NOT WITHOUT MY DAUGHTER
7/10



Taut and compelling adaptation of Betty Mahmoody’s nightmarish chronicle of how her Iranian husband brought her and their young daughter to his native land for a “vacation” that turned out to be a permanent stay in an oppressive society for an American – and especially an American woman. Though based on a true story, “Not Without My Daughter” received a lot of criticism over the years for its unflattering portrayal of Iranian culture and Islam in general – and while it’s true that Alfred Molina’s performance as Mahmoody’s husband flips to villainy in a heartbeat, that’s also how both Mahmoody and her daughter portrayed it happening. Certainly the film is well-produced with Sally Field a perfect fit for Mahmoody’s cinematic alter-ego and director Brian Gilbert building up ample tension as the film portrays her near-impossible escape back to the U.S. with young daughter in tow.

MVD’s Blu-Ray debut of “Not Without My Daughter” includes a 1080p (1.85) AVC encoded transfer and PCM 2-channel soundtrack. This frankly isn’t one of Jerry Goldsmith’s better efforts, offering a nice conclusion but alternately synth-dominated or syrupy cues comprising the bulk of the score. The transfer is serviceable, well-encoded by MVD but derived from what looks like an older MGM HD master, with the trailer and brief six-minute featurette also on-tap. (Interestingly, Mahmoody’s daughter has since written her own book, “My Name Is Mahtob,” mostly focused on the events that followed the 1991 film).

Black Panther 6.5/10

I have very mixed feeling about this movie. On the one hand, I loved seeing a movie set in Africa -- which is actually about Africans for a change (and not white people who live among Africans), and moreover I think it's great that there is an African superhero like the Black Panther. And I'm not trying to be PC here, nor afflicted with "white guilt". I have a lot of African friends (50% of the people who attend my church are immigrants from West Africa), and I'm just very pleased to see their culture (or at least a fictionalized pastiche of of it) celebrated in a popcorn "tent pole". The cast are great -- Chadwick Boseman is fabulous in the title role, and has genuine chemistry with Lupita Nyong'o.

But dash it all, I wish this cast had a better vehicle in which to showcase their talent. Black Panther is totally formulaic endeavor -- even by comic book movie standards -- with few original ideas in its entire (overlong) running time. The visual style repurposes scenes, images, sets, action sequences, etc. from all kinds of other movies. The Korean casino sequences is very reminiscent of the Macao sequence in Skyfall. The scenes in which T'Challa speaks with the spirit of his dead father heavily recall The Lion King. The car chase in the Korea sequence is nothing we haven't seen before. Andy Serkis' villain is the same kind of stock "bad guy" we've seen in countless other comic book movies. The climactic battle scene is very reminiscent of the big battle in Return of the King -- complete with unrealistic CGI beasts, and animated bodies that don't move like real people and the totally unconvincing landscape in the background. Even the fancy end title graphics look a Bond title sequence.

Further on the effects, it has been nearly twenty years since The Lord of the Rings made its debut -- and the effects in Black Panther aren't any more advanced or sophisticated that those of that 2001 film. In fact The Phantom Menace had better effects than this movie. Black Panther also over-relies on CGI -- all of the African "exteriors" look like set-bound green screen shots.

Ludwig Göransson's score is pretty decent -- with attractive African vocal elements and moments of nice orchestral writing, which is refreshingly un-Zimmer-esque. But since every scene in the film is either dialog or noisy action, he doesn't get much of an opportunity to write broadly.

A watchable film, with wonderful performers and characters -- but squandered on a run-of-the-mill (and ironically, sometimes-slow-moving) actioner.

SCHINDLER'S LIST
8/10

This is undoubtedly the kind of opinion that gets you tossed around online, but after watching the spectacular new 4K UHD of "Schindler's List," I had some new thoughts on Spielberg's 1993 Oscar winner: namely, I just don't feel this film is as great as many believe it is. And not only that, I don't think it's Spielberg's best work either (I feel both "Amistad" and "Empire of the Sun" are more satisfying among Spielberg's "dramatic works").

