Day Two: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (82%)
I'm going to borrow the title of a 4 Non Blondes album for my summation of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: "Bigger, Better, Faster, More." The set pieces are larger, the chemistry between the actors has vastly improved, the film moves along much quicker than the first film, and it's simply a lot more fun to watch. I will say that this movie doesn't really stand on its own though. That's not really a knock against the film -- there are plenty of franchise installments that require knowledge gained from previous entries (The Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Back to the Future, etc). I'm just pointing out that this chapter, and others, can't stand alone the same way a James Bond movie does.
The movie opens up with the camera soaring over tract homes in Surrey that stretch as far as the eye can see (I had no idea that Surrey was so big). We learn that Harry has spent the summer with the loathsome Dursleys, but at least he has a real bedroom now. Harry's uncle tells him to stay locked silently in his bedroom while the Dursleys have guests, and everything seems to be going fine, until Dobby the house elf shows up, warning Harry not to go back to school. Somehow Dobby has learned that Harry is in danger, but he's bound by the rules of house elves not to tell Harry exactly what he knows. Apparently the rules governing house elves require a lot of masochistic behavior too, because anytime Dobby slips up, he starts pounding his head against things. Dobby decides to take matters into his own hands and ruins the Dursleys' dinner party, meaning that Harry won't ever be allowed to leave his room. Obviously, the Dursleys don't know what they're the dealing with, because the next thing we see is Ron, Fred and George Weasley breaking Harry out of his room and spiriting him away in a flying car (a 1967 Ford Anglia, for the fellow car nuts out there).
As in the Sorcerer's Stone, it takes awhile before Harry makes it to school, but that's not really a problem here. There's far less expository introduction this time around, and the action moves along nicely. For the first time, we get to see Ron's home and the rest of his family, and there are nice little touches like self-washing dishes and self-knitting needles that hint at what life in a house full of wizards might be like. My favorite part of the scene is when the family patriarch, Arthur Weasley, upon being informed by his disapproving wife that his sons have "borrowed" his enchanted car, brightly asks, "How did it run?"
We also get to see a magical version of the Star Trek transporter system. Unfortunately, Harry has never travelled via "flue powder" before, and ends up in the dark, spooky Knockturn Alley (maybe he should have taken the left at Albuquerque). Before things take a turn for the worse, lovable Hagrid makes his first appearance in the film, and shepherds Harry back to the safety of Diagon Alley.
While there, we also meet two new characters, the charming and vain Gilderoy Lockhart, and the menacing Lucius Malfoy, father of Draco. Lockhart is played by Kenneth Branagh, who perfectly captures the vacuous charm of a Professional Celebrity, and the elder Malfoy is played by series newcomer Jason Isaacs. Isaacs has played the arrogant, aristocratic snob before, and he shows just the right amount of haughtiness and contempt to really make you hate the whole Malfoy family.
The look of the movie is much more impressive here; the camera soars over Hogwarts and zeroes in on characters, making you feel as if you flew into class late on a broomstick. And the action scenes happen on a much bigger scale than the previous film; when Harry and Ron miss the train to school, they steal the flying car (again), resulting in a dizzying sequence that has them almost crashing into the train, and actually crashing into a bloodthirsty tree called the Whomping Willow.
Ron and Harry's narrow escape is the first of many close calls in this movie, and it made me start to think about how dangerous wizardry truly is, and yet most of these characters seem to shrug off near-death experiences as something pretty commonplace. Consider Quidditch; these kids aren't just playing a full contact sport while wearing minimal protective padding, they're slamming into each other while flying around at top speed! The forest next to the school is filled with mortal dangers, not the least of which is the colony of giant spiders that chases Harry and Ron, intending to eat them. That being said, the Quidditch match is much more exciting this time around, and much easier to follow.
The plot of the movie involves the titular Chamber of Secrets, and it turns out the chamber holds a monster that will start killing the lower-class "mudblood" students, unless someone can stop it. In what will be a common theme, Harry, Ron and Hermione, even though merely students, will figure out a way to solve a mystery that has stumped even the great Dumbledore. And, as usual, Dumbledore will explain away any lingering mysteries, and deserving characters will get their comeuppance.
