says that movie SUCKED! When I saw the "Pull my finger" part I should have stopped watching, but alas I didn't. Christopher C was the best and everyone else has sucked royally ever since.
I had read each of the books before seeing the movies, and Azkaban is still my favorite and, in my opinion, the only one worth a damn. Why? Because I understand that movies and books are separate art forms. A good movie that changes everything from the source material is still a good movie and a bad movie that is faithful to its source material is still a bad movie. Just because you assert that it never catches the spirit of Harry Potter doesn't mean it doesn't. I thought it was the only one that caught the perfect balance of the darkness and whimsical elements of J.K. Rowling's writing. The story moves forward with boundless energy, unlike David Yates' humdrum last two films. There's also many scenes, like when Harry rides the Hippogriff where a genuine sense of wonder is felt that goes beyond the CGI effects.
Um... Order of the Phoenix a good movie? the film was essentially a two hour teaser trailer, every scene felt choppy and detached, there was absolutely no flow. While it may have been true to the books, as a movie it was a failure.
The reason people feel Cauron "nailed" Harry Potter was that his interpretation gave the films a unique voice and feel, different from Columbus' Disneyfied cheese-feast, his visual style heavily influenced later directors (who failed to come up with anything better) and he even managed to get a semi-decent performance out of his child actors.
But lets face it, none of the Harry Potter films are actually brilliant, they're simply live action versions wholly attached to the novels, as far as the series go, Azkaban is as good as it gets.
This is true: None of the Potter films are actually good movies. And Cuaron is clearly the most talented director ever associated with the franchise. Still, his movie is a fail.
And just as you assert it does capture the spirit of the books doesn't mean it does. See how this "having opinions" thing works?
Next » « Previous