RECENT WATCHES: Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022)

Watching the “Fantastic Beasts” franchise fall apart has been much more compelling than any of the actual movies. It’s a series born of pure avarice and ego, of Warner Bros demanding a way to continue the highly profitable “Harry Potter” brand and of J.K. Rowling believing her own hype as a supposedly masterful world-builder and storyteller. The first film reeked of corporate I.P. brand desperation but the massive “Harry Potter” fandom showed up and made it a hit. I kind of liked that first one but was skeptical that Rowling and W.B.'s plan for a pentalogy were sustainable. By the time part two came out, the wheels were already coming off. The A-list actor cast as the main villain had become controversial and let's leave it at that. Rowling had revealed herself as a virulent transphobe and has shown a complete inability to shut the fuck up about that since then. The internet was starting to turn on the "Potter" books it loved so much, with many fans increasingly apologizing for their devotion to this fictional universe. And it didn't help that the second "Fantastic Beasts" movie, which doubled-down on backstory and a deeply uncinematic story structure, was fucking terrible. 

A sensible studio would have put a bullet in the beast(s) right then and there. Yet W.B. is too invested in the Wizarding World brand to call it quits. Despite bad reviews and increasingly radioactive buzz, "Crimes of Grindlewald" made just enough money to justify continuing the prequel series. And thus "Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore," a movie nobody was demanding, pushed into production. Even in our ever polarized times, it's rare that a movie this big is greeted by so many heartfelt pleas to not see it. (I, for one, bought a ticket for "The Lost City" and snuck into this, for whatever that's worth.) "The Secrets of Dumbledore" opened to yet more controversy, as another one of its stars just can't stop attacking people, and the lowest box office of any of the "Potter" adjacent films. Which brings me to the actual quality of "Fantastic Beasts 3," a movie absolutely begging people to hate it. 

I hated "The Crimes of Grindlewald" so much that my brain has blacked out most of what happened in it. This installment seems to anticipate this and dismisses many of the lingering plot points. The important parts are: Muggle-hating wizard Grindlewald hides out with his followers and continues his plans to orchestrate a full-on wizard war against the normies. Dumbledore — who can’t attack Grindlewald directly, as the two made a special blood pact as teenage lovers — assembles a special team to save the day. This includes magic zoologist Newt Scamander, his brother and his muggle sidekick Jacob, and some other people who aren't as important. They attempt to foil Grindlewald's scheme to clear his name and get himself elected wizard prime minister. Meanwhile, Credence Barebone is still lurking about,  struggling with his anger, his powers, and his recently revealed status as a Dumbledore family member.

Part of why the "Harry Potter" series worked is because each installment could stand alone. The structure of each book/movie depicting a different year at Hogwarts allowed for a certain episodic feel, that kept shit from getting too bogged down. Rowling seems to be approaching the "Fantastic Beasts" saga as one long novel. We're only three movies deep and the narrative is already burdened by its own lore. "Fantastic Beasts 3" relies on exposition-laden conversations to put plot points to bed. The titular secrets of Dumbledore play out via terse conversations in dark rooms, as if David Yates and his team forgot film is a visual medium. The film's overwhelming focus on family secrets, tragic backstories, personal betrayals, and forgiving trespasses causes this wizarding world epic to more closely resemble a small-screen soap opera.

The entirety of "The Secrets of Dumbledore" is weighed down by the feeling that nobody wanted to make this movie. The pace is glacial, the story laboriously moving from one uninspired set-piece to the next. Dialogue-heavy exchanges set up sequences, which then play out with little suspense or excitement. At least two magical duels are depicted as swirly, semi-hallucinated encounters which are often difficult to follow. The climax is by far its most underwhelming scene. An important plot detail is resolved for mysterious reasons. Heroes and villains talk more about stuff that's going to happen eventually. And then it just ends, the movie moving on to its romance-heavy denouncement. "Secrets of Dumbledore" feels like a mandatory stop on a long journey that nobody is especially invested in making. 

As belabored and painfully slow as this movie is, it's an improvement over the second installment. It's not as strangled by sloppy writing, vague character motivations, and obsession with "shocking" plot twists. Mads Mikkelsen can't breathe much malevolent intent into a villain as shallow as Grindlewald but he's still an improvement over Johnny Depp's strung-out vamping. The movie does a better job of incorporating the fantastic beasts into its story of wizarding world politic intrigue and interpersonal relationships. There's a pretty fun sequence involving dancing scorpion monsters, the biggest of which sprays fire. The entire plot hinges around a magical fawn-like creature. A chase scene devoted to safely escorting it to the correct location is one of the film's better orchestrated set pieces. Most of the last movie's ludicrous twists are put to bed and few further ones are introduced. 

Yet all of these adjustments still feel like putting new wheels on a train that's already come off the tracks. Newt is still a hopelessly uninteresting protagonist and Eddie Redmayne's performance is still preoccupied with twitchy whispering and clownish body language. The scenes devoted to Credence, and all the melodrama surrounding his bloodline, feel utterly dour. None of the new characters are interesting at all. A subplot involves an agent going undercover within Grindlewald's inner circle. The film attempts to engineer suspense over the question of where his alliances really lie. But the plotting is so inert, and the characters such a blank, that it's impossible to care. It says a lot about how unenthusiastic everything about this movie is that Grindelwald's big scheme to get his criminal record expunged involves the German wizard president being talked into saying he's innocent.

Unavoidably, J.K. Rowling still sucks at making her wizarding world feel real outside the confines of Hogwarts. Despite the plot ostensibly revolving around the tension between regular humans and magical society, you never see that play out onscreen. Muggles are constantly mentioned but, outside of Dan Folger's Jacob, they don't interact with the wizards any. If Grindlewald's ascension to power was supposed to be some sort of commentary on the dispiriting popularity of fascism in our modern world — or even a parallel to Hitler's actual rise to power around the time this film is set — it's pathetically underdeveloped. (Not to mention such social critique would come off as pretty fucking insincere from a vocal bigot like Rowling.) While the reveal that wizard elections are heavily swayed by the actions of a magical baby deer creature isn't as dumb a bit of "Potter"-verse trivia as wizards just shitting on the floor, it's definitely up there. My friend informs me that wizards casting colorful bolts into the sky is how they actually vote. I took it as the "Potter" equivalent of rednecks firing guns off every time their favorite sports team wins.  