Chamber of Secrets is the second and final Harry Potter film directed by Chris Columbus, and freed from the necessity of endless introductions, he delivers a much more polished product here. It's longer than Sorcerer's Stone, but the faster pace and young cast's developing chemistry make a big difference here. Chamber of Secrets is a better experience the second time around than Sorcerer's Stone was.
Deconstructing Harry Dates:
- Day One: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
- Day Two: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
- Day Three: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
- Day Four: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
- Day Five: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
- Day Six: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
(1-20 of 54 posts) | Reply
on Jul 09 2009 05:30 PM i love the Woody Allen reference in the "Deconstructing Harry" title, bravo;] (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 09 2009 05:46 PM LOL I LOVE IT TOOO THOUHG IT HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH WOODY ALLEN'S MOVIE :) (Reply to this) |
on Jul 09 2009 05:58 PM About as good as the first. Not as fresh. And again, it was released the same time as one of "The Lord of the Rings" films, making Potter seems flimsy. Nevertheless, this is solid entertainment, and the leads are slightly more cozy in their roles. Not enough Alan Rickman. 8/10. (Reply to this) |
on Jul 09 2009 06:01 PM well, all Woody Allen references aside, I thought the second movie wasn't as good as the first and is probably my least favorite Potter movie. It wasn't as memorable as all the other entries. that said, I still enjoyed the movie. (Reply to this) |
on Jul 09 2009 06:39 PM Chamber of Secrets was a dire disappointment for me - it was my favourite of the book series until Order Of The Phoenix came out, largely because Harry was able to shine through as a hero, against a truly murderous opponent, with comparatively little help. The next couple of books had much greater emotional resonance, but lacked the sheer heroism - and also a lot of the darkness (at least until the finale of Goblet Of Fire). But along came Chris Columbus with his Home Alone hat on to do the feature film, and turned it into complete garbage which I can only assume was aimed at particularly easily-pleased toddlers. The only thing I liked about it was the rendering of the Basilisk, and it still stands out as one of my most loathed films of all time. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 09 2009 06:40 PM This film is kinda the Temple of Doom of the series for me. I didn't like it as much when I first saw it and to this day it's probably the one I can most easily pass up when I see it on HBO, but when I look back on it in reviews like this I'm reminded of how many truly great moments are in this film. Best Quiditch sequences of any of the films thus far, Aragog and his kin, The Flying car, The Tom Riddle revelation and the wonderful addition of Lockhart and Malfoy Sr. who underline one of the great strengths of this series, the spot on brilliant casting of all roles. From top to bottom I would say these are bare none the best cast movies ever made. Even relatively minor roles like Mr and Mrs. Weasley at least in this film are fantastic. On the book front I also think there was a lot of great things in this book version that you didn't fully realize until later novels. OF course Tom Riddle, Ginny's crush on Harry, Gryffindor's sword, The introduction of Dobby who's absence from from subsequent films is one of the great regrets of these movie's for me. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 09 2009 06:48 PM My previous dislike of Gambon of course on the casting issue which I didn't feel the need to mention since in this film we still had the divine Sir Richard. One thing I meant to mention in the other thread when someone mentioned the Jim Dale audio books which as much as I love the Stephen Frye British versions are vastly superior. People who've heard them will probably have noticed Dale's voices for a lot of the main characters, Snape, MacGonagal, Hagrid bare a remarkable resemblence to the actors who play them in the movies. I find it particularly telling that even after all this time Dale still uses Harris's whispier Dumbledore voice instead of Gambon. Just an interesting piccadillo I noticed. (Reply to this) |
