Thread for CoS Reviews!

[dh1989]

As most of you know CoS screenings will begin this week. Instead of having a million different topics for every new CoS review, please post the reviews all in here. Thank You!

[dh1989]

Here is a review from AICN.....

Tonight I was lucky enough to catch a screening of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, almost a month before its release. I'm a big Harry fan and I'll just say right off the bat that it doesn't disappoint; It's quite great actually. Spoilers follow (but who hasn't read this book anyways?).

I'd love to just look at this film as its own individual unit, but the fact of the matter is that the most natural way of digesting it is by comparing and contrasting it to the other formats: the first movie, the movies to come, and of course the books. Just like most any Star Wars fan will tell you that Empire is the best, the majority of Potter fans easily dub Chamber as the worst (or the least great) of J.K. Rowling's books. Well we're in good shape if the worst of the books can be turned into a movie this fun. And with Alfonso Cuaron (of Great Expectations and A Little Princess, both fairly underrated) on board for the next film, it can only get better from here.

It's cliché to say this, but I will anyways: The first movie was a magical and fantastic introduction to the world of Harry Potter, and the second picks up from there (granted, less romantically) with a much darker tone. The film is literally darker, moodier (is it a stretch to note the noir-like camera angles?), and scarier. The film's mystery stems from the ressurection of the Chamber of Secrets, a hidden Slytherin heir, and some hot and bothered spirits lurking in the literal and figurative bowels of Hogwarts; That sense of mystery is what makes the movie so great. It's nice to reach that darker place, like when Tom Riddle's handwriting reveals itself to Harry from thin air, or when the other students start to silently question Harry's integrity as they do their homework. The set pieces are gothic and haunting (the gigantic trees of the Forbidden Forest; the Legend-of-Zelda-esque titular Chamber), and some moments are surprisingly uncanny-- like seeing Hermione frozen stiff, eyes glazed over ("petrified"), and the bizarre Shining-meets-Lolita incarnation of Moaning Myrtle, who is a lot freakier than that stupid girl in the Ghost Ship trailer.

The three kids (Daniel Radcliff (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron), and Emma Watson(Hermione)) turn in very solid performances. You can see how far they've come (and how much their voices have dropped) in just a year, especially Radcliffe, whose performance sometimes made me forget I was watching a kid. And then the other usual suspects are all back: Draco is meaner and has a badass new broomstick, Dumbledore confirms his lightning-bolt scar (Yep, it's there. And you heard it here first), Oliver Wood is still the man but has less screen time (sorry ladies), Warwick Davis gets another couple shots (yeah!!!), and our lovable friend Hagrid once again gets the honor of leading us to the closing credits with goosebumps. Kenneth Branagh, playing the haughty and hillarious Gilderoy Lockhart, fills Alan Rickman's shoes as the stealer of the show, and he'll keep the adults in the audience fully entertained with his craft. Great newcomer performances also from Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy, Mark Williams as Weasley, and Bonnie Wright is adorable as little Ginny Weasley.

Chris Columus has also fine-tuned some of the visual effects (don't get me wrong, some of it still looks plain bad, mainly the strangely lit and seemingly blue-screened spectators during the throwaway Quiddich sequence). Dobby the house-elf looks pretty freakin real in most of his shots, and the Basilisk (the Chamber's slithering pet) is one of the best-looking and genuinely frightening reptiles since Jurassic Park. It's also nice to see some old-school puppetry being used instead of just CG-ing every little thing (hint hint George), such as with the funny (and plot-oriented) Mandrakes and Fawkes, Dumbledore's mythic winged phoenix.

And when the phoenix cries on Harry's arm to heal his battle wound, it's strangely poignant. It's one of the few times you get that feeling, and if there's a flaw in the movie it's that it lacks the heart of the first. There's no real mention of Harry's parents-- a powerful visual and thematic element of the first movie-- and other than in the last scene, the movie doesn't quite capture your heart like the Sorcerer's Stone. Both of the Potter films suffer a bit in pacing, editing, and Columbus' lack of an unmistakable vision. But Chamber makes up for its flaws with a dark plot, its great sense of mystery and danger, and just the fact that at the end of the day, it's Harry Potter, and Harry Potter rules! You can look forward to being a kid again on November 15th.