There are unquestionably some brilliant, and horrifying, and life-affirming, moments in this film -- the scenes where Schinder builds his "list" with his Jewish accountant (Ben Kingsley), and the entire ending, are thoroughly powerful and moving -- yet I found the script and Spielberg's focus lacking. I wanted more stories, more detail, about the Jewish Holocaust survivors who are seen throughout the film, yet whose plight mostly takes a backseat to the alternating stories of Oscar Schindler (Liam Neeson, back when he was a strong actor and not an action hero) and the Nazi commandant (a surprisingly pudgy looking Ralph Fiennes) who I felt just took up so much screen time...too much...in comparison. I'm sure Spielberg was trying to contrast the different human reactions and behaviors of two men outside the Jewish faith -- one who ultimately does the right thing, another whose brutality is just psychotic in every respect -- during this horrifying event, and yet I didn't feel the movie was "balanced" in its depiction of these disparate elements.

It's a Holocaust movie that's most impactful when it's actually about the Holocaust, the families who endured it (and who perished during it), and their story of day-to-day survival -- and despite the movie's bloated running time, I didn't feel there was enough of this most important component. In fact it's surprising how little development there is of these characters for a movie that runs as long as it does (well over 3 hours). I also felt there were gratuitous elements in the film, especially in the depiction of the relationship between Fiennes and Embeth Davidtz's Jewish servant girl, which came off as Spielberg "pushing himself" to get an R rating -- and were not necessary to the overall picture either.

No doubt, there are many laudable and important things in the film -- and I gained a new appreciation for John Williams's score, especially at the end -- but the total emotional impact of the movie sort of left me cold, as it did years ago. You are left contemplating how insidious an event like this could happen, yes, but also that Spielberg didn't capture every angle of it -- and most significantly failed to develop characterizations among the Jewish victims as much as he could have. That would have resulted in a more satisfying -- and even more devastating and emotional -- picture.

Schindler's List depicts an important subject -- one which everyone should be aware of. But, as often happens, some people conflate the "importance" of a film's subject matter with the film's inherent dramatic quality. Schindler's List is a very good film -- and well-worth seeing -- I can't bring myself to say it is a great one.

I always felt that shooting the film in black and white was a mistake. The lack of color actually removed me from the drama, and rendered it distant and less immediate. The shots of gunfire flashes in the Krakow liquidation scene were clearly ILM opticals -- and ruined what should have been a believable-looking moment (they couldn't have used real, on-set flashes to create the effect?). And why do we need a shot of Ralph Fiennes taking a leak? Only "bad people" use the toilet?

Schindler's List has powerful moments to be sure -- the frustrated SS officers trying to murder an inmate with a jammed pistol, a child hiding in a septic tank to avoid capture, and of course the final scene of the film in Israel. But the film doesn't provide the broader sense of the human tragedy that befell millions of people in Europe at that time.

To start with, all of the main characters in Schindler's List survive the Holocaust. Yes, it is horrifying to see Goth randomly shooting the camp inmates, and the murders of various other "secondary characters" (who aren't part of the main story). But the film does not address the even more horrific crimes of the Nazis -- the medical experimentation on human beings, the systematic murders of the mentally-challenged and other "physically inferior" people, inmates forced into sex slavery, Jews being locked inside synagogues which were subsequently burned to the ground, etc. The film contains the scene where the women are led into what seems certain to be a gas chamber -- but turns out to be an ordinary shower. It is a terrifying scene, which concludes with a powerfully cathartic sense of relief -- but what of the millions of others who weren't so lucky?

In mitigation, those other examples of inhumanity don't figure into the story of Oskar Schindler, so the film can't be blamed for their omission. What bothers me is not the film itself in this case, but the opinion held by many that Schindler's List is the "definitive" cinematic depiction of the Holocaust, when it in fact doesn't provide the viewer anywhere near the full picture.

I love Steven Spielberg's work, and he's made some of my favorite films -- not just "escapist ficks" like Jaws and Raiders, but historic dramas like Amistad as well (and no one director has done more to advance the use of great music in films). But Schindler's List always struck me as an attempt to "be someone else" (not unlike Martin Scorsese with Age of Innocence around the same time). I think Spielberg was overly-cautious when making Schindler's List -- as if the 15 years where he was criticized for "sentimentality" and "being manipulative" induced him to avoid "making a Steven Spielberg movie" -- like it would somehow cheapen the subject. I think by the time he made Amistad he'd made peace with himself and trusted his original muse (which is why Amistad is the better film).

Agreed Paul. Even if the point was to follow the people who survived (and still not address the larger issues like you said), my main gripe is let's follow them -- I didn't need so many scenes of Feinnes hitting on Embeth Davidtz and shirtlessly shooting prisoners with his sniper rifle. I found that my recall of the actual survivors was based on their appearance (the little girl with glasses, for example) instead of actual character development, and more of the latter would have resulted in a richer, more moving experience. For a movie that runs an excessive length, it's a major shortcoming IMO.