Ultimately, "The Secrets of Dumbledore's" attempts to right the boat after that disastrous last movie come off as awkward. You can easily tell storylines meant to run longer were hastily cut short, due to a total lack of interest. Every sector of this production is clearly exhausted from trying to make a bloated prologue interesting, resulting in a big budget blockbuster that is honestly boring most of the time. The handful of call-backs to the "Harry Potter" characters and settings people actually care about are sad cries for indifferent audiences to pay attention to this cumbersome story. The countless behind-the-scenes controversies makes one eager to say that the "Fantastic Beasts" series is cursed. The truth is far more mundane: This was always a misbegotten attempt to prolong a fictional universe that wrapped up a decade ago. Maybe the tepid box office response this time will finally bring this misguided enterprise to the premature, compromised end it was always destined for. [5/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)

In our franchise-driven modern world, only abject failure can totally derail studio's plans for a long series of big budget blockbusters. The “Harry Potter” series is one of the few sure-shots Warner Brothers has, so they'll never let it end. So what if the first “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” received shrugs from both critics and fans? It made a lot of money and not a soul will dare say no to J.K. Rowling's ridiculously ambitious five film plans. Not even fans and culture-watchers protesting because an accused wife beater is starring in the sequel could put a dent in it. So “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald” – that title, others have observed, is a bit like “The Joy of Cooking: Judgment at Nuremberg” – is another hugely budgeted, hot nerd property that not many people were actually excited about.

I was sort of a fan of the previous movie. I liked the fantastic beasts, at the very least. I couldn't have given less of a shit about the impending wizard war or whatever it was. As the subtitle indicates, that's exactly what the sequel focuses on. Evil wizard Grindelwald escapes custody and heads to Paris, building his forces. The Ministry of Magic wants Newt Scamander to help hunt the would-be dictator down, even though he's a zoologist. Soon, most of the first movie's cast is caught up in a chase across Europe, old loves and secret identities coming up along the way. Everyone is seeking Credence Barebone, that orphan kid from the first movie that turned into a CGI destruction cloud at the end.

“The Crimes of Grindelwald” is, simply put, a bunch of convoluted bullshit. This movie's plot is not easy to follow. The sequel is more-or-less a collection of subplots, each one competing for screen time. You need a mental flow chart to keep track of who everyone is, where they are, and what they're after. The script is needlessly flabby. Before heading into the last act, a character goes into a lengthy flashback, explaining his backstory. Immediately afterwards, a second character launches into another origin-expounding flashback. The movie makes a lot of baffling decisions like that. Someone says one thing but later events contradict them. The film devotes precious screen time to developing minor characters it just kills off later. Meanwhile, important stuff – like a hero being convinced to go over to the dark side – is left completely off-screen.

As obsessed as Rowling's script is with explaining shit, it also leaves other moments needlessly vague. A major character appears about 100 minutes into the movie, with little explanation for why he's important. Afterwards, my friend and an angry woman in the audience explained to me that this guy is the inventor of the Sorcerer's Stone. Oh, that's a great idea, randomly introducing a character late in the new film that was last mentioned fifteen fucking years ago. Another seemingly pivotal plot device is introduced silently and then not brought up again until the final minutes. There's a lot of moments of unnecessary fan service in the movie. Such as a totally superfluous visit to Hogwarts. Or the role a young Dumbledore plays in the story, which is mostly ceremonial. Or how about finding out Voldemort's pet snake used to be a lady? If you think that information is going to be important, don't worry, it won't be.

The sequel has so much bullshit going on, that you'd think the attempts to leave room for interpersonal relationships would be admirable. Yet it mostly ends up being more noise, more nonsense that keeps the film from having any sort of steady story. So we meet Newt Scamander's brother, who is engaged to his old high school crush. (Their relationship is further established in yet another fucking flashback.) This isn't Newt's only romantic entanglement, as Katherine Waterston's wizard cop from the first movie is brought back. Don Fogler's Jacob and Alison Sudol's Queenie also return, even though they contribute little to the plot and have no real reason to be there. She does something extremely unfair to him but the movie does not treat this as a violation. Instead of humanizing the material, these stories just clog things up further.

“The Crimes of Grindelwald” isn't just hard to follow in a narrative way. This is David Yates' sixth film set in J.K. Rowling's wizarding world, and I imagine he's contracted for more. You'd think he would know how to shoot this stuff by now. Yet “Fantastic Beasts 2” is often visually murky. The opening sequence, devoted to Grindelwald escaping his flying prison transport, is incoherently cut, the camera jerking back and forth between events without much context. While none of the other action scenes are that badly handled, they frequently have a rushed and unstable feeling to them. Was Yates on a hurried schedule or does he just not give a shit anymore? I'm honestly leaning more towards the latter.

Despite getting the subtitle to himself, Grindelwald does not make the greatest impression as a villain. (His crimes, which extend to breaking out of jail and killing some people, are not exactly extraordinary either.) He spends most of the movie sulking around rooms, dictating plans to his various henchmen. Grindelwald's philosophy is that wizards are superior to humans and should take over the non-magic world. Despite that, “Crimes of Grindelwald” isn't really about this conflict. The film could've expounded on the way fascism rises, how it can convince otherwise reasonable people. Grindelwald's reasoning, that regular humans are about to create a new World War even more devastating than the last, is seductive. (He displays this prediction via magical vape.) This just ends up being another ingredient in the story's overstuffed stew. The film also implies Grindelwald could've prevented the Holocaust, which is certainly in questionable taste.

Despite the overwhelming amount of bullshit in the movie, occasionally “The Crimes of Grindelwald” does present an interesting moment. The first film shined when focusing on Newt's love of weirdo, magical animals. Though this stuff is totally superfluous to the plot, similar moments are a highlight of this film as well. There's a neat scene where Newt tames a wild kelpie and a reoccurring role for a Zouwu, a giant feline monster that maintains some charmingly cat-like qualities. (A scene devoted to very toyetic baby nifflers is less enchanting.) The romantic drama between Newt and Tina, another character who might as well not have been in the movie, is largely unearned. However, there is a cute moment when the two meet at a magical hall of records and resolve their problems via awkward flirting.

In fact, Newt Scamander really doesn't have that much to do in the film, despite ostensibly being the protagonist. Eddie Redmayne continues his twitchy, eccentric act from the first installment. He plays it up to largely diminished returns. Johnny Depp does not make an impression as Grindelwald. He speaks in that phony rock star accent and silently broods, seeming massively bored. Alison Sudol, charming in the first movie, gets the most strangled subplot in this movie, rubbing her character of any motivation. Zoe Kravitz is similarly left without much to do, despite the importance the film treats her with. Jude Law being cast as young Dumbledore was greeted with much hype. Law has a twinkle in his eye in his few scenes, comparable to Richard Harris' portrayal of the character. But that's about it.

