Plot Details: This opinion reveals minor details about the movie's plot.

He was kind. He was gentle. And he was very forgiving. I thought he'd be rough and rowdy, but Harry was actually quite sweet. He made me feel right at home. He made me feel safe, and warm, and secure. And he made the whole evening, well, magical.

Yes, it's true. I am admitting it here, now: I was a Harry Potter virgin. I had made a bold effort to stay away from all the books, all the movies, all the lunch boxes, etc. Until when? Who knows? Why? Again, who knows? Let's just say that my goal was to wait until marriage. But when a friend dragged me to the movie theatre this weekend, I had the feeling that it would be the night when I popped my Harry Potter cherry.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for a massive cultish fad that gets kids reading. And from what I had heard, this massive cultish fad actually had some depth of thought to it. That's great. I just didn't want any part of it. I wanted to keep my purity, at least in the face of this popular behemoth. So my abstinence was important to me.

Now that I'm no longer lily white, there is but one question that needs answering: Did it feel good? Well, it hurt a lot (not knowing the background of the story, I could have used the kind of lubing that a quick narrative recap would provide). But I think, with some practice, Harry and I will make a fine partnership.

Alfonso Cuarón directed "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". Since this is the same man who directed "Y Tu Mama Tambien", I was half-expecting him to show Harry and Ron masturbating on diving boards. Alas, it's not that kind of movie. Though it does feature an opening scene where Harry plays with his wand under the bed sheets. From there we are treated to a bit of business about Harry's current home life, which quickly explains why he must flee the oppressive comforts of his Aunt and Uncle's. And then we watch as Harry hops a spectral double-decker bus, and makes his way into the warm confines of the world of magic. It is there where the film really start to take off; due in part to Cuarón's impressive visual sense, and the murderer's row of a cast.

Hogwarts castle, the centrepiece setting of the film, is a wonderful creation. The conscious paintings that line the castle's corridors give it a living/breathing feel (not to mention a touch of curmudgeonliness; watch them get annoyed when woken from a nighttime slumber by a rather bright magic wand). The dynamic staircases, the oak-lined classrooms, and the staid but glorious Great Hall are all sights to behold. I am hesitant, though, to give all credit to Cuarón. For the previous two films' director, Chris Columbus, must have had something to do with the conception, if not the execution, of Hogwarts. Though, having seen some of Columbus' insipid oeuvre ("Home Alone", "Mrs. Doubtfire", "Nine Months") I'd guess not.

Cuarón also excels at creating a menagerie of fantastical creatures. Buckbeak, the hippogriff -- a winged horse with the head and claws of an eagle -- initially strikes fear in our heroes' hearts, then gives a rousing performance as it flies through the forests and valleys and over the rivers that surround the castle. It is the film's most joyous moment. Tempering that is the appearance of several werewolves, framed strikingly in the moonlight. They will surely give anyone who ever feared that which breathes heavily under the bed cause to revert back to an anxious childhood.

Unfortunately, what should have been the film's most chilling mythical figures turned out to be a lot of hot air. The Dementors, a race of black spirits charged with guarding the prison of Azkaban, would have been impressive if this were early 2001. But I've seen "The Lord of the Rings", and the Dementors pale in comparison to that series' Ringwraiths.

The striking thing about the film's cast is how many famous names it holds. I mean, I found myself reading the closing credits, saw that Julie Christie was in the movie, and realized she had made absolutely no impression on me at all. The rest of the All-Star British cast at least left a memory in my head, for better or for worse.