[dh1989]

Here is another cool review....

Dark days come to Hogwarts



Harry Potter weaves his magic again in The Chamber of Secrets. After the first screening in Chicago, John Hiscock gives his verdict


Midway through Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Dobby, an obsequious house elf, tells the boy wizard: "History is about to repeat itself." The computer-generated character is probably right.


The second of the planned seven films based on the hugely popular books by J K Rowling, sticks to the formula that made its predecessor, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, the second most successful film ever, with a worldwide gross of more than £600 million.

Wisely, scriptwriter Steve Kloves and director Chris Columbus once again are faithful to the book, although Columbus, more confident this time, deftly takes advantage of Rowling's wildly imaginative story to add some visual touches and twists of his own.

Some readers have dismissed Chamber of Secrets as their least favourite in the series because the plot is more straightforward than the others. But the dark and grimly topical tale of a malevolent presence hiding in Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, freezing pupils one by one to stone, gives Columbus the chance to indulge himself with fascinatingly realistic special effects and riveting action sequences.

Most of the cast from Philosopher's Stone have returned, including Richard Harris as the wise headmaster Professor Dumbledore, Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, Alan Rickman as the unpleasant potions master, Professor Snape, and Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, Hogwarts' creature-loving, half-giant gamekeeper.

The three young stars, Daniel Radcliffe as Harry, Emma Watson as Hermione Granger and Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley, all act with more assurance than they exhibited in the first film.

The latest adventure benefits from the addition of Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart, the foppish and narcissistic teacher of Defence Against the Dark Arts, and Jason Isaacs as the villainous Lucius Malfoy, father of Draco Malfoy, Harry's arch-rival at Hogwarts.

Branagh, wavy hair beautifully coiffed and eyes twinkling, clearly enjoys himself as the preening Lockhart, whose shortcomings are humiliatingly exposed by Harry, while Isaacs, with blonde hair reaching to his waist and carrying a snakes-head cane, makes a wonderfully venomous Malfoy. Miriam Margolyes has a marvellous cameo role as the eccentric, green-fingered Professor Sprout.

The Chamber of Secrets differs in structure and tone from The Philosopher's Stone in part because the first film spent some time setting up the world of Harry Potter and introducing the magic, the settings and the characters. With that out of the way, the second film jumps directly into the narrative, quickly transporting Harry from his home with the odious Dursleys in Privet Drive, into the adventure at Hogwarts, by means of a flying Ford Anglia.

Once at school, Harry and his friends quickly learn of a sinister new terror that is lurking in the cellars and secret passageways, and Harry finds himself ostracised by all except Ron, Hermione and fragile young Ginny Weasley, whose mysterious new diary holds a key to the dark force lurking in the school.

While containing plenty of humorous incidents, the film is also much darker in tone than its predecessor and some scenes, particularly a bloody and violent battle between Harry and a giant monster, which would do credit to any horror film, may be too intense for younger children; and, although Columbus for the most part keeps up a hectic pace, at two-and-a-half hours it is overlong and likely to strain young attention spans.

But there is also plenty to enthrall them. Columbus has refined and improved his technique for filming the game of Quidditch, which any Rowling reader knows is the most popular sport in the wizarding world, played with six tall goalposts, four flying balls and 14 players on broomsticks.

A game between Gryffindor and Slytherin houses, which turns into an aerial duel between Harry and Draco, contains more thrills than a roller coaster ride, and the flying car that takes Harry and Ron to Hogwarts proves much more hazardous for the riders than it was in the book. The Whomping Willow tree into which the car crashes and which subsequently exacts its revenge is a visual marvel.