“The Crimes of Grindelwald's” status as a cog in a franchise machine could not be more obvious. It leaves the fates of several characters up in the air, along with lots of other dangling subplots that can be resolved over the course of three more movies. The film's final scene is an especially ridiculous cliffhanger. My investment in the “Harry Potter” universe has always been loose at best. So many of the callbacks and references to series' history mean nothing to me. Yet even outside of its status as the latest entry in J.K. Rowling's saga, the second “Fantastic Beasts” is a shockingly incoherent experience. The plot is an utterly tangled mess, the action scenes are poorly handled, many of the narrative decisions are truly asinine, and the actors are left with almost nothing to do. The result is one of the least enjoyable big studio movies I've seen in recent memory. [4/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

After completing her wizarding opus, J.K. Rowling said she was going to take a break from Harry Potter. Her sole excursion into the world of general fiction received mixed reviews and Rowling hastily returned to her broomsticks and Snitches. First there was an interactive website. Instead of giving fans a full-blown sequel series next, Harry’s adventure continued in a divisive stage play. And now the latest attempt to extend the brand, “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” has arrived. Inspired by a brief textbook, the film is set in Harry’s world but sixty years before his birth. Rowling wrote the script herself and expects the film to be the first in a five part series. Perhaps in hopes of guaranteeing this franchise, Warner Brothers brought back director David Yates, who made them a lot of money with his last four “Potter” films.

The new film addresses some of my grievances with Rowling’s universe. Set in 1926, it follows magical zoologist Newt Scamander as he arrives in New York City. Following a mix-up, several of his fantastic beasts escape into the city. His quest to retrieve them dovetails with a sinister plot inside the wizard community to end the masquerade. Instead of setting itself entirely within the snug world of magic, “Fantastic Beasts” directly concerns how wizards and regular humans interact. A government agency covers up magical activity, regularly rewriting the memories of muggles like wand-wielding Men in Black. The main villain wants to stop this practice, believing a war between humans and wizards to be inevitable. It still doesn’t cover all my concerns. I find it difficult to believe that such a large subculture could function undetected, much less in a city as crowded as New York. But at least J.K. is trying.

Considering Rowling’s books have been the target of conservative shitheels, it’s surprising that Rowling has never commented on religious nut jobs. One of the tools utilized in the villain’s overly elaborate scheme are the Second Salemers. That is an organization eager to bring back the burning times, fearful of the witches living among us. The improbably named leader is Mary Lou Barebone, a psychopathic child abuser. Rowling’s criticism of religious extremism is shallow. The Second Salemers being manipulated by the very forces they rally against is barely commented on. Instead, Rowling draws a parallel between the way hardcore Christians abuse gays and other minorities. (The out and open Ezra Miller being cast as a repressed wizard, and frequent target of Barebone’s rage, seems to support this.) Still, it is interesting to see the role traditional religion plays in Potter’s world.

Truthfully, the Second Salemers are far more interesting the film’s actual villain. Some asshole named Grindelwald is the one eager to start the muggle/wizard world. He’s another one of Rowling’s evil wizards, often referenced but unrevealed until the very end, with a convoluted master plan packed with unnecessary steps. (He also apparently has some deeper connection with Potter lore, which I don’t care about.) The film’s hero is equally non-compelling. And it’s mostly Eddie Redmayne’s fault. Redmanye’s acting is as obnoxiously showy as ever. He saddles the character with a series of distracting quirks. He bumbles, trembles, and whispers important things, a tactic Redmanye often employs. By now, it’s clear that Redmayne is a one trick pony and it’s a shame he’s already tricked the Academy.

Yet the grating leading man and the boring adversary are less important then the motherfuckin’ monsters. Yes, some fantastic beasts are indeed on display. An early sequence is devoted to Scamander’s pet Niffler, an echidna looking thing with an obsession with gold, running amok in a bank. Later, we meet an invisible monkey creature that can predict the future and an angry porcupine covered in spaghetti. Scamander’s sidekick is a walking stick like living plant, which helps him out of a few jams. These critters are certainly more interesting then the Flying Doom, a swooping reptile whose memory-erasing venom becomes one of those plot devices Rowling loves so much.

The most eye-catching sequence occurs when Newt steps down into the Tardis-like suitcase he carries. Inside, Yates’ camera spins around the magical environment, a truly impressive computer generated set. We casually pass several intriguing creatures. Like magical lions, squid-faced horses, disappearing dodo birds, giant dung beetles nonchalantly stacking rocks, and a magnificently imposing thunderbird. (David Yates delights in utilizing the 3D effects, throwing shit into the viewer’s eyes, meaning his direction is more colorful then his overly gloomy “Potter” films.)

There are two particular beast-centric scenes that impressed me. The first involves an Erumpent – a massive, rhino-like creature that contains an explosive chemical in its horn – rampaging through central park. It burst through a zoo, leading the memorable sight of an emu running through the snowy park. In a goofy visual pun, the horned creature is in heat. Horny, if you will. What follows is a highly amusing slapstick sequence devoted to Newt and his friend attempting to capture the aroused beasts. Another notable sequence revolves around the Occamy, a Quetzalcoatl like feathered serpent that changes sizes depending on its location. Newt corners the beastie in Macy’s, the huge snake leaping around the room and eventually being caught in an unexpected way.

If Redmayne is a shrug worthy leading man, the film makes up for it with a lovable supporting cast. I especially like Dan Folger as Jacob, the muggle and would-be baker who accidentally gets caught up in Newt’s adventure. Folger provides the comically bemused straight man to the magical shenanigans. At first, he’s confused, then horrified, and then enchanted by the wonderful creatures around him. Katherine Waterston is amusingly neurotic as Tina, the wizard cop who stumbles upon Newt’s adventure. Like Jacob, she’s more down-to-earth then the spacey protagonist. My favorite is Alison Sudol as Queenie, Tina’s telepathic sister who is absolutely charming, a bubbly presence that elevates every scene she’s in. Ron Perlman is well cast as a goblin gangster, now CGI creations instead of little people in make-up.