David Thewlis, a newcomer to the dramatis personae, makes the biggest impression. Thewlis is an actor who single-handedly made Mike Leigh's "Naked" a towering work of art, so much so that I have refrained from watching the movie a second time for fear that it may tarnish my near-perfect impression of his performance. Here he plays Professor Remus Lupin, a name so lacking in subtlety that it should contain a spoiler warning (why not just call him 'Wolfy McLycanthrope' and be done with it?). Professor Lupin takes Harry under his wing, when everyone else seems downright scared of the kid, in such a way that the father-figures-in-place-of-the-absent-father theme is alluded to but never ground into dust. He has some nice sparring moments with Alan Rickman's Professor Severus Snape, though the former comes across as a fully-formed character while the latter, at least in the context of this movie, is nothing more than a hard-edged teacher dressed all in black. Rickman tries hard, though -- he manages to take a benign line like "turn to page 394" and make it bone chilling -- but is never fleshed out.

Which is a sentiment that could be applied to much of the rest of the cast. Michael Gambon, here replacing the late Richard Harris as Professor Dumbledore, relies mainly on the Gandalf template in portraying his wizened and benevolent old wizard. He's got the twinkly eyes and charming smile down pat, but is given too little to do to make any kind of impression. Emma Thompson, on the other hand, is given even less to do, but gets an A for her effort in turning Professor Sybil Trelawney into an image that stands out in the audience's mind. Sadly, she gets a D- for execution. Professor Trelawney is a symphony of bad costume choices (curly fright wig, coke-bottle glasses, and enough scarves to make a gypsy jealous), and annoying facial tics (I worried for her exploding neck muscles, which danced and jerked with every word she spoke).

Gary Oldman, as is his wont (being Gary Oldman and all), is nearly unrecognizable as he plays the most vigorous character in the movie. He's the other title character, a dastardly man named Sirius Black, who, we're told, escaped from the dreaded prison Azkaban and is now headed this way to kill Harry. He's only seen in bits and pieces throughout the film's first two-thirds (a neat effect brings his "Wanted" poster to life, as Oldman is caught in a silent primal scream; chilling stuff, made even more delightful when it's subverted later). But when he does appear on screen, the character is revealed to be a lot more complex than you'd first expected (that is unless, unlike me, you've read the book). And if you have read the book you'll understand just why escaping from Azkaban in the first place is a remarkable feat. Otherwise you will, like me, just shrug off this news, as the film does nothing to offer proof that Black's exploits should be marveled at.

But what of our young leads? It's an easy leap to say that their inexperience hampers their performances (just like my inexperience hampered my performance, when first encountering Harry's touch; I must say, though, that once I got into the rhythm of things, it all came out well).

Much has been written about Daniel Radcliffe's wooden acting as Harry. Having never experienced it before I often wondered if it could really be that bad. Well, it is. Daniel may brag about having played a scene with Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, and David Thewlis. But he made slightly less of an impression in that scene than the floorboards or the ceiling did. He does fine yelling through his youthful rage, or looking stone-faced when confronted by a confusing predicament. But if I'm to believe that Harry is a tormented soul, a saviour amongst young wizards, then I think the franchise needs a new lead.

Emma Watson (as Hermione) and Rupert Grint (as Ron Weasley) make slightly better impressions, if only because they are asked to play one note. Watson's note sounds like a plucky young girl intent on making it in a boy's world. Grint is asked to play awkward pre-teen. Both make out well enough, when given those modest expectations. But don't bring much else to their parts.

At one point, a choir of wizard children sings in the Great Hall. The lyrics, taken directly from Shakespeare's "Scottish Play", attempt to give the proceedings an air of poetry. "Double, double toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble," they sing. And then what could be the film's Macguffin of a tagline: "Something wicked this way comes." What was once a call to the dark arts by three wicked witches, on a thunderous and lightning-filled heath, has now become a child's nursery rhyme. Preaching to an enormous cultish following of new young-adult readers. Which is a wonderful thing. For them. For me, the jury is still out. Maybe I'll sample Harry's wares again. If the experience is half as pleasurable as the one I found cuddled up next to "The Prisoner of Azkaban", then Harry and I will have a long, rewarding relationship. If not then we'll still have the memories of our one magical night.

Recommended: Yes