Add to this giant spiders, howling magical mandrakes, Fawkes the Phoenix, a horde of mischievous Cornish pixies and Harry's arch-enemy Lord Voldemort, and all the ingredients are in place to provide Warner Bros with another huge hit.

Yet, when the action keeps coming and danger is always lurking and there is another hour to go, it's possible to feel that Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets may be just too much of a good thing.

[dh1989]

Two new reviews today. One is negative and the other is positive, from a person who did not enjoy the first film......

First, the negative one.......

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Bigger and scarier sequel uses more effects to cast same spell
By John Walsh

04 November 2002

As though mortally terrified of letting the Harry Potter audience become bored by overfamiliarity, the makers of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets have gone for a simple formula: more is more. Everything about this film, which opens on 15 November, is couched on a bigger scale than the prototype.

The first Potter sequel (in a sequence, presumably, of seven films, assuming that J K Rowling is not inhibited) is even longer (two hours, 40 minutes), it's darker and scarier, it's noisier (whenever someone falls over in a fight sequence, it sounds like an earthquake), the quidditch flight action is even faster than before, the plot is more hellishly complicated than The Philosopher's Stone and the credit sequence is so long it stretches away into the evening.

And just as the Indiana Jones movies became debased by creepy-crawly shock tactics, the new chronicle of life at Hogwarts positively writhes with gross snake-and-spider special effects.

It's still watchable, though, because Chris Columbus's high-energy direction keeps the camera endlessly moving – tracking along walls that reveal horrible messages or nasty surprises, swooping through the sky around the Gothic towers of the wizardry school, zooming in on vivid faces full of threat and conspiracy.

The plot concerns an unknown, hidden room in the Hogwarts dungeons where lurks a monster; an unknown villain is letting out the monster to attack various small victims and leave them literally petrified. A mysterious diary offers a way into the chamber of secrets, where a mesmerised little girl is being held prisoner.

But to hell with the story. Far more entertaining is the slew of new characters joining the party: Kenneth Branagh plays a bumptious narcissist called Gilderoy Lockhart, teacher of Defence against the Dark Arts, a preening, bouffanted fake (Mr Branagh may be sending up his own persona here; or someone is playing a cruel joke); Miriam Margolyes is Professor Sprout, who tells the class how to re-pot their mandrakes – squalling, crying, grotesque baby plants – in a scene of bogglesome animatronics; and there's a problematic figure called Dobbie, an orchid-eared, swordfish-snouted "house elf", a neurotic, hyperactive, do-gooding sprite who will make you laugh immoderately or remind you of the emetic Jar-Jar Binks in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.

And then there's the familiar Potter posse, of Harry, Ron and Hermione. Ms Grainger is unchanged but the Hogwarts boys, hardly a year after we first met them, have grown alarmingly. Puberty has taken a frightful toll. Harry and Ron now speak in a gravelly baritone they didn't have before. Some of the early scenes, involving half a dozen of the lanky adolescents, suggest not a class of schoolboys, but some form of government-sponsored Youth Training Scheme. Contrary to reports, sex has not yet reared its head at Hogwarts, although Moaning Myrtle (a querulous girl wraith who lives in the girls' cloakroom) makes our hero an offer he can probably refuse as he prepares to enter the chamber. "If you die down there, Harry, you're welcome to share my toilet."

Darker resonances can be heard amid the school japes, especially an understated treatment of racism, as the Malfoy family abuse the "mud-bloods" – any wizard who wasn't born of pure wizard stock. For a moment, the words "ethnic cleansing" seem to tremble on the lips of the headmaster, Dumbledore (the late Richard Harris). But these subtler impulses are mostly drowned by the prevailing Sturm und drang of special effects. This is film making at the highest pitch of technical accomplishment, beneath which the human element is having the life squeezed out of it.

Second, the positive one.........
This Harry Potter is so much sleeker
HANNAH McGILL finds the second film about the boy wizard is a much more confident affair
MUCH has been made of the production line mentality that has governed the making of the first two Harry Potter films.