When focused on retrieving Newt’s escaped critters, “Fantastic Beasts” is nicely entertaining. When it turns attention towards the evil wizard business, it drags. Colin Farrell sleepwalks through the functionary villain role. His master plan is to unleash the power behind Ezra Miller’s Credence, a shrieking role nearly as obnoxiously showy as Redmayne’s. This manifests as a swirling CGI cloud, which tears through the city. Considering all the neat monsters in the film, I don’t know why it would focus its finale on something this generic and uninteresting. Why not a bad ass dragon or kaiju-scale beast? Why a pissed-off meteorological event? When will Hollywood learn that CGI destruction clouds are boring antagonist? It’s also odd for a “Harry Potter” film, usually a more introspective franchise, to double-down on the urban destruction in the last act.

“Fantastic Beasts” certainly leaves enough dangling plot threads for a sequel, featuring recognizable actors in small parts. Jon Voight is cast as a Hearst-like newspaper mogul, a part which has little to do with the main plot. Zoe Kravitz has a blink-and-miss-it role as Newt’s long lost lover. An A-lister puts in a surprise appearance as Grindelwald. The villain is left alive, in order to return and vex the hero further. This is some of the least interesting stuff in the movie so, hopefully, the sequel will also double down on the fantastic beasts. Considering the box office has already exceeded the budget, Newt Scamander will certainly return. The first film is a pleasant time killer. Since Rowling is no longer bound to Y.A. formula, the budding franchise has the potential to be more entertaining then any of the proper “Potter” flicks. [7/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011)

For some, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2” was the biggest pop culture event of their lives. It was a “Return of the Jedi” for a new generation, a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Audiences turned out in droves. “Deathly Hallows – Part 2” became the most popular film of the year, made over a billion dollars, and currently rests as the eighth highest grossing film of all time. For me, it was the first film in the series I skipped in theaters. By the time the final “Harry Potter” film rolled around, I was entirely unconnected with this series. I just didn’t care anymore, eventually giving the sequel a dispassionate look on DVD. Am I a little more invested in the film at the tail end of a Harry Potter marathon?

Splitting the last book into two adaptations does make the eventual return to Hogwarts more meaningful. After a lengthy sequence inside Gringotts Bank, “Deathly Hallows – Part 2” is primarily set at the school. This allows a lot of familiar faces to return. Maggie Smith’s Miss McGonagall gets a big moment to herself, crowd-controlling rowdy students and summoning stone soldiers. Neville Longbottom becomes an unlikely hero, decapitating Voldemort’s giant snake. Luna Lovegood helps reveal an important plot point. Cho even shows up. This isn’t even mentioning the notable characters who get big death scenes, like Lupin. Even Griphook the goblin gets a meaty role, Warwick Davis really allowed to show his acting skills.

J.K. Rowling and the filmmakers adapting her work definitely wanted to bring things full circle. So how come they devote major sequences to more-or-less new characters? At one point, Harry needs help from a ghost to retrieve a Horcrux. You’d expect Nearly Headless Nick to reappear, right? Nope. Instead, the Grey Lady - a ghost referenced but never before seen – puts in an appearance. Later, the trio sneaks back into Hogwarts through the surrounding village. The character that greets them is Dumbledore’s brother. We’ve met the character before but he’s played by a different actor in a radically different way. These characters awkwardly dump some new mythological bits on the audience before moving on. Which definitely seems out of place in the final film in the series.

“The Deathly Hallows – Part 2” gets at the root of Voldemort’s motivation. Every horrible thing the villain has done has been to avoid death. This is contrasted with the other characters in the story. Such as Harry’s parents, who gave up their lives to protect a loved one. Or Dumbledore, who accepts his passing with serenity. The inevitably of death seems to be the film’s main theme, that everything has to end. Yet there’s one snag. Through the course of the film, Harry Potter dies and comes back to life. He does this with the help of another plot device, a magical resurrection stone. What Rowling is trying to say is that Potter’s willingness to die for others separates him from Voldemort. In practice, it makes the film’s theme seem like “Nobody can escape death… Except for Harry Potter.”

Another character that gets a graceful death scene is Professor Snape. Alan Rickman’s wizard is struck down by the villain for entirely selfish reasons. After dying, he grants Harry access to his memories. What we see is a tragic story of a man who has devoted ever lasting love to one woman. Of a person of incredible ethics, who did what his friends asked of him, who protected and cared for others. Since Snape has spent seven films as a hard-ass, it’s touching to see his sensitive side. To see that not only was Snape a good man but maybe the most complicated character in the entire series.

In order to be a properly epic conclusion, “Deathly Hallows – Part 2” is filled with huge action sequences. Hermione rides a huge white dragon out of Gringotts Bank, spraying fire at attackers. Inside the school, Harry and Ron barely escape a room going up in flames, chased by a fiery serpent. The battle of Hogwarts is clearly the central sequence of the film. Trolls, giant spiders, and huge stone soldiers all play their part. Half of the castle explodes. A minor character gets killed by a werewolf. The Weasley mother and Bellatrix LeStrange get a notable fight to themselves. It truly feels like a war, with the fate of the world at risk. It’s a big moment and suitably impressive.

Even as someone only casually invested in this series, finally seeing Harry and Voldemort face off is exciting. Harry pretends to be dead, choosing the right moment to reveal that he still lives, in order to strike a blow to the villain’s fragile ego. The hero continues to strike at the bad guy’s persona by referring to him as “Tom” throughout the last act. You can tell it’s personal because Voldemort isn’t using magic to attack Harry. He’s striking him with his bare hands. There’s an impressive moment when the two leap off the castle together, like Holmes and Moriarty over Reichenbach Falls. The last duel is treated with the proper weight, the hero and the villain meeting in a clearing and blasting at each other. It’s pretty neat, I guess.

In Rowling’s book, she included an incredibly controversial epilogue. It was mostly unnecessary, Rowling seemingly tossing it into the book in order to spite the shippers. The future set ending could’ve been clipped from the movie without loosing too much. We didn’t need to see Harry and Ginny’s son to know they turned out okay. (Though I’m really surprised Harry would permit his kid to go to school, considering how many time he almost died because of Hogwarts.) It’s an odd note to take the franchise out on. I would’ve prefer to see Harry and the gang moving on with their lives, instead of a big insurance to the audience that the adventure will continue.

