Potter mania strikes again!

[Andrew Pratt]

I just got in from watching the chamber of secrets. I'll post more details tomorrow but to sum up if you liked the first you'll love the second. There were a few scenes that I thought could have been handled better (quiditch pod racer scene :roll: ) but all in all it was very well done indeed...bloody brilliant even

PS there's some excellent LFE towards the end and if you stay to the very end of the credits there's a little surprise for you...now if I can only remember what it was

[Daniel Brecher]

At Andrew's request..... my thoughts

Chamber of Secrets seemed a fair bit more choppy to me than Philosopher's Stone in the respect that I think the previous film did a better job of adapting the story to suit the medium of cinema (although I do still long for more Dursley footage in the first film)....

The problem with Chamber is that it is rather bland given Columbus' direction. His work in my mind was fine for the Philosopher, but here, he doesn't change and gives us more of the same. He fails to be inventive, perhaps fearing to be inventive in light of so many demands that the films stray a little from the books. Endless overhead shots of Hogwarts struck to the same cue of music again, and again, and again... Visualy there's next to nothing REALLY interesting going on, and the questionable line deliveries from the younger cast members show more now.

What I felt Chamber fails to do ultimately is exploit this wonderful story fully for the film medium. In some respects, it's just too much like the book in it's structure, and I can't help but feel Kloves and Columbus lacked the confidence to change things around a little and really make it shine for cinema. Although so many are lapping it all up on first viewings it's gaping flaws are really there for all to see, but can be forgotton amongst the hype and truly wonderful audiences of fans and families that you can sit and watch this adventure with in a cinema.

Don't get me wrong of course, I did enjoy the film very much as it still stays true to the spirit of the book and that's great, it's still a great story with great characters. Fact was, for me, it's just let down by no risks being taken for the want of being more inventive. For it's strucutre, Chamber is very ho-hum.

Taking Cleese' portrayal of Nearly Headless Nick as an example, Chamber of Secrets fails to add more depth to characters set up in the first film. In an almost utter repeat of Philosopher's Stone, Nick dlivers bland "hellos" to the students about the halls, getting little better delivery of response from the kids. Bits like this almost make you ask, why do they bother?

You can let the first film in a series set a lot up about the characters, but there's no excuse to stop with character development in the sequels, and in her writing, Rowling forever furthers aspects of characters in her universe, you're forever learning something new. I suppose I want to say Kloves, who's a writer I am quite fond of as it goes, has adapted many elements from the book in the wrong way, failing to get to the heart of some scenes.

I'd never liken Rowling's work to Tolkien's, nor Columbus' to Peter Jackson's, but one of the things I so admire about PJs take on Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy is that PJ knows full well he can never take everything from the books and lay it all out on screen. In knowing this, PJ inventively played with timelines, changed scenes around, gave characters in the film dialogue other characters in the book. He took risks and they're paying off for the better of the films.

PJ knew how to alter a story from it's original written novel source in order to exploit the best out of it in the cinematic medium, yet at the same time never deviate from the original work's spirit. The spirit of Potter holds true in the films as I say, but in Chamber most notably, the way the story is ultimately delivered on screen is really a rather underwhelming experience.

I adore the Chamber of Secrets book more than most. Many feel it's the worst, yet I rate the books in the order they were written thus far. I'll see the film incarnation of COS a couple more times before the year is out without question, there's a lot of fun to be had, but I'm just left wanting that little bit more...

Kenneth Branagh is an utter gem in the film. There's never a dull Lockhart moment on screen. The man perfectly encaspulates everything Gilderoy is and the post credits gift to those who are good enough to stay for a film's credits ensures you leave with a smile. I await more!

I was pleased with Dobby too. Columbus wisely ensured the majority of the effects sequences were done early in production for the second film, and the extra time taken on the visuals shows. The look of the visual effects is not as inconsistent as it was first time round, and ILM now took on a heavy bulk of the CG. It's always nice to see some effective animatronics put to good use too!

Great & ever entertaining stuff, if somewhat un-inventive in it's translation to screen;
***/****

[Andrew Pratt]

Thanks Dan!

No one else seen this movie yet?