As soon as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone opened, shooting started on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Given this swift turnaround, it is hard to determine why there should be such a marked difference in quality and atmosphere between them.

Where Philosopher's Stone was rough, clumsy and charmless - a slapdash brand name cash-in with no identity of its own - its follow-up is an infinitely sleeker and more confident proposition.

Whether Chris Columbus, the director, was buoyed up by the anxious rush of misplaced praise the first film garnered, or galvanised into action by the low rumble of disappointment that offset it, we may never know. The source material helps, of course. Chamber of Secrets is a more forceful and complex novel than its predecessor. Where Philosopher's Stone, as the first in the series, was crowded with generalised introductions and fanciful asides, Chamber of Secrets sets up a persuasive mystery and follows it through to its conclusion.

It also draws in weightier ideas along the way - the emergence, for instance, of resonant rivalries between "pureblood" wizard children and mixed-race "Muggle-borns".

The film barely deviates from the sacred JK Rowling blueprint. Aware that he is treading on the dreams of countless children, Columbus has played it utterly safe, transferring images straight from page to screen rather than transforming them into new and surprising cinematic forms.

Perhaps that is the smartest way of dealing with such revered literary works; but it does mean that the films are doomed to remain adjuncts to Rowling's novels, rather than independent entities.

Given that the story and characters will be familiar to a huge percentage of viewers, the films are to some extent robbed of the element of surprise. Moreover, in dramatising the familiar and beloved, they have to compete with the limitless possibilities of a child's imagination.

It's no easy task - but Chamber of Secrets succeeds where Philosopher's Stone failed, with truly spectacular special effects and design, and perfectly cast cameo performances that bring Rowling's incidental characters to life. Dobby - the cringing, self-flagellating house elf who warns Harry of dangers awaiting him during his second year at Hogwarts' School - is probably the most persuasive computer generated character ever.

The sequences involving the Weasley family's flying Ford Anglia are quite thrilling; and the darker elements of the story are rendered with enough grisly realism to chill the spine.

The young stars, Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron) and Emma Watson (Hermione), were among the weakest elements of the first film - and while it remains unlikely that any of them will be troubling the Academy any time soon, their performances have acquired much greater confidence and maturity.

The real acting plaudits, however, belong to newcomers to the story - Kenneth Branagh as the vain Gilderoy Lockhart; Jason Isaacs as the slimy Lucius Malfoy; and especially Shirley Henderson as Moaning Myrtle, the ghost who dwells in the girls' loo. Henderson's immaculate comic timing and remarkable raspy squeak make for a funnier, odder and more lovable Myrtle than even Rowling could have imagined.

At two hours and 40 minutes, the film is over-long; it sags in the middle before surrendering all its secrets in a somewhat undignified last-act rush. However, it is a loyal, loving adaptation; a striking technical accomplishment; and a spectacle worthy of its audience's anticipation.

[dh1989]

First one,

THINGS YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE LATEST POTTER FILM



1 ONE major episode in the novel, Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets, was left out of the movie: The Deathday Party for Nearly Headless Nick.

In the book, the ghost threw a party to celebrate his 500th death-day. In the party, moaning ghouls waltz to music that sounds like 'a thousand fingernails scraping an enormous blackboard'.

Director Chris Columbus decided not to film it because he felt that the segment would have slowed down the film's pace.

2 At the end of The Chamber Of Secrets movie, Hermione rushes up to hug Harry, but stops short of hugging Ron. The hugging scene wasn't in the book.

Columbus wanted the kids to hug at the end of the movie. But Emma Watson, who plays Hermione, was shy and didn't want to hug the boy leads in front of all 350 child extras gathered for the final scene. She ended up getting away with giving Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) a quick hug instead.

In the final cut, both Hermione and Ron looked shy and avoided each other, as if they are trying to hide their affections for each other.


3 In one scene, a bewitched Ron (Rupert Grint) throws up dozens of slugs. The slugs were made of rubber and greased with gelatin that came in different flavours, such as lemon or chocolate. Grint's favourite was the lemon-flavoured goo.