Having waded my way through the entire cinematic Harry Potter experience, I come out on the other side… Well, still not totally getting it. Most of the films are entertaining, a few are a bore, they’re all well made, but I still don’t quite get the cultish devotion. Maybe I’m just not the target audience? Maybe I need to re-read the books? Seems to me that the films not made by Chris Columbus or David Yates are the most interesting ones. As for the final chamber, it’s mid-tier “Potter,” satisfying in a number of ways but still hassled by some odd scripting decisions. [7/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010)

J.K. Rowling’s books are too goddamn long. The girth of her novels is something the makers of the “Harry Potter” movies have struggled with before. For a while, the idea of splitting the fourth novel into two was kicked around, before the screenwriters manned up and just started cutting shit. The final novel in the series was similarly lengthy. The decision was made to adapt it as two separate films. Ostensibly, this was done to give Rowling’s material proper room to breath. I suspect, however, this was also done so W.B. could squeeze one more movie, and maximum profits, out of their cash cow. “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1” set a precedence, followed both successfully and unsuccessfully by other Y.A. franchises.

You’d think J.K. would use the epic conclusion to her series as an excuse to abandon the Y.A. cliches that has characterized her work up until now. And she does, sort of. With war inevitable, Harry, Ron, and Hermione opt out of spending a seventh year at Hogwarts. Instead, they go on the run, seeking out the Horcruxes that hold the secret to defeating Voldemort. Despite shaking things up, “Deathly Hallows – Part 1” still maintains some of the annoying quirks of the genre. A newly introduced character is obviously the traitor. A plot resolving magical sword pops up out of nowhere, late in the film. Dumbledore’s plan for everyone extends even from beyond the grave, as he bequests the heroes with objects that help smooth out their journey. There’s a helpful exposition dump near the end of the film. It’s frustrating to see the film struggling to escape these boundaries but still be trapped by them.

Not-so-subtle hints have been dropped before that the way evil wizards like Voldemort persecute Mudbloods is meant to invoke antisemitism. “Deathly Hallows – Part 1” makes this connection explicit. Voldemort and his forces take over the Ministry of Magic, immediately using their newfound power to persecute minorities. They distribute propaganda to Hogwarts, spreading their racist agenda. They push hate, intolerance, and violence under a guise of protection and freedom. In other words, this seventh “Harry Potter” flick is about the rise of fascism. How it only takes a few genuinely evil people sneaking into a place of power to fuck all of us. Which is, you might have noticed, eerily relevant at this moment.

Tossing the three protagonists on a country-wide MacGuffin chase has its up and downsides. Focusing the story on the central trio cuts out a lot of the narrative chaff. Harry, Ron, and Hermione spend most of the movie hanging out in the forest, hiding and talking among themselves. So there’s plenty of opportunities for banter. We learn a little about Hermione’s history, seeing her parents and getting insight into her childhood. An especially sweet moment – possibly the highlight of the film – has Harry and Hermione performing an impromptu dance number. 

Yet the constantly moving plot forces the story in some annoying directions. Too often, the characters return to their camp in the woods, the plot becoming repetitive. In order to fill out that two hours and twenty minutes run time, there’s some goofy drama in the middle section. Ron wears one of the Horcruxes around his neck, the evil object influencing his personalities. Instead of, you know, plotting against the heroes for the dark lord, he just becomes a jealous asshole. When the world is at stake, petty melodrama is not what the audience wants to see.

In addition to the rather obvious antisemitism fable, “The Deathly Hallow – Part 1”  also presents a clear thematic idea. The film is about how war makes it difficult to trust anyone. Ron and Harry’s friendship is tested, by the evil powers of the Horcrux. Repeatedly, Harry questions how much he knew about Dumbledore, whether he can trusts his mentor’s plan for him. More then once, the trio discover they shouldn’t have trust someone, being betrayed at least once. Loyalties are tested throughout the journey, unexpected allies coming to the rescue and old friendships being reaffirmed.

After the more character oriented “Half-Blood Prince,” the seventh “Harry Potter” film doubles down on the action. There’s an eye-popping action sequence early on, an aerial battle in the sky between the two wizarding factions. The wedding party Harry is attending early on is invaded by attackers, forcing a hasty retreat. Harry and friends similarly have to make a quick escape from the Ministry of Magic, a horde of Dementors sneaking into their elevator. The ending features a major scuffle in the villain’s lair. Which doesn’t compare to the film’s emotional peak, the mournful death of Dobby. Which is far more affecting then Dumbledore’s death at the end of the last movie. Yet my favorite action beat in the film is smaller scale. It’s a close quarter magic battle in a coffee shop, bolts of supernatural energy blasting around tables and counters.

Throughout “The Deathly Hallows – Part 1,” I wondered if Yates wasn’t auditioning to make a big budget horror movie. Yates’ third “Harry Potter” movie features its share of spooky imagery. After being lured into a house, a friendly old lady turns into a giant snake, leading to a suitably intense fight. The proper climax of the film involves a black smoke monster emerging from the Horcrux, a convincingly moody special effect. (It’s also another moment when the series acknowledges that two of its main characters are horny teenage boys.) The story of the Deathly Hallows – three more magical plot devices, as if this series needed anymore – is presented as a macabre cartoon. Instead of just turning up the doom and gloom, Yates actually steps up and creates a foreboding atmosphere.

“The Deathly Hallows” is a long book, so splitting it in two probably wasn’t a bad idea. It certainly makes more sense then other, purely mercenary efforts to wring two movies out of other Y.A. series conclusions. Yet I kind of wonder why David Yates and his team picked that particular moment to cut this one off. Seems to me Ron conquering the smoke monster was a better point to end part one on. As in all the “Potter” films, there’s some neat stuff inside this one. There’s also some goofy Y.A. bullshit and some melodrama that doesn’t appeal to me. It’s still not my favorite of the series and ranks pretty low for me. [6/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

By the time “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” went before cameras, the producers had shit figured out. While David Yates was editing the previous film, he was talked into making the next one. All the key players were pinned down, even if Emma Watson was beginning to express some misgivings about her most famous role. By 2008, it would’ve taken an act of god to prevent the release of the next Harry Potter movie. Naturally, it became another massive hit, breaking several records and becoming the second highest grossing film of the year. As the wizarding saga approached its end, the public’s Potter fever showed no sign of slowing.

If each of J.K. Rowling’s stories can be said to have a theme, it seems “The Half-Blood Prince” is about secrets and the cost of keeping them. Early on, Severus Snape entrusts Draco Malfoy to carry out a secret order. Malfoy carries out this mission along the film’s sidelines. Similarly, Dumbledore later gives Harry the responsibility of his own covert mission. Both mentors, we discover later, have secrets of their own. Even the quieter, more character oriented moment revolve around people hiding things from each others. As the Hogwarts kids creep closer to adulthood, they learn that the grown-up world is full of hidden identities and secluded truths.