I also agree Spielberg was shooting for something R-rated and "out of his comfort zone," when in reality, more of the emotional component that marks so many of his films could have been used here -- and should have. It felt intentionally restrained outside of the last 20 minutes, and should not have been.

Still a fine film and worth seeing -- but it's not great.

Andy & Paul

Your comments are warranted & everyone sees thing differently.

Just wanted to say that I have promoted films since the 1950's & did four previews for Schindler's List, 1 for UIP, 2 for the press & 1 for advance screenings & in all the years of promoting films, it is the only time by the end the audience were shocked into absolute silence, no one knew if they should applaud or remain until the tabs (curtains) closed or even move, 4 for 4 it happened.

The film as indeed every film has flaws, but I do not think there is a feature out there that had the power this had (maybe still has) at the time & the impact on an audience, clearly due to the silence of those leaving the cinemas still had the visuals playing on their minds while leaving.

An amazingly difficult subject to bring to the general public & as it was from the view of the book and not the overall Holocaust I feel it did the job & then some. Particularly as I saw the effect it had at the time on the viewers.

But thank you for your comments it makes very interesting reading to see different opinions & view points. One last point I wonder if it changes views from the USA perspective to the European, which of course is my only view point.

Most enjoyable reading on a difficult subject.

regards
Andy b

I enjoyed Schindler's List and wept like a baby in the theater at the end...it was one of the most profound and moving experiences I have ever had at the cinema. During the end credits and afterward, as people left the theater, no one said a word. No one spoke as they walked out. Having said that, I think Andy and Paul make some great points which I have never thought through before. I will have to watch it again with those things in mind (and maybe read the book and do the book-movie review).

I did like that he filmed it in black and white though!

BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) - 9/10. In the past I have enjoyed this film more than its predecessor, FRANKENSTEIN. But watching it recently I have come to change my mind. I actually prefer FRANKENSTEIN to BRIDE at this point in my life. BRIDE is much more dynamic and energetic, both of which are positives. Infusing the Monster with some character (and enabling him to speak as he does in the original novel) was a good move. I liked that the Monster had more "humanity" in him than either his creator or Dr. Pretorius. Waxman's score is excellent, and I also loved Whale's use of the camera and how he set up the entrances of his characters, especially Dr. Pretorius. There are a lot of memorable shots from that film; it is beautifully staged and executed. But for whatever reason I like the darker undertone of FRANKENSTEIN; I like the more serious reflection on the morality/ethics of what that film was all about. BRIDE seems to me to be more about Dr. Pretorius than Henry Frankenstein, and while Ernest Thesiger has the time of his life with the part, he's just too over-the-top for me. Una O'Connor's Minnie is a bit over-the-top too. For me, FRANKENSTEIN was more about horror whereas BRIDE was more about entertainment, and the themes of FRANKENSTEIN just resonated with me more this time around. They are both good films though.

The film as indeed every film has flaws, but I do not think there is a feature out there that had the power this had (maybe still has) at the time & the impact on an audience, clearly due to the silence of those leaving the cinemas still had the visuals playing on their minds while leaving.

I'm absolutely not discounting the power the film had -- or its significance in terms of bringing the subject matter to the masses. We need more movies like this, especially today. And I still think it's a very fine film with a knockout ending -- but I do think as a collective piece of cinema, and dramatically storytelling, it is flawed, in ways that for me keep it from being "great". That's just how I feel. I also think some critics didn't want to carp about the film in any regard out of fear they were somehow "criticizing the Holocaust". It was very easy for critics to dump on Spielberg's prior efforts at "being serious" (EMPIRE OF THE SUN in particular) but when he made SCHINDLER'S LIST it was an impenetrable subject matter to criticize, and suddenly it was this faultless cinematic masterwork. I really don't feel that it is, in spite of some brilliant sequences. Then again I feel the same way about SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

That said -- it's incredibly sad that in 1993 we had movies like SCHINDLER'S LIST being honored for Oscars. In 2018 we have...BLACK PANTHER. Depressing, and kind of says it all.

