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
Gary Oldman is incredible in the film, which is one of the reasons why I was so let-down by it. Sirius is a killer part, he nails it, and yet you never really get any sense of his depth nor of the relationship with Harry. I think that's just a missed opportunity.
I understood the book perfectly, thanks though.
I haven't enjoyed a Harry Potter film since Chamber of Secrets. And it's because of Prisoner of Azkaban. Not only did Cuaron break the basic rules of Rowling's books with this film, but every director after him has built their films on Cuaron's shaky foundation. And that foundation is re-arranging the books to suit their "artistic vision" and making the lead characters seem less like actual characters and more like pieces on a chess board, idly making their way from scene to scene.
And this is going to come off way racist, but it's not intended that way. In Rowling's books, there are about four or five black students (Blaise Zabini, Dean Thomas, Angelina Johnson, right off the top of my head) and Asian, Cho Chang, and the two Indian twins, Padma and Parvati Patil. And yet, in Cuaron's offering, there are more people of color (specifically Spanish/Mexicans) in the film then there ever where in the source material. Another example of the director's "artistic stamp" on the series and while it's not grating or offensive, it is a glaringly obvious slander to the books. Only for the fact that the director chose to change the writer's intent to suit his own needs to make the movie less culturally anemic.
And yet, two years ago, there was an article in Newsweek about The Watchmen, where the author made the comment that no film adaption had been successful until Cuaron offered up Prisoner of Azkaban... And that made me sad, because Azkaban ruined the series for me irrevocably.
...But really did you just compare ANY Harry Potter movie to Kubrick?
Obviously the two biggest problems with the films are 1) It's impossible to capture the magic of Rowling's books in the amount of time considered reasonable for a movie and 2) the filmmakers who have taken on the projects assume all those in attendance have read the books. I've had to try to view the HP movies as separate entities from the books because it became clear after the first three that no movie could ever measure up to the books.
I think the reason Cuaron's adaptation received such high praise was because The Prisoner of Azkaban was so much better than the first two films. His biggest success was using less color and creating what felt like a decidedly more adult film than the first two, which were full of color and made to feel like children's movies. I actually thought the Half-Blood Prince was the best of them, but that could also be because the actors seemed to blossom and Daniel Radcliffe was suddenly able to convincingly portray the tortured adolescent rather than squeezing his eyes shut and scrunching up his face to convey pain.
The Order of the Phoenix movie didn't make sense at all on its own. I watched it with non-Harry Potter readers and had to basically fill in all the plot points that the movie was leaving out, like why anyone cared about the stupid prophesy to begin with, and why it would be such a "weapon" for voldemort. Prisoner of Azkaban is visually stunning, but that's not all, it strikes a great balance between whimsical fun and the darker scarier themes of Harry Potter. It's the first and last time any of the HP movies have seemed really magical to me.
About Radcliffe: He took a huge leap in The Half-Blood Prince. Makes me think he will have a nice career following this series, and also gets me excited for The Deathly Hallows.
I loved the Columbus movies and they were true to the books and visually, they were exactly as I'd pictured them in my minds eye. Since the third book was our favourite in this house, we were extremely dissappointed in Cuaron's take. It left out so much and the visuals were nothing like they were in the Columbus versions. Hagrids cottage did not fit the description, at least as I'd imagined it and as it was in the first movies.
In any discussions we've had over the years about the HP series of books/movies, Alfonso Cuaron's movie always gets trashed as the worst and the biggest dissappointment, aside from the ending of the series itself.
Wow, I had no idea everyone saw these films so differently.
Having read all the books and seen each film to date, I personally feel that the HP adaptations are quite solid. I agree that Chris Columbus's are the weakest in that they're overlong and rather static in feel and look, but I loved Azkaban.
I do take issue with some of the exposition that was left out, for even a one line reference to the missed connections would have helped, but I loved its visual style and small touches.
I'm actually quite surprised by all the Goblet of Fire bashing, as I think that was actually the best adapted of them all. I didn't miss the houself subplot at all, and I thought it told the story very well. Order of the Phoenix was a very lengthy book, and while the adaptation certainly feels scaled down, they kept what they needed to tell a good story. Half-Blood Prince was very good overall, but I also agree that the romance part was overplayed a bit, while the Harry/Dumbledore relationship should've had more focus.
Still, to each his own, I guess. Very anxious to see how they handle Deathly Hallows, the trailers look fantastic.
Thanks for commenting, Brian! It's interesting that there truly doesn't seem to be a consensus on these Potter movies. Seems like everyone has a different favorite. I, too, am looking forward to Hallows, though.
I agree and i have always agreed.
Best one IMO (both book and film) is the Goblet of Fire.
Let's hope the next one will change my mind.
I'm pretty sure Kreacher was in the fifth film.
Wrong. Azkaban is by far the best of the films. Wells is dead on target, and you have your head planted firmly up your ass. If you can't tell that Azkaban is easily the best of the Potter films in every way, there's really no hope for you; it's a no-brainer.
Wow, completely agree with you.
And your rankings. They're spot on.
I'm with you and Christopher Rosen -- I'm astonished people like Columbus' films at all -- they're horrible.
The films - with exception to Goblet of Fire - have gotten much stronger since then.
I'm astonished people liked Chris Columbus' efforts. They were atrocious.