This doesn’t terribly concern Harry Potter. Mostly, the sixteen year old boy is horny. The film begins with him oogling a shapely waitress and successfully getting her attention. Dumbledore then cock-blocks the poor wizard, zapping him away to another location. Romance is a pressing concern throughout the film, as Harry grows closer to Ron’s little sister, Ginny. That particular love story is a bit of a surprise. Previously, it was suggested that Ginny’s feelings for Harry were little more then a precocious crush. Harry returning her feelings is surprising. Then again, considering how desperate Harry is for some action, maybe any snogging would be welcomed. Since the franchise is still ostensibly kid focused, it’s refreshing to see a somewhat honest approach to teenage hormones.

Truthfully, I find the romantic shenanigans to be more interesting then the constant foreshadowing of the ever-approaching wizard war. Both Harry and Ron receive more female attention then either is used too. After winning a big Quiddatch game, a girl starts to bathe Ron in affection. Which he mostly accepts to make Hermione jealous. She counters by going to a school dance with some jock. Though the two friends are clearly romantically attracted to each other, they’re still testing the boundaries of this relationship. This brings some growing pains of its own, which Hermione expresses by throwing birds at Ron. Eventually, they admit they like each other, in a really cute way. Harry has some romantic entanglements too, when a love potion intended for him winds up with Ron instead. Moments of light, romantic comedy add some much needed levity to what would otherwise be a gloomy film.

“The Half-Blood Prince” doesn’t have the big action set pieces of the previous films. There’s no hippogriff riding, dragon fights, or elaborate wizard duels. In truth, most of the big effects sequences take place in the first act. The film opens with some Death Eaters collapsing a bridge in London, one of the few times we see the wizarding world and the muggle world interact. (Disappointingly, the implications of this terrorist attack are never expanded on.) Later, the same gang of evil wizards burn down the Weasley’s shanty, leading to a brief chase through a corn field. The film’s climax is more emotional then anything else, though David Yates did throw some explosions in just for the hell of it.

With David Yates becoming the captain of Harry Potter Land, leading the entire second half of the franchise, stale serialization has seeped into the series. These last few movies are the ones that blend together the most in my mind. “The Half Blood Prince,” too often, feels like an extended act in foreshadowing, the belabored prologue to the final films. Lots of plot points are introduced with a big shrug. The mystery of the Half-Blood Prince’s identity gets the title position but ultimately plays a minuscule role.  When the truth is revealed, it’s done as an afterthought. There’s an extended sequence devoted to drinking burning black water, which seems unnecessary. “The Half-Blood Prince’s” main purpose is to set up the Horcruxes, the plot devices that will allow Harry to defeat Voldemort. When a significant ring drops on-screen, the film never bothers to explain what exactly it is to the Potter illiterate folks in the audience.

“The Half-Blood Prince” is so devoted to setting up the last film that its entire run time is just build-up to one pivotal moment, which will make everything that follows possible: The death of Dumbledore. The moment isn’t surprising, as the act had been whispered about all throughout the film. When the killing blow comes, it’s not a shock. Instead, the death happens resignedly. Dumbledore himself is fine with it, his demise obviously planned as part of his grand scheme. Yates does everything possible to add weight and importance to the moment. There’s slow motion, sweeping music, and many anguished screams. And I’m sure Dumbledore’s death was a huge tear-jerker for Potter devotees but it’s hard for me to get upset when over two hours of movie predicted it.

Like every previous “Potter” film, “Half-Blood Prince” has a loaded supporting cast. The showiest new addition is James Broadbent as Horace Slughorn, easily the dumbest name J.K. Rowling has ever conceived. But Broadbent is fine in the part, bringing some eccentric energy. Helena Bonham Carter is given a larger role, allowed to shriek and ham it up more. Michael Gambon is overly grim, further hinting at his character’s inevitable demise. Tom Felton and Bonnie Wright get meatier roles, even if the former mostly just gives magical objects serious looks. As always, the central trio do good work. Radcliffe and Grint’s small comedic touches are much welcomed.

The “Harry Potter” franchise has become so invested in its own mythology that it plays mostly to the hardcore fans, leaving casual dabblers in the dark. This represents a lack of balance in the final film. For example, Voldemort is constantly discussed but barely appears. Yates’ direction remains gloomy and heavy. Maybe this is why I like the lighter stuff in the first half – the romantic shenanigans, the banter between the main cast – way more then the leaden second half?  “Half-Blood Prince” does provide its pleasures even if my memories of it are quickly leaving my mind. [7/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Harry Potter had attracted a number of interesting directors but had trouble making them stay. Chris Columbus seemed like the guy at first but eventually couldn’t handle the seven film commitment. Alfonso Cuaron and Mike Newell would only stick around for one entry each. Enter David Yates. A director whose background was mostly in television, Yates would stick through the next three Potter films and beyond. (This seem to foreshadow the role television directors would play in the franchise-heavy future of blockbuster film making.) “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” was Yates’ first stab at the genre and obviously somebody thought he did a good job.

In their fifth year, Harry and friends are now undeniably teenagers. Fittingly, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is a tale about a very specific form of teenage rebellion. Tyrannical forces begin to take over Hogswart, rooted in the Ministry of Magic. To the viewer, it’s obvious that this new faction is affiliated with Voldemort’s dark wizards. The screenplay certainly makes this apparent. Yet most of the authority figures are clueless. So Harry and his friends organize secret classes, to teach combative magic. It’s an interesting decision to correlate traditional teenage acts against authority with a literal, underground rebellion. It also leads to a bunch of fun sequences of Harry training other kids to do offensive spells.

Rowling invented a perfectly hateful character to be the face of this new oppressive regime. Dolores Umbridge is a little old lady. She dresses primarily in pink. She decorates her office with pictures of mewing kitty cats. She almost never raises her voice. Umbridge is also a complete fascist. She slowly chips away at the students’ rights, replacing them with repressive new rules. Anyone who challenges her authority is eliminated, in the most humiliating fashion possible. Umbridge isn’t above violence either, essentially inflicting torture upon those that fight her. Imelda Staunton embodies the utterly despicable character, illustrating how fascism can slowly sneak in and take over a reasonable system. A message that is more relevant now then when the film was new.

“Order of the Phoenix” also grapples more directly with the series’ thematic concerns. Harry’s connection with Voldemort forms a serious portion of the story. The villain crawls into the hero’s head, drawing attention to how similar they are. This points towards Harry’s connection with death. How his story begins with death, how those around him keep dying, and how those deaths weigh on his mind. This is made explicit when two creatures, visible only to those who have firsthand experiences with the dying, appear. Memories are another important theme in “Order of the Phoenix.” Harry receives training from Snape to prevent an enemy from entering his mind. During these sessions, we get a glimpse at the thoughts that dominate Harry’s minds. And the thoughts that dominate Snape’s as well, seeing the truth that Potter’s dad was a bully… And Snape was his frequent victim. Because we often write our own history.