AQUAMAN
8/10




Big, colorful, boisterous and refreshingly unpretentious, "Aquaman" finally sets the DC Universe on an upbeat, escapist course that's far removed from the dread-inducing (and at times dreadful) Zach Snyder productions that characterized the post-Christopher Nolan era of the brand's cinematic endeavors. Gone are the mopey Batman and guilt-ridden Superman, and in their place is Jason Momoa's hard-drinking, charismatic Arthur Curry -- the half-breed son of the Queen of Atlantis (Nicole Kidman) who finally battles for his rightful Atlantean throne just in time to prevent his half-brother Orm (Patrick Wilson) from igniting a war with the "surface people." In order to accomplish this, Orm has to unite the disparate undersea kingdoms of Atlantis -- some of which include talking crustaceans and a horsefish-riding Dolph Lundgren -- all the while Arthur and the lovely Mera (the quite-fetching Amber Heard) hope to stop him by looking for a magical trident that only the next true heir of Atlantis can possess. Oh, and there's Aquaman's main archrival, Black Manta, on-tap too, running around the world trying to exact revenge for his father's death!

"Aquaman," scripted by David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick and Will Beall, is absolutely stuffed to the gills (sorry) with colorful Don Burgess cinematography, outlandish creatures and action -- but unlike too many of these genre exercises, this one refuses to take itself seriously and works in a completely disarming way that none of the contemporary DC films have been able to (that includes the decent if comparatively heavier-handed "Wonder Woman"). Credit all of that to director James Wan, playing in a grander sandbox here than was afforded to him on his previous pictures, who goes all in on the outrageousness and fantasy elements of its storyline, fashioning the material in a way that makes you irritated Warner Bros. didn't hire him to retool Superman a few years ago. This picture is occasionally charming and funny -- especially the scenes with Momoa and Heard -- plus visually engaging from start to finish, even if certain elements feel overly familiar and it all (as usual) goes on much too long.

Regardless, "Aquaman" manages to be more family-friendly, romantic and just downright fun compared to the overly violent DC missteps of recent years (here's looking at you, "Man of Steel" and "Batman V Superman") -- while also coming across as more flavorful and individualistic than most Marvel products produced over that same time. With a terrific cast (Willem Dafoe is superb as Arthur's Atlantean tutor Vulko) and even a surprisingly melodic Rupert Gregson-Williams score that has its moments (seemingly using Giorgio Moroder and Daft Punk's "Tron Legacy" soundtrack as a guide), "Aquaman" doesn't just stay afloat but swimmingly pleases in its genre, in a way few of its peers have in a long while.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (8/10)

I hadn’t actually watched any of the Harry Potter films since 2011, and felt it was high time to revisit them.

When I originally saw Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, I was bowled-over. It almost seemed tailor-made for me — I have always been a fan of the fantasy genre (and a consummate Anglophile), plus the film featured several of my favorite actors, and was shot in (well, more accurately, utilized landscapes from) some of my favorite places in Scotland. Complimenting its "Britishness" was the way it also recaptured the wonder and adventure of those early Steven Spielberg films I loved as a kid. The latter is no surprise, given that Potter director Chris Columbus was a protegé of Spielberg, and of course the The Sorcerer’s Stone was scored by none other than John Williams. Throughout multiple viewings over the next ten years, I regarded Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone the best film of the series, and a timeless classic, on a par with The Wizard of Oz, or Star Wars.

Viewing it again last night, I was disappointed to find myself less enthralled. JK Rowling is a remarkable storyteller, and her books — twenty years on — obviously continue to capture the imagination of new generations of readers (and look certain to take their place as classics). And I did enjoy this movie -- but at the same time, I found it uneven.

The narrative flow of the picture feels awkward at times, and there are slow stretches, while some scenes don’t seem to have as much dramatic tension as they ought. And while the film has some genuinely memorable imagery, I was struck by how bland-looking it is much of the time (certainly for a fantasy movie). Stuart Craig's sets are brilliantly inventive (and some of the best-ever in the fantasy genre), and while I am a fan of Chris Columbus, who is a wonderful storyteller (with a real knack for directing children), I found his use of the camera rather perfunctory, and at times a bit static.

Further on the visuals, I never felt cinematographer John Seale was the right fit for this movie. Some scenes are beautifully shot -- such as the moody lighting of the of Hogwarts interiors, and the warm, cosy look of The Leaky Caulron. But the "exteriors" which utilize blue screen shots aren't lit realistically, and are obviously set-bound. Diagon Alley is another of Stuart Craig's extraordinary creations, but Seale's lighting -- particularly the multiple shadows cast from above -- completely give it away as a soundstage construct. The location work (filmed at Alnwick Castle) obviously comes off as "more real" — but doesn’t really match-up with the sets, and the scenes shot there almost look like a different movie.