Seriously, I tried watching the copies in my HP box set again recently and they're miserable. They may be the most faithful, but they are absolutely dreadful movies.
Azkaban was the film that truly kicked off the film series for me and I'm sure for other fans as well.
I, unfortunately for myself, have not read the books as of yet. We do, however, own all of the movies, except for the newest one. I have never noticed any real discrepancies in the story line. I did know that Lupin made the map, though they never really did say that Lupin was Jame's best friend, in fact the implication was more that Sirious was Jame's best friend. They did imply that they were all a group of friends though.
Personally, I think that they are all great movies and should be awarded instead of ripped apart by some guy whose biggest accomplishment in life is this blog. I think it is a shame that every time somebody does something in this country it has to be ripped apart, we can't seem to just enjoy things any more. But hey, that is the great thing about our country, we have the right to say absolutely anything we want to, so rock on unhappy guy!
I totally agree with everything you wrote. The third book is my fave of the series and the movie was just not right. It wasn't as bad as Goblet of Fire, which was HORRIBLE. It really should've been a 2 parter, there was a lot going on in that book.
I'm sure they'll remake them all in 5-10 years and then maybe we'll get some good versions of the books
Azkaban is my favorite book in the series...and I anxiously awaited the release of the movie....only to walk out disappointed. I think it is honestly the worst movie in the series...I would lean towards either HBP or GOF.
Who was better> Kirk or Picard? Whoops, wrong thread...
The Prisoner of Azkaban was so crushingly disappointing. I`m biased because it`s my favorite book in the series but I strongly doubt that Cuaron actually read it. As an adaptation it`s an utter failure, as a cinematic entity unto itself it suffers because it simply doesn’t make sense. It`s overly condensed, massive chunks are left out which creates a ton of plot holes (compounding on a time travel plot which always creates plot holes), and there`s jarring continuity errors (Movie Mistakes currently has it ranked 3rd for most goofs). The best thing about it was John Williams score.
Alfonso Cuaron’s Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is the best of all of the movies, it is far superior from a storytelling and a film making stand point. He develops the characters to let the actors personality come through, and it is evident in their performances. He also uses allegory and keeps the magical and dark elements interesting and vibrant. David Yates have been an extreme disappointment. I walked out disappointed and angry that I was robbed of the magical experience of the previous films. His background is straight laced and boring adult drama. He doesn't have that sense of wonder or the creative story telling ability the previous Directors had. I read all of the books and am apprehensive about the final two. I watched Alfonso Cuaron’s Azkaban the other day and wished he was still in the directors seat. It was the same with Tim Burton and Batman.
Q: Why Does Everyone Think Alfonso Cuarón’s Awful Harry Potter Adaptation is Great?
A: Because they have eyes.
Honestly, I enjoyed the movie, and still think it was the best, but agree there were some discontinuities within the film (such as no surprise from Harry nor an explanation from Lupin when he (Lupin) seemed familiar with the Marauder's Map).
I can see how the quirkiness of some scenes would put many off, but overall the mood of the film, a dark one, I thought fit the book perfectly. Some scenes, like Harry in the Leaky Cauldron battling the Monstor Book of Monstors were simply beautiful and illustrate the beauty through simplicity of a film adaptation. I always thought the film adaptations that tried too hard to follow the book are weak (see Dune for an example of this).
I have enjoyed both the book series and the film series, but think overall the film series has been hurt by the lack of continuity in the directors....the director changes between films 2 through 5 I think hurt the series more so than any opinion I have about any of these directors. I am happy the last 3(4) films were directed by the same person.
OK. I watched Azkaban the first time when I was like 12 and completely disliked the movie (I totally loved 1 & 2).
But now I'm 19 and wonder how i could hate a Terrific movie like Azkaban. Cuaron did nail it and I was too young to see it then.
So as a 12 year old, yup AZKABAN was the WORST.
But as a 19 year old, AZKABAN was the BEST.Period.
The prisoner of Azkaban is not the worst film in the SERIES. This is not a franchise people. This is a SERIES. Anyway, GoF is indeed the worst film adaptation of any of the HP books. Not a bad film, a bad adaptation. OOtP is one of the best movies in the series b/c Steve Kloves found just the right balance b/w what needed to be included and left out. Sure, it could of added certain subplots but if they don't have any lasting significance what is the point. You are correct on all the points that were left out of PoA as well. But putting these things aside, PoA was still a brilliant adaptation. Alfonso created what is essentially Harry Potter throughout the rest of the series. The magic, the overall effects, and the geographic landscape were completely unique (and the landscape is much more accurate then Columbus's films) and new. I think he did a good job directing wise. Blame the screenwriter for not adding in your precious subplots.
First sorry for my english.
Well you dont know anything about movies, a good adaption is not the same that a faithfull adaptation. Cuaron understand the main themes of the book and cut everything out of focus. His movies centers in fears and indentity and time and succeded, i think, in everything. The freeze frame at the end is good because shows harry finally happy after all the suffering.( remember how hard harry try to find a happy memory during the film well he gets that). And about the marauders map i think cuaron did not know the importance of it in the rest of the series. Anyway i cant understand why nobody explain that in the other movies, it wasnt hard to fix only one or two line of dialog
Next » « Previous