Are we back here again, so soon? Me, the designated Guy Who Never Read The Book, and you, Lover And Devoted Fan Of The Book. I always bring that up, but only because it�s important that folks who adored every little sentence understand that I�m reviewing this from a different angle. You know what's coming by now, don't you?

Okay, let's go over it again, then. I think Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a nice movie, but don't absolutely adore it like you readers will. I can tell there are so many inside jokes that I don't get, and I'm perfectly happy for over two hours, entertained by a bang-up story, creative effects and characters full of depth and personality.

So now we understand each other, and can move on.

	Nyuck, nyuck, those three silly sorcerer stooges are always getting into crazy situations!

Being a pop culture phenomenon, Prisoner of Azkaban started playing at midnight Thursday night here in Atlanta, going where just a few films dare (Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and The Matrix Reloaded previously arriving with such aplomb). J.K. Rowling didn�t have to conjure up an audience; there were five screens, all of them packed at the Parkway Pointe 15, and I didn't detect any detractors on the way out.

I�ve heard and read one commonality in the early reviews, that the third installment to the Potter franchise is darker and more mature. Can�t say that I disagree. There�s plenty of brooding brewing. You can�t trust anyone, especially adults. Everyone withholds information vital to Harry�s life, and he reveals little as well that might help save him.

When Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone came out in Nov. 2001, and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets a year later, they both were nice to look at and provided an interesting story to follow, but I didn�t heap praise on either. I liked Azkaban more, in short, because Harry and his Super Hero Wizard Justice League pals are growing up.

The third chapter of the popular novels is notably different than the previous two. If the last two Chris Columbus-directed flicks were chewing gum, they'd be Dubble Bubble, tough to dent at first but sugary sweet throughout. The third part, directed by Alfonso Cuar�n, is more like Black Jack gum. It's darker, gritty and strong, but you're more likely to remember the substance long afterwards.

To carry this metaphor too far, as the wizards keep getting older, of course, they're more likely to pick up some bubble gum cigarettes. Then again, considering Cuar�n is known most for directing the racy Y tu mam� tambi�n , it's a wonder Hermione and Ron didn't get more, um, acquainted than a few suggestive touches.

Like the previous two, I have to defer most of the likeability of the movie on the supporting cast than Harry. Maybe I'm too harsh on him. Harry does have a lot of drama on his plate, and Daniel Radcliffe bestows on him more of an outgoing spirit this time around, and handles a few emotional moments with heft.

This leaves the comedy and spirit to friends Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint), although he doesn�t do much than gawk at what�s happening. Can I just say that in five years, Emma Watson is going to be h-o-t? (Oh, sorry, is that my out loud voice?)

They have to fill time, since Harry passes out a lot, the tea leaves say he�s happy about being in grim danger, and he undoubtedly will in the future be troubled by the inevitability of Ron and Hermione going steady.

The movie begins like the rest, a brief check in the land of Muggles to show that Harry is more and more disillusioned with his guardian family, then quickly on Mr. Rogers� train to Hogwarts and the land of make-believe. Prisoner of Azkaban quickly gets through the new things, the "how cool is that" and back to the known and the story. Some of the neat things include the triple-decker bus, the Monster Book of Monsters, and that bird-horse thing, Buckbeak, which takes a substantial role in the lives of our heroes. Elsewhere, the whomping willow is the meanest tree since Poltergeist; it don't want no bluebird on its shoulder branches, but werewolves are sooo Van Helsing.

Most all of your favorite people and places are back, such as the hairy, furry Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and Professor Snape (Alan Rickman), who dominates every scene he�s in but I�m left with more questions regarding his role in the entire series.

The amount of paintings and ghosts seems to have doubled, yet no John Cleese, nor is Dobby hanging out anymore. Blonde prick Malfoy (Tom Felton) still doesn't work well with others, but he�s rendered more of a comic foe than seriously troubling, running away crying more than me when the Red Sox lose.

Michael Gambon (Open Range, Gosford Park) takes over as Dumbledore seamlessly from the departed Richard Harris. I�ve seen both the previous films a couple of times, but couldn�t tell the difference.

Gary Oldman is most welcome as the prisoner of the title, Sirius Black, who we�re told is a "murdering raving lunatic." I would tell you more, but then I�d have to cast a spell to clear your memory. In fact, I just did reveal it, but magically erased the words and emptied your mind. You will now get me a RC Cola and Moon Pie.

Thanks. Before I move on from the characters, I should add that Emma Thompson is also a fun addition as the school seer, an eccentric crazy-haired teacher who freaks out the kids more than they learn in her class. A few more minutes, and she was going to have the class reading crystal balls on Maury Povich's show to determine babies' daddies.

The most important introduction is Professor Lupin (David Thewlis, Timeline), a teacher of the Dark Arts. He quickly becomes Harry�s mentor among the confusion of Black�s escape, then while the school is under siege by the soul-sucking Dementors of Azkaban prison looking for Black.

Those black-robed soul-sucking Dementors � in the U.S. we call them movie producers - are the coolest of the spooky creatures and effects, much better than the ten-foot spiders from Chamber of Secrets. Speaking of, I was promised by Book Lovers that there would be no such giant spiders in this movie? What�s up with that? Darn tootin� there was a big arachnid, and I hate you for it!

Ahem. Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

The effects are well done, and I even liked a time-travel sequence that was imagined better than any �Star Trek� paradox conjured up every two weeks. I liked the wipes between scenes, this ominous fade to and from black. It added to the foreboding darkness of the story, not to mention there�s no sunshine at all. The talk is all of death, most revolving around Harry's murdered parents and there�s no time for rosy pictures, so the days are all cloudy, rainy and snowy, and the screen tint is grainy.

Something wicked this way comes and goes, but it's so circular I'm not sure I've figured out who the bad guys are or if much of anything was solved. Unable to stand alone, Prisoner of Azkaban clearly needs the rest of the series to flesh out plots and characters.

The ending was no surprise, since everything is telegraphed two hours ahead of time. Of course, you book readers already know what happens anyway, so this one's just for me. For those who have read the books, you know what's coming but will enjoy every minute. For those who haven't, the Harry Potter series continues to be a great source of entertainment.