The effects are very hit and miss as well. Effects like the flying keys are superbly-rendered. The troll scene looks really good. But while the quidditch match is a paragon of complex choreography — it doesn't look very believable. The lighting on all the players is flat and high-key; again, as though no pains were taken to replicate realistic outdoor lighting conditions. The background plates in this sequence -- even though they realistically move in tandem with the action -- have a lifeless "flatness" to them. I'm also amazed at the use of some pretty archaic practical effects, such as the reflective material on the backdrop outside Harry's window -- which is supposed to resemble a moonlit lake, but merely looks like reflective material stuck to a backdrop. Likewise, the wraith-like being which flies toward Harry in the dark forest looks just like what it is -- an empty robe on a coat hanger lifted by a string.

Maybe I am being nit-picky, but while none of these things stood out to me previously (much less affected the "spell" of the picture) today they compromise the experience. I wondered if maybe I've been too conditioned to the visual flamboyance which has dominated movies since Sorcerer's Stone's original release -- but I was reminded that Star Wars and Close Encounters still look really impressive today.

All things considered, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is still a very good movie, with a lot going for it -- a spectacular cast which includes of some of the finest talent Britain ever produced, and Chris Columbus deserves high praise for his discovery of three immensely gifted young actors (all of whom have gone on to shake-off typecasting and carve-out careers as serious actors). John Williams' score is one of his best, and as usual adds enormous scope, artistry and feeling to the movie. And of course JK Rowling's story is utterly captivating, and manages to remain compelling even if the film sometimes leans toward the perfunctory. We also have to thank Chris Columbus for establishing the impressive template on which all the subsequent Harry Potter movies were based.

My question — and this more a personal reflection — is why a once-favorite film now seems so clunky to me. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was one of those special pictures for me, one which made me feel like "I wish I lived in that world." Viewing it now, I found it hard to really immerse myself in that world which once so captivated me. I might have chalked my reaction up to old favorites simply "losing their lustre" as one gets older, but in the past year I've revisited E.T., Star Wars, Close Encounters, First Blood, Superman (and even the sometimes-goofy Highlander) -- and was surprised and delighted at how great they still are. Heck, I enjoyed Close Encounters more at this age than when I was a kid!

Perhaps Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone just isn’t the “timeless classic” I thought it was.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (8/10)

I am not sure if the storyline of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is quite as good as that of The Sorcerer’s Stone, but in terms of cinematic technique, this second entry in the series is certainly better executed — with a more cohesive flow, and superior visual storytelling. Chris Columbus exhibits a more adventurous use of the camera, while John Seale is replaced by Roger Pratt, who is better suited to the genre (having shot Brazil, Batman and The Fisher King), and whose approach results in look which is both naturalistic and "magical".

Perhaps (as a veteran of four collaborations with Terry Gilliam), it was Pratt who nudged Columbus to increase the camera movement and throw-in more visual interest. Whatever the reason, Columbus invests Chamber of Secrets with a added degree of motion, detail and overall “eye candy”, which render it a more optically-engaging movie. The aerial tracking shots of Hogwarts draw the viewer's eye considerably more than the static graphics of the school in the previous movie. Likewise, the festive, nostalgic sight of copious sleighs skating across the frozen lake is a more satiating way to introduce Christmas than Hagrid dragging a tree across the courtyard (as in the previous film).



The effects are, on balance, also of a higher standard — the Baselisk is monstrous creation, as are the giant spiders, and all of them are pretty-convincing CGI creatures. The Qudditch match is likewise better-realized, with a better sense of of realism (and more-believable lighting).

Rowling’s new characters — like Kenneth Branagh’s Gilderoy Lockhart, and Jason Issacs’ Lucius Malfoy — are interesting (and, in their own unique ways, sinister) additions to the mix. Dobby the house elf is also wonderful character, providing comic relief as well as a statement about bigotry and slavery (without being heavy-handed).

Although the climax is more exciting and “action-packed” than that of Sorcerer’s Stone, I think Chamber of Secrets overall is a bit of a slow burn — and while it never really gets "boring", one feels a touch of restlessness now and again.

The music is a little disappointing — through no fault of John Williams -- but the fact he was only able to score selected scenes (leaving the rest for William Ross to adapt) was a bit of a let-down. Still, I am grateful Williams wrote as much as he did. I wouldn’t say his new cues are quite as arresting as those in Sorcerer’s Stone, but they are among his better work. Sadly, Williams' music is given a terrible dub in the climactic Baselisk sequence, where you can barely hear it over the sound effects!