4 The three child actors often created a lot of mischief on the set. Robbie Coltrane, who plays the gentle giant Hagrid, said the kids would put 'kick me' or 'I'm stupid' signs on his back, or change the language on his mobile phone screen into something foreign, like Portuguese. 'They're very professional and well-behaved. But they're just very cheeky, which is nice.'



5 Although he's only 13, Radcliffe likes classic punk music by bands which came and went mostly before he was born, such as The Sex Pistols, The Damned, The Stranglers, The Undertones and The Clash.

'I like (punk's) attitude,' he said at a press conference in London's Guildhall.


6 Radcliffe also aspires to do some stand-up comedy, according to Coltrane: 'He really likes bad schoolboy jokes, such as 'What does a schoolboy wear when he bursts into flames? A blazer'. He knows millions of them.'


7 Encouraged by the first film's success, Columbus allowed for more improvisation on the set.

'Jason Isaacs, who acted as the evil Lucius Malfoy, came up with a line at the end of the film: 'Let us hope Mr Potter is always around to save the day.' Then, I asked Daniel to say 'Don't worry, I will be' and say it like Clint Eastwood,' he revealed. 'It wasn't in the book, but I loved that moment and kept it in the film.'


8 The second Harry Potter film is apparently so scary that the censors in Britain slapped it with the warning: 'Contains mild language and horror, and fantasy spiders'. The film is rated PG here and in the US.


9 Hormones raged among the adolescents on the Harry Potter movie set. Columbus said: 'The problem I had in the Great Hall on one of the days was, a lot of notes were being passed back and forth - he likes her, she likes him. Finally, I said: 'Guys, this is not a romance school.' '

He also added that Grint was one of the favourites among the girls.

10 The second Potter film is more politically correct, claimed an Oct 23 article in the New York Daily News. The article said the film had about five people of colour, both children and adults of Asian and African descent, which it said was strikingly more than the first film.

Warner Bros, the studio behind the films, said that the second film had more scenes with large groups of kids, hence increasing the chance of having minorities in the movie.

Well I guess that was more of a list. :(

The following are from AICN. One loves the film, the other did not.....

Very Negative & A Couple of Very Positive Reviews of HARRY POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS...
Hey folks, Harry here with a reaction from a young viewer of HARRY POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS in reaction to the review two below! What I think is interesting about these three reviews is this. Both positives tend to like things differently, and dislike different things. However the negative hates the things they love and loves the things they hate. Mr Contrary? Possibly. There's always a few out there, but it seems most are being enchanted by the film!
heya Harry, I live in England and was lucky ebough to be invited to the Harry Potter Premiere last Sunday (My Parents Work In Tv And Film) and I can't tell you how wrong that negative review of the film posted on the website was.

The film is magnificent. Whilst not being epic like Lord Of The Rings, the film never the less is a fun, cool, magical adventure that will no doubt be cherished in the hearts of youngsters and adults alike (very much like the books). I am 17 years old and a huge fan of the books, and, I must say, a little dissapointed with the first film. Although I was swept away by the sheer coolness and magic of it, the acting of harry and the rest of the kids pulled me back. But hey, they were just little kids then, so slightly below average acting was inevitable. But guys, in this film, the kids are brilliant.

Harry's voice haveing dropped gives a fantastic edge to him-it was easier to relate to him this time round. Ron is exellent, as he was in the first, and for those doubting Emma Watson's talent (as i was) she gives in a much more confident, solid and very, very good performance as Hermione. Jason Issacs is probably the best cast role in film history, (or one of them). his portrayal of Lucious Malfoy is phenominal...he is evil right down to the core, i had a lump in my throat as i sat there watching him...wow-fucking ace. Brannagh was hilarious, smug, arrogant and a complete coward...perfect. all the rest of the cast are wonderful, (i would get into more detail but i want to get onto other things).