on Jul 09 2009 06:51 PM I thought Chamber felt rushed and sloppy. Just skipping from scene to scene. It was forgettable and weak and not as good as the first. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 09 2009 06:58 PM ill agree though, out of all of them...the 2nds the worst for me, idk i cant explain why but it just is (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 09 2009 07:05 PM Lanca - I've got to disagree on the casting. It's not so much the performances themselves, but the actors that're chosen - most of the adult characters are played by reasonably big names. The trouble is that instead of seeing that character on the screen, and being absorbed into that character, you just see the actor and think of him/her in terms of what else they've done. It spoils the immersion. But with regard to the performances, I've never gotten the impression that the adult actors have been giving their all in these films - maybe it's just the way they've been directed. Or maybe I need to watch the films again; I've never seen any of them multiple times, and haven't seen the last two at all. I also think they frequently miscast the roles, even disregarding the first part of this post. David Thewlis has none of the natural warmth that Lupin needed to convey, Jason Isaacs felt like a pantomime villain as Lucius Malfoy, Richard Griffith's Vernon Dursley comes off a lot like Uncle Phil from Fresh Prince, Alan Rickman is too damn likeable to be Severus Snape, and I commented in the last thread about the unsuitability of both Richard Harris and Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. These are all natural shortcomings - other than Gambon, who just doesn't play it right - and should have occurred to the casting agents. And it just isn't necessary. You don't need a cast full of prominent B-listers to sell the films. All they needed to do was cast a very well-known actor in a prominent role, then fill out the rest with unknowns - it would make for smaller paycheques and better films. Personally I'd have loved to have seen Christopher Lee playing Dumbledore, which I suppose goes against what I said earlier about playing to natural strengths, but Lee has the raw charisma to own any part he's offered. He even produced a fantastic performance in a freaking new trilogy Star Wars film, for god's sake. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 09 2009 07:10 PM In reply to this comment (#2525078) Oh, I'll just make one exception - Robbie Coltrane is absolutely brilliant as Hagrid and vastly enhances the character's loveability (I always felt he was a tad self-absorbed in the novels). He's one actor I really have always felt gave maximum effort to his role in this series, and it's greatly enhanced by his performance. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 09 2009 07:17 PM In reply to this comment (#2525078) I've gotta vehemently disagree. Maggie Smith is Professor McGonagal for me, Alan Rickman I honestly couldn't see another actor playing him and Robbie Coltrane is everything Hagrid. I never got the impression Lupin was suppoed to be particularly warm. I thought his disease made it so he kept people at a distance and his predominant quality was a tired, shabby sadness covering up a basically good person which I think Thewlis embodied in spades. I can sorta get behind what you were saying about Harris' Dumbledore, but you also have to keep in mind that the two movie's he was in Dumbledore was never called upon to be intimidating or slightly scary and remember in the books whenever Dumbledore flexed his power it came as shocking to the characters around him so I took that to mean he seemed rather ordinary and scholarly until he chose not to be sorta a mix between Gandalf and Indiana Jones without the need for a bullwhip :). I just don't think you could get the same performances with a lesser actor in any of the roles you mentioned and I may have misunderstood you, but I wouldn't consider any of them as B-listers talent wise, but then again I lived several years in England where Maggie Smith is as respected as any actress on the planet for her work in theater as well as on film and not to disagree with you on every point, but I can't see Lee playing a kindly old man. I would expect him at any moment to sprout fangs or draw a lightsabre and start hacking up house elves. He's just one of those people like Rickman who's born to play the villain. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 09 2009 07:20 PM i think chamber of secrets is much better than the first. the fx in the first one were bad, the cinematography was dull and daniels reaction to being a wizard was lame. he just gawked throughout his intro to the wizard world. he was much improved in the following films. the only thing i disliked about chamber of secrets was how the movie turned into "everyone loves hagrid" at the end. hardly anyone cared when he left, but when he came back it was a huge sapfest. my ranking of the movies: azkaban: 10 goblet of fire: 9 chamber of secrets: 9 order of the pheonix : 8.5 Sorcerers stone: 7.5 im sure no one cares (Reply to this) |