I will say that, like Sorcerer’s Stone, Chamber of Secrets did not hold quite the same resonance for me as it once did. Still I found it very enjoyable and engaging -- and slightly more so than its predecessor. Its narrative unfolds with a smoother pace, and and is simply a better-visualized picture than the first film.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (9/10)

I basically liked this movie when I first saw it, but at the same time, felt let-down. To me, Prisoner of Azkaban lacked the “heart” of the Columbus movies (and had a some awkward moments). I have to admit I even found John Williams' score a little disappointing, in its de-emphasis of the whimsical sentiment of his previous Potter scores, in lieu of a more melancholy tone, and strident, harder edge (with almost entirely new themes).

Viewing it again, I find that, much as my original feelings toward Sorcerer’s Stone have changed, my feelings toward Prisoner of Azkaban have likewise modified, and I found it a much more a rewarding experience this time. In fact, for me, it was the most emotionally resonant of the first three movies — and certainly the most visually sumptuous.

Now, by no means am I throwing Chris Columbus under the (knight!) bus — The Sorcerer’s Stone was more than solid (and again it was Columbus who cast the three leads and other actors, and recruited Stuart Craig and John Williams to the franchise). Nor are all of Alfonso Cuarron’s ideas perfect — I still don’t understand why he changed Leaky Caudron barman Tom into a silly, Marty Feldman-like hunchback. Why is the Dursley’s previously middle-class suburban neighborhood now an urban slum? Aunt Marge’s inflation scene takes far-longer than it should (and isn't as funny as we're expected to find it), and that freeze-frame which concludes the movie is a little cringe-inducing.





That said, The Prisoner of Azkaban remains for the most part an amazing-looking movie, wherein Cuarron seizes upon Columbus’ inspired ideas and takes them in exciting new directions. Cuarron exhibits a tour-de-force of camera movement and an extraordinary visual sensibility, with a Terry Gilliam-like flair — which may be sometimes-eccentric, but overall serves the material well.

The scenes concerning Harry and Sirius Black are tremendously effective and emotionally resonant, both when Harry is bent on killing Sirius, and then later when he comes to realize who Sirius truly is, and a father-son bond forms between the two. Rowling’s story overall has a lot of interesting twists and turns, and enigmatic characters (like Professor Lupin). The film is also better-paced than the first two movies, with nary a dull moment. The only real narrative fault of the picture is that it doesn't adequately explain why the dementors -- which are clearly evil beings -- are being deployed by the Ministry of Magic, who presumably are the "good guys". The book explains that the Ministry is in some ways corrupt, and Minister of Magic Cornelius Fudge an opportunist who will (almost literally) make a "deal with the devil" if it is expedient. I wish the film had made this more clear.

Admittedly it is hard for a character actor like Michael Gambon to fill the shoes of an icon like Richard Harris. Yet, while I still think the role should have gone to Peter O’Toole (as Harris’ own family requested), I have come to accept Gambon as the headmaster. Admittedly (being younger), Gambon moves around a little better and has a kinetic energy than Harris did (still, I wish Curron had cast O'Toole).

The film is strikingly well-shot, and Michael Seresin's unique style (he tends to light from only one side) bathes the entire production in a moody, period look. Stuart Craig further stretches his imagination and comes-up with extraordinary new sets, like Hogwarts' massive clock and pendulum, and the shifting walls of the shrieking shack. The Hogsmead sequence possesses a lovely “Christmas card” aesthetic (and the snow effects are fully convincing).

John Williams’ score I likewise find myself re-evaluating. Sorcerer’s Stone remains my favorite of his Potter efforts, but his music for Prisoner of Azkaban is, on reflection, more impressive than I originally gave it credit for. Certainly it is the most eclectic score that Williams has ever written, encompassing a more traditional romantic style (for which he is best-known), as well as avant garde writing, renaissance music and even progressive jazz! There are also moments of sublime beauty (like Buckbeak’s Flight, and the cues for the scene between Harry and Professor Lupin).

Kudos also to Cuaron for choosing to shoot some of the film on location in Scotland (rather than on a backlot or against a blue screen). This gives the scenes (and the film overall) a stronger verisimilitude. There are other nice touches, such as Dawn French as the lady in the painting (who does some fun shtick, which adds more personality to the school), and the ghostly knights taking part in the “headless hunt”. The “change of season” interludes featuring the Whomping Willow are likewise brings some “visual poetry” to the film.

Someone has hacked Paul's account, I am calling customer service!!

I love the score for AZKABAN much more than the other two. Of the first three films, it was also my favorite. Enjoying the reviews!