[Patrick Sun]

This film has a decent 1st act, but then it gets bogged down in structure. Yes, they need to drop in the "clues" but it takes forever, and by the time you get to the finale, the appearance of magic seems more like a deus ex mahina concoction, rather than a logical development.

The film is simply too long, and too slow. There's a good 30 minutes that could have been cut from the film. It's rather uneven, the pacing is not good at all. It does beat the pants off "Eight-Legged Freaks" in some respects (that's not high praise).

Now if someone were to say everything in the book was in the film. I'd suggest the screenwriters figure out a way to "adapt" the source material into a cinematic story, and do some trimming.

I give is 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.




PatCave; HT Pix;Gear;DIY Projects;DVDs; LDs

[Danbry39]

I guess I'll be the contrarian here. I saw it yesterday and thought it far superior to the first Potter. Much of this has to do with expectations. I've read all the Potter books and was very let down by how some of the characters were drawn in the first movie. Malfoy was entirely different from what I had envisioned in my own imagination and seemed more like a character one might have seen in one of the director's other films (ie Home Alone). Also, there was too little made of Harry's treatment and history with the Dursleys and too much trying to ooh and aah us with special effects. As an example, what happens in the wand store in the book was much more to my liking. But, isn't all of this usually the case when one reads a book first or even comic book for that matter. Our imagination is stronger in personal vision that sitting passively watching another person's concept of a piece of writing. So, with huge expectations, I went in and, that given, I may have been expecting too much. The thing I loved most about the first movie was the actress portraying Hermione, who I think is a pretty special talent.

As a result of Potter #1, I had to be dragged by my family to see Potter #2. With very low expectations, the chances of my being disappointed were minimal. And, I ended up loving it. I loved Ron's slug gurgitation...I loved the spiders...I loved the acting and directing. The last thing, directing, really bugged me about HP1. This time, the characters seemed more natural, like they had more of a footing. Before this, I really looked forward to when Alonzo Cuaron took over the helm, loving both his movies A Little Princess and Y Tu Mama Tambien. Leaving the theater this time, I regretted that a director change is to occur.




Keith

[David Meek]

First off, I've been a reader/watcher of fantasy and science fiction books/shows/movies since my childhood and I'm a big fan of the Potter books. I suppose that this in itself pre-disposes me to want to enjoy the films.

Having said that, I enjoyed Chamber Of Secrets as much as I did The Sorcerer's Stone. Admittedly there was a bit more of the MTV-style scene cutting than I prefer, but other than that the look 'n feel of the second was very consistent with the first and both DO track the books much more closely than any other book-to-film titles I've seen. To me, it didn't drag or stumble about and seemed much shorter than the actual 2 1/2 hour-or-so running time. Story-wise it moved from start to finish along a fairly linear route (scene cutting notwithstanding). As I understand it, Ms. Rowling was instrumental in the films' close relationship to the books. She didn't want the films to be "cinematized", and she succeeded in keeping them true to the written story.

The one thing I felt was under developed was the Weasley's little sister (can't remember her name) and her relationship with Harry. Spoiler: Even in the book it was a generally minor point until the end when. . . sorry, that's as far as I go, but the film virtually ignores it.

It will be interesting to see the characters develop over the course of the upcoming films. The books IMO get darker and the themes get more of an adult feel. It's like Ms. Rowling is maturing the story as the characters mature. Along those lines, I hope the original cast is kept intact as much as possible - Richard Harris passed away so a replacement Dumbledore is going to be a challenge.

Overall, it was a good second effort considering it and the first film as a whole. I give it :4: out of :5:




David - HTGuide flunky
Our "Theater"
Our DVDs on DVD Tracker

[P-Dub]

Yes it was a marathon of film watching. Harry Potter did not dissapoint. I do feel that the first was better than the second.

Now I haven't read the books so I can't comment on how true it stayed to the written pages. I was more interested in the character development and I really didn't see any. They are essentially the same characters. I didn't really understand the spiders. Yeah we'll help you then we'll eat you and what's the deal with the car? But that aside. I still think this is a good movie to go see on the big screen. I missed the first movie in the theaters and I wish I didn't.




Paul

There are three kinds of people in this world; those that can count, and those that can't.