Potter secret: Films are just as vacuous as the books

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Warner Bros. presents an Alfonso Cuarón film, starring Daniel Radcliffe, Gary Oldman and Emma Thompson. Written by Steve Kloves, from a book by J.K. Rowling. 142m. Rated PG for frightening moments, creature violence and mild language.

2.5 stars

I’m all caught up with Harry, but his films haven’t caught up with me.

After watching the second installment of the Harry Potter book-turned-film series, “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” during its theatrical run and becoming thoroughly confused, I borrowed the first movie, “Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone” as well as the popular children’s book series.

The Potter books - written by Englishwoman J.K. Rowling - are literary ear candy. They are unsurprisingly quick reads which hold no nutritional value, no matter how many pages each subsequent edition holds. Admittedly, the books are page-turners because Rowling historically usurps two-thirds of her prose for exposition, and the final third for the payoff. I often found myself trying to conjure the willpower to read past 300-plus pages of drivel in an effort to be satiated when page 500-something delivered on a long-offered promise.

As the books go, so too do the films. While subplots from the book are trimmed for time, key elements remain untouched. Therefore, my tedium with the book carried over to the two-hour-plus film - which only pays off in the final 20 minutes. Even then, its settlement is apropos to receiving tickets for meaningless junk when all you wanted was the cash.
“The Prisoner of Azkaban” is relegated to the usual trauma that accompanies a “middle” chapter in a continuing series; nothing is truly ventured and therefore, nothing is truly gained.

It’s the third year for magical protagonists Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) at Hogwart’s School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Again, Potter is thrown into a position of saving the school from another form of doom and gloom. In this chapter, alleged murderer Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) has become the first escapee from Azkaban, a wizard prison.

Long-held rumor has it that Black ratted Potter’s parents out to the archenemy Lord Voldemort. Therefore, his escape inspires a higher level of security at Hogwart’s, as public contention is that Black will be targeting the young magician next. The security authorized by the Ministry of Magic comes in the form of dementors, who are similar in size and “scariness factor” to the Stan Winston-designed apparition of “Darkness Falls.”'

Headmaster Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon, who replaced the late Richard Harris) has also appointed Professor Lupin (David Thewlis) as the school’s third Defense against the Dark Arts teacher in as many years. Black and Lupin were classmates of existing Professor Severus Snape, and the three will figure into the quasi-climax together. Small children who aren’t phased by the tense and dark tone to this third feature may want to bring their dictionary to look up “animagus” to understand the movie’s slightly convoluted plot.

Of course, Potter has his usual chance to shine, although he seems more in the background than in previous efforts. As our triumvirate, Radcliffe, Watson and Grint are racing against their rapidly changing bodies to preserve continuity amongst the films. Grint looks ready to start shaving and Watson is developing curves that will have muggles and wizards doing a double-take by the next installment, “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.”

Also changing its appearance is the accepted chiaroscuro of the first two features. New director Alfonso Cuarón - who gave a glossy sheen to the art-house pornography of “Y tu mamá también” - saturates his Hogwart’s in a super shades of black, brown, purple and blue. The darker tone of a madman trying to murder Potter combined with heavy shadows and a series of night scenes makes this the scariest output of the series to date.

“Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” has my recommendation, but it comes with a caveat. Read the books - or, at the very least, watch the first two Christopher Columbus-directed films. The Potter movies have dropped all pretension of a recap of events, so casual followers will be pulling their hair out by the end of the movie trying to understand what actually unfolded. Those who bring all their a posteriori knowledge will enjoy this tween-appropriate feature more than those who have long avoided the artificially-frenzied phenomenon that is Harry Potter.