The fifth “Harry Potter” film is pretty action packed, which leaves only a little room for smaller, emotional moments. Such as Harry getting closer to Cho, the pretty Chinese girl he’s been making eyes at for two movies. This mutual attraction climaxes with the two under the mistletoe, probably one of the sweetest romantic moments in the whole series. Neville continues to gain confidence during the training session, a rewarding moment. Harry is further humanized as his reputation at Hogwarts is tarnished by some nasty rumors. Seeing the young hero a little pissed off is interesting. (This works better then the somewhat awkward attempts to insert humor midway through the film.)

As a visual stylist, David Yates isn’t as strong as Newell or Cuaron. He mostly apes their styles, covering Hogwarts in gloomy fog. When he displays an eye of his own, the results aren’t always satisfying. At one point, Yates even degrades into some incoherent shaky-cam. Yates’ best feature as a director is how he refocuses on production design. A key location is a secret room inside Hogwarts, accessible only to those who really need it. The climax of the film is set within the Ministry of Magic, among endless shelves of objects, featuring an abstract set. The cubic floors are a nice touch.

“Order of the Phoenix” doesn’t have the kind of neat creatures that the other “Harry Potter” films do. The closest we get are a species of skeletal horse-like monsters, visible only to certain people, and a juvenile giant. While the horse-things are kind of neat, the baby giant is one of the film’s weakest elements. Instead of focusing on cool monsters, “Order of the Phoenix” doubles down on the bitchin’ wizard duels. The highlight of the film is the confrontation between Voldemort and Dumbledore. For the first time, we really see what two powerful wizards fighting to the death looks like. Huge sparking bolts shot from wands. Voldemort conjures up a giant serpent made of flames. Dumbledore counters with an orb of spinning water. Shattered glass is weaponized and then rendered into sand. It’s neat.

Since being introduced, Gary Oldman’s Sirius Black has mostly been utilized as either a nutcase or a stately father figure. “Order of the Phoenix” gives him a little more to do, getting a juicy scene devoted to his family history and even a fight scene just to himself. Brendan Gleeson’s Mad-Eyed Moody also has a little more screen time, Gleeson’s committing fully to the role. Jason Isaacs’ Lucius Malfoy previously appeared as just a selfish dick weed, a bully. He graduates to full-blown villain here, a servant of the evil wizard. Helena Bonham Carter makes the showiest appearance as Bellatrix LeStrange, a wild-haired and psychotic witch. Carter mostly vamps for the camera. On the heroic side, there’s the beguiling Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood, an eccentric student that hides hidden depths.

Where does “Order of the Phoenix” fall in the hierarchy of Potter films? From this point on, the series would become more serialized, making the individual films less likely to stand out. The fifth movie’s plot is almost entirely devoted to building on what came before, causing events to blur together. It doesn’t have the memorable set pieces of the earlier pictures. It’s still pretty good but this is probably the “Potter” flick that I forget the most about in-between viewings. The world doesn’t agree, as “Order of the Phoenix” would become one of the highest grossing films in the franchise. [7/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

The release of J.K. Rowling’s literary “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” was easily when my fandom for her wizarding world burnt the brightest. I had read through the first three books in quick succession. After finishing with those, the fourth book had just been released. I immediately ate the book up. Weirdly, by the time the film adaptation was released, my interest in the series had all but entirely dried up. Funny how that works, isn’t it? Yet, I’ll admit, I still have a soft spot for this particular entry, both the novel and the movie.

Maybe my fondness for this one has a lot to do with my general enjoyment of stories based around challenges and tournaments. The Tri-Wizard Tournament provides the film with a neat structure, each of the three challenges being nestled into each act. It’s an easy way to raise the stakes, as each event is obviously more difficult then the one before it. The structure also provides some downtime between each event, allowing the pacing to flow more evenly. Making Harry an unwilling entry into the tournament provides us with a nicely conflicted hero, someone who is struggling to succeed even before the first challenge.

“The Goblet of Fire” is the Harry Potter film most about growing up. As the tagline points out, everything is going to change. Harry and Ron test the boundaries of their friendship, the two boys not speaking for a portion of the film. Both realize that Hermione has grown up into a lovely young woman. (Though Emma Watson was never exactly plain, making this transformation less believable.) By the film’s end, the characters’ innocence is gone, Harry witnessing a friend die before his eyes. They are entering a scarier world, one on the verge of war, with dark forces vying for control.

The fourth also sees a new director entering the “Harry Potter” world. If Alfonso Cuaron seemed like an unlikely choice, Mike Newell is equally unexpected. The man behind “Four Weddings and a Funeral” and “Donnie Brasco” hardly seems like the right choice for a special effects filled young adult adaptation. Yet Newell adapts well to the material. His visual palette is even gloomier then Cuaron’s, as he bathes the film in English fog. By painting the movie in darker colors, it prepares the viewer for the dark content. Such as the Death Eaters' attack on the Quddicth Cup or Harry’s descent in Dumbledore’s memories.

Another reason to like “Goblet of Fire” is the goddamn dragons. The fearsome creatures have been referenced throughout the prior films, with little Norbert being the only previous on-screen example. Here, we see full grown dragons, raging and breathing fire. Harry’s encounter with the Hungarian Horntail is easily the most exciting sequence in the film. The dragon, beautifully brought to life, sprays fire. The fight leaves the arena, the dragon pursuing Harry around the school. The obscuring fog makes the creature harder to see, raising the intensity in the fight. Unlike other, more easily won encounters, you feel like Harry really earns that victory.

The second challenge is almost as satisfying. Instead of the murky skies above Hogwarts, it’s set in the murky waters of the Black Lake. Surprisingly, there’s even some minor body horror tossed in, when Harry grows gills. The mermaids here do not resemble the beautiful fishtailed maidens of legend. Instead, they’re creepy, grey skinned fish monsters. Which is a nice touch. When smaller critters begin to drag Harry down, you even start to worry for the kid’s life a bit. “Goblet of Fire” emphasizes Harry’s vulnerability throughout, by showing the hero as something other then universally popular and beloved.

“Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” is, easily, the darkest film in the series up to this point. After a somewhat incoherent sequence set in a creepy hedge maze, the film barrels towards its final act. For the first time in the series history, Voldemort appears on-screen. After all that build-up, it would be easy to fumble the dark lord’s first appearance. However, Newell’s film handles the situation with the proper foreboding. Voldemort is brought to life by a clever combination of special effects and Ralph Fiennes, who slithers with sinister intent. Just to let you know he’s serious, he also offhandedly murders a supporting character. It’s certainly an effective note to end things on.

As with every “Potter” film, a new collection of talented British character actors join the cast. The best of which is Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eyed Moody, the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. Gleeson plays the character as just slightly unhinged, adding enough edge to make him interesting. Miranda Richardson has a nifty supporting part as Rita Skeeter, the slimy tabloid reporter that features in a few scenes. Stanislav Ianevski as Krum and Clemence Poesy as Fleur Delacour give mostly physical performances but both are well suited to the parts. Returning cast members, like Michael Gambon’s Dumbledore and Alan Rickman’s Snape, continue to get isolated moments to themselves.

In truth, “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” may be my favorite of the film series. It’s the only film in the series were the weight of the run time – once again over two hours – isn’t felt by the viewer. The conflicts are more alive then before and the young cast continues to grow in interesting new directions. It also has a stronger climax then any of the other movies, featuring good and evil truly facing each other down for the first time. Cuaron’s “Prisoner of Azkaban” is a little more ambitious but “Goblet of Fire” is ultimately a little more exciting. [7/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

For “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,” director Chris Columbus would step away from the franchise, reportedly because he wanted to spend more time with his kids. Stepping into the director’s chair was Alfonso Cuaron, a Mexican director best known for ribald coming-of-age story “Y Tu Mama Tambian.” This led to many crude jokes about Harry Potter getting into steamier adventure, since people evidently forgot that Cuaron also made “The Little Princess.” The resulting film would receive the best reviews that series had gotten up to that point, while also grossing slightly less at the box office.

J.K. Rowling had always intended her famous wizard to grow up alongside the audience. Since Harry and friends are officially thirteen year olds now, “Prisoner of Azkaban” is easily the darkest of the films up to this point. The story revolves around a dangerous criminal escaping prison and pursuing Harry, presumably with the intention of killing him. Soul sucking spectres, called Dementors and resembling the Grim Reaper, feature prominently in the story. A werewolf and an ominous black dog show up too. The tone is growing chillier too, to match the darker story and the stormier hormones of the main characters.

Chris Columbus seemed to consider the “Potter” films simple children’s stories, handcuffing his own imagination in favor of a uniform product. So Alfonso Cuaron becomes the first director to really have fun with the Potter-verse’s magical qualities. He adds whimsical elements to the story, many of them from his own imagination. Such as a double decker bus, which is invisible to mortal eyes, squeezing between traffic. One of Hogwarts’ buildings is decorated with a giant pendulum that spends back and forth. The ghosts and living paintings receive larger roles, often sprinkled into the quiet scenes. A nice touch has the Whomping Willow illustrating the changing of the seasons, the tree either covered in snow or swatting away young birds. Even the elements Cuaron inherits from the book, such as the Marauder’s Map, he brings a unique charm to.

The first film seemed satisfied to be a simple story of discovery while part two was basically a murder-free murder mystery. The third entry delves a little deeper, thematically. “The Prisoner of Azkaban” is interested in how the past connects with the present. Harry’s death filled history comes back to him literally, as Sirius pursues him. Later, Harry learns more about the legacy he has inherited from his parents, one that comes with quite a bit of baggage. Moreover, an atmosphere of secrets characterizes the film. Truths are being kept from Harry, about his parent’s death. Soon, he discovers, yet more secrets lurk among people he’s been told to hate and people he’s been told to trust.

The story’s central trio are growing more hormonal and temperamental. Harry is getting angrier, outright confronting those that attack him. He’s not the only one. After Draco Malfoy makes some racist remarks towards Hermione, she punches him in the face. Considering the bully’s role in the story are growing increasingly unnecessary, it’s a satisfying moment. Meanwhile, love is in the air more. Ron and Hermione are seen getting closer in a few scenes, their future romance being hinted at more then ever. The character seem more in line with the actors playing them.

“Prisoner of Azkaban” also features some sweet fucking monsters, an opportunity which Cuaron seems to revel in. The Dementors, written by Rowling as a metaphor for her depression, appear as wispy spectres that suck the souls right out of people. Their appearances are treated as appropriately sinister, the air freezing around them. A boggart – a British boogieman – also makes a memorable appearance, a sequence that concludes with a spider on roller skates. Black Shuck, the ominous black dog of Anglian lore which Rowling calls the Grim for some reason, puts in several memorable appearances, each one creepier then the last. This seems to foreshadow a honest-to-God werewolf showing up. Instead of the wolf-headed man we usually see in fiction, the werewolf is portrayed as an emaciated large dog, frightening but pathetic.

The supporting cast continues to be excellent, many of the same talented performers returning. Alan Rickman’s Snape is given more to do, allowed to fill out his role as a grouchy but well-meaning mentor. Richard Harris passed away between the second and third film. Michael Gambon filled his robes. Gambon’s Dumbledore is distinctly different from Harris’. He’s less like a charitable old grandfather and more like a prepared leader without loosing the sense of warmth or humor. Several notable names join the cast.  Gary Oldman is properly unhinged as Sirius Black, yet does show a second side before the end. Timothy Spall is fittingly rat-like as Peter Pettigrew, a sniveling minion. David Thewlis projects a helpful energy as Lupin while hinting at the character’s darker aspects. Emma Thompson is the showiest addition as Professor Trelawney, a kooky character that adds some humor and color to several scenes.

“Prisoner of Azkaban” features a prolonged denouncement, involving time travel. As has often been pointed out, this more-or-less breaks the entire plot. Not just of this film but all of them. Which is true. But the time travel reversal of the last act provides plenty of fun for the audience. It gives us more of Buckbeak, the delightful hippogriff that features in several key scenes. Previously seen events are revisit but somehow become more exciting then they were last time. It also pays off nicely on several small moments introduced earlier in the film.

It seems, at least for now, the quality of the “Potter” films are increasing with each new entry. “Chamber of Secrets” was better then “The Sorcerer’s Stone.” And “Prisoner of Azkaban” is better then “Chamber of Secrets.” There’s several moments of pure joy, such as Potter’s flight on the hippogriff, and thrilling action sequence, such as a fight with the Whomping Willow. Cuaron’s visual design is better, the story is sneakier, and the film utilizes its fantasy setting better. [7/10]