on Jul 09 2009 07:25 PM I thought Chambers was slightly better then Sorcerers Stone, but there both pretty good I think. The third film is the one that kicks it into the gear of greatness. I also picked up the fifth book today, I want to finish the series. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 09 2009 07:32 PM harris was perfect as the emtionally caring dumbledore, but gambons dumbledore has improved. he was pretty solid in the PoA, but he didnt realy have enough screen time to fully judge. but i hated him in goblet of fire, he was the biggest douchebag ever. he spent half the freakin movie shouting at students. in the book he didnt freakin shove harry into the wall when his name was in the goblet of fire. what the hell was that about? in ootp i thought he was better, way less rude (except for that scene were he screamed at everyone to do homework) and very good as the kind caring dumbledore near the end, and he is perfectly badass in the fight scenes. gambons performance seems much better in the clips from Half Blood Prince so far, so im very excited to see if he can pull it off. and for the love of god i hope he doesnt scream at any students for no reason. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 09 2009 07:34 PM Thanks for the synopsis!! Couldn't have come up with that on our own... why not try to tell us something we didn't already know? I thought the main problems with this film were the choppy cutting and the terrible monster at the end (which looked nothing like a snake). Those were the MAIN problems. The film really had little imagination and struggled to do more than string several scenes together that came from the book. I think that was why Cuaron's movie was so loved, because he expanded the castle and school from a setting to a character and environment. If only he had actually been more than half true to the book.... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 09 2009 07:47 PM In reply to this comment (#2525097) My order of films: OotP-best (and this isn't saying much, unfortunately because it's a very spotty film) PoA- second (would be first if it weren't for DR's terrible performance as Harry here and the utter lack of continuity and a Quidditch Final) SS- just edges out CoS because of the legless dinosaur and bad editing COS- Branaugh rules GOF- A TERRIBLE FILM. When I try to think of what I like about this film... still... nothing really comes to mind. Mad Eye was over the top, the three tasks were HORRIFIC, the editing was GAWFUL, Voldemort was subpar but better than any villain we've seen yet, I could go on and on about how bad this film was... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 09 2009 07:52 PM In reply to this comment (#2525085) I meant B-listers purely in terms of how well known they are internationally, and audience draw. Even Alan Rickman is probably an unfamiliar name to the average American. I should clarify - I didn't mean B-listers as a criticism, just to say they don't have the box office draw of, say... George Clooney or Hugh Grant. Or... Christopher Lee ;). But I certainly wasn't referring to acting skill. Everyone we've mentioned is hugely talented and I wouldn't fault them one iota - in other films... Going back to the natural suitability issue, I'll grant you Maggie Smith. It's been a long time since I watched any of these films and sadly she slipped my memory. But Alan Rickman? There's a difference between being a natural baddie and playing Snape. Rickman is by no stretch of the imagination an overgrown vulture, nor does he resemble someone consumed by neurosis, constantly battling to contain his thermonuclear temper. He's great for the smart, bitter and cynical side of Snape, but that's just scratching the surface of the character. Also, my mother is of the opinion that he's too handsome - make of that what you will... With regard to Christopher Lee, just because he's played a villainous role in just about everything else doesn't mean you wouldn't eventually adjust if he'd been cast in an opposite role. Just think about it: would you have any trouble believing he's the most powerful wizard of the age? The man is closing in on 90 yet he still looks lean, energetic and powerful. He looks twenty years younger than he is. This is *precisely* what was needed for Dumbledore, and it's an astonishingly rare trait. And I'll repeat that I strongly believe he has the charisma and immense skill (sixty years of thesping experience!) to counter his reputation and fit the role. Also, I think he is now so very old that he has a bit of natural loveability that could potentially be tapped into. And on the Dumbledore argument... he's always been portrayed in the books as energetic and comparatively youthful in demeanour. The surprise Harry feels when Dumbledore showcases his powers is akin to witnessing a loving father beating the crap out of a thief - it's a contrast of attitude rather than of energy. Richard Harris was physically incapable of this type of performance - sadly the man had not the slightest hint of youthfulness, power or energy left in him. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 09 2009 07:56 PM In reply to this comment (#2525084) Hehe, it's amusing me *how much* I disagree with you about the casting, Nick P. Not a bad thing, to each their own and the like, just sayin' wow, I toootally disagree :P As for CoS, I felt like it was a big improvement over the first. Sorcerer's Stone was excellent in setting up characters and the visual establishment of everything*, but CoS felt much more confident and comfortable. Chamber is also, as of now, probably the best adaptation of the lot. SS was too literal, the rest have been a bit too haphazard in the editing room or in the screenplay. I gladly welcome back Kloves over Goldenberg though. I mean, Goldenberg was fine for *most* of Order, but holy crap was that last act awful, so awful I cheered when I heard Kloves would be finishing it out. *sometimes I feel Columbus isn't given his proper due for SS. He and his team need big shiny medals for all the work they put into the locales and visual 'meat and potatoes'. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 09 2009 08:05 PM In reply to this comment (#2525113) Ice Ghost, I agree that SS was a decent film. Columbus' fault was not making CoS better than the first. Have you ever watched the deleted scenes from the second film? THEY ARE THE BEST SCENES IN THE ENTIRE FILM. And they were cut. They didn't improve the set, they didn't enhance life in the castle like Alfonso did. CoS felt TOO comfortable. No one besides the new characters gave great performances. CoS was very dull, very methodical, and very forgettable. Again, to beat the dead horse, the basilisk was NOSE-GRABBING STINKY. (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Links
Related Articles
-
Warner Bros. Takes the Summer Crown
(4)
- Submit to the RT Show and Earn a Cool $100 (1)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Harry Potter Has Magical Opening (84)
- Friday Harvest: Harry Potter, Halloween II, and more! (19)
-
David Heyman Talks Harry Potter
(4)
- Critics Consensus: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is Certified Fresh (65)
- Box Office Guru Preview: Prince's Magic to Reign Over Multiplexes (40)
- Total Recall: Best Movie Wizards (150)
- Growing Pains: When Child Stars Become Adults (4)
-
Harry Potter Makes a Magical $22.2M Entrance
(49)
Most Discussed
- 12 Facts About 2012 (132)
- Total Recall: George Clooney's Best Movies (91)
- Critics Consensus: A Christmas Carol Dazzles But Disappoints (43)
- Ho-ho-horror! 10 Scary Christmas Movies (36)
- Weekly Ketchup: Abrams eyes Micronauts, Aykroyd as Yogi Bear (29)
- Friday Harvest: Prince of Persia, The Road, and more! (22)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Christmas Carol Tops, Precious Rocks (19)
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (14)
- RT on DVD: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (0)
Latest News
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Christmas Carol Tops, Precious Rocks (19)
- Weekly Ketchup: Abrams eyes Micronauts, Aykroyd as Yogi Bear (29)
- Friday Harvest: Prince of Persia, The Road, and more! (22)
- Critics Consensus: A Christmas Carol Dazzles But Disappoints (43)
- Ho-ho-horror! 10 Scary Christmas Movies (36)
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (14)
- RT on DVD: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (0)
- Total Recall: George Clooney's Best Movies (91)
- 12 Facts About 2012 (132)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: This Is It Tops Box Office Worldwide (55)
Latest Interviews
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (14)
- Richard Kelly chats about The Box (1)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (15)
- Wes Anderson Talks Fantastic Mr. Fox - RT Interview (8)
- Wolverine Creator Len Wein Talks About the Film (28)
- Gavin Hood Talks Wolverine; Possible Sequel (28)
- Duncan Jones talks Moon, Sam Rockwell, and Mute (14)
- Emma Stone talks Zombieland - RT Interview (40)
- Michael Moore: The RT Interview (139)
- Andrea Arnold talks Fish Tank - RT Interview (4)
Latest Features
- Ho-ho-horror! 10 Scary Christmas Movies (36)
- RT on DVD: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (0)
- 12 Facts About 2012 (132)
- RT on DVD: Star Trek Beams In (4)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (15)
- Five Favourite Films with 24's Carlos Bernard (33)
- Six Horrible Part Sixes (31)
- RT on DVD: Land of the Lost and Hannah Montana (5)
- Christopher Smith's Favourite Cult Horror Films (14)
- Gavin Hood Talks Wolverine; Possible Sequel (28)
IGN RSS Feeds