Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

The most powerfully entrancing children's film in years. Of course, a true kid's classic is just as magical for adults.

Like the first two movies, this is loaded with computer-generated imagery, but for the first time there's a sense of dramatic proportion balancing the spectacle and the story line.

Who would think Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban could be an art film? Thanks to director Alfonso Cuaron, a dazzling storyteller with a keen eye for whimsical detail, the third film in the Potter franchise is a visual delight.

This film may disappoint some dogmatic Old Hogwartsians: a few plot points have been sacrificed, and Mr. Cuarón does not seem to care much for Quidditch. But it more than compensates for these lapses with its emotional force and visual panache.

It helps that J.K. Rowling’s third book in the series is full of spooky stuff that translates beautifully to screen.

A mild upkick in pacing and texture can be credited to director Alfonso Cuarón (more Little Princess than Y Tu Mamá), who avoids Chris Columbus's mastodon-like setups and knows a bit more about whipping up atmospherics.

Put delicately, this is one long sit, made all the more so by a turgid story, a dour visual palette and uninspiring action.

The way to save yourself lies within yourself..............................

It partly takes up the type of plot of the previous chapter (i.e. the search for the truth on mysterious cases) but the atmosphere and the thriller aspects of the plot are managed and developed better than in the previous chapter, with the presence of new characters that make the plot more interesting.

Seriyi ilk izlediğimde, özellikle ilk filmlerini, anlayamamış olmalıyım ki beğenmemiştim. İnsan anlayamadığını nasılda anlayamıyor değil mi?

It's the third installment of Harry Potter and already the child actors have done a lot of growing up. Visually and dramatically, they've grown into their roles, and director Alphonso Cuarón lets them flaunt that newfound independence in his only take on the series. The school feels more lived-in and tangible, as opposed to the amusement park it seemed in the first two movies, and its residents (particularly the three central Hogwarts kids) are less buttoned-up and disciplined, more comfortable with their surroundings. It's also darker and more foreboding, foreshadowing the idea that this series was headed into stormy waters. Adding Gary Oldman to the mix seems a good choice, though he does little more than snarl and growl menacingly. Elsewhere, Michael Gambon plays a more vibrant Dumbledore in relief of the late Richard Harris, and the returning cast all continue to perform well in their established roles. The plot flitters around for quite a while, however, obsessing over excessive amounts of day-in-the-life snapshots and unrelated asides. This confirms the sense of wonder that's been imbued in this world since day one, but it also makes the plot feel extra slow and padded-out. The effects work has improved since The Chamber of Secrets, even if it does still show some cobwebs, particularly during the whomping willow ride. That up-tick can surely be attributed to a strict limit on house elves and quidditch matches, which were both prime suspects in the more eye-rolling segments of the preceding film. The Prisoner of Azkaban is fair enough, with a meatier plot and a more tangible landscape. And, huzzah, the greater narrative does finally begin to move somewhere interesting. Alas, I still can't quite figure what all the fuss is about with this series. Maybe one had to grow up reading the novels.

Radcliffe and Watson deliver two of the worst acting performances ever captured in a big-budget film. The sound mix is awful, the colour grade is dull and lifeless, and the overuse of green screen and CGI dated this dreadful film before it was even released. The directing is so atrocious that even the onscreen ensemble of Oldman, Thewlis and Spall is barely passable.