The special effects. in the first one they were a mixed bag. the troll did'nt look too good inh my opinion, and the quidditch was to bright. but i am one of those people that don't hate the use of special fx. if they are needed to tell a story, use em. but, the special fx in this film are, sorry to repeat myself, phenominal--with the exeption of Fawkes, the phoenix. he looks fantastic as a puppet, but his cg counterpart looked a bit rushed. a small price to pay for the phenominal effects of the Basilisk...probably the best creature animation since jurrasic park..incredible. and the quidditch...faster, less bright...louder and genrally a roller-coaster ride only rivalled by the phantom menace's podrace. those of you who thought it looked a bit fake in the first film will be pleased with the change.

Hogwarts looks better (hard, since the sets in the first film were great, but it does) and it is dark and edgy whilst at the same time being cosy and magical. knockturn alley (readers of the book will know what I mean) is very, very atmospheric. it's scary and dark...not for kids. dobby looks, and sounds as i imagined him to, and provides many humourous moments.

For me, the first half of the first film was weak, i didn't like the way they had rushed it. But in this film, the first half is easily the strongest. the only criticisms i would have, is that for around half an hour in the middle of the film, it get's a bit slow and dull. there is alot of conversation, which is always good to have, but...i don't know why...this just seemed dull. see what you make of it.

overall, this film is absolutely brilliant, magical, cool and fun. the flying car sequence immedeatly gets you into the action, and wow, what a trip you'll be taken on for 2 and a half hours. i can't stress it enough, the film is magnificent, go see it, for if the perpose of film is to take the viewer away from the real world, and take them on an adventure wonderous and intoxicating, this could easily be called a great experience.

Pint-Sized Hagrid

Hey folks, Harry here.... Well, I've added this positive review to the top of the negative one, because frankly... that negative one seems a bit off kilter to me. I mean, literally all the word I've heard is that the most negative thing about this film is that it is less magical, but darker and edgier. And from what I've heard people have dug the FXs quite a bit. As if to reinforce that thought, here's a look from someone that sees it as the wonderful family film that it most likely is. Here ya go...
Hi Harry,

Love the site. Keep the Angel/Buffy updates up! I need to know what’s going on being that we haven’t even started the series over here in the good old U of K yet…

Anyway, just thought you should know I got to see Harry Potter : Chamber Of Secrets last night. I thought you might like a review? Enjoy!

Harry Potter 2.

First off, let me start by saying that I’ve read the second Harry Potter book and I didn’t enjoy it that much. I felt it had a fairly weak plot compared to the other books in the series and a lot of the story revolved around some fairly tenuous links. The film, on the other hand, is absolutely superb. It’s every bit as good as the first and then more so.

I’m not going to go into detail on the plot seeing as anyone who is interested can just read the book to get the whole story. I am however going to comment on the only two detrimental features of the whole thing :

1) Nobby “the house elf” – Nobby looks and acts like the spawn of a very sordid love triangle between Jar Jar Binks, Gollum and Gizmo. I hated him, the kids will love him.

2) Kenneth Branagh – Is there any possibility that they didn’t really pick up on the fact that Gilderoy Lockheart is meant to be suave, sophisticated and charming albeit completely shallow and a tad narcissistic? Branagh copes with the narcissism very well, being as far up his own arse as it’s possible for a human to be without disappearing, but he lacks any charm whatsoever. Or maybe it’s just because I don’t like him? Who knows. I found his screen time, whilst necessary (very necessary obviously) just a little irksome. He made my fists itch.

Apart from those two tiny things which just annoyed me the rest of the film was excellent. The film quality itself is par excellence. It’s very bright and cheerful one moment and very dark and forboding the next And it switches from one to the other beautifully. The set pieces are amazing and whilst a couple look a little ‘fake’ most are very convincing. Harry is slightly cheekier and a little more chipper than he was in the first film. Ron is just balls out funny. Hagrid is still his awkward little self (well, except for the fact that he’s a giant.) You can still detest the Dursleys and wish something nasty upon them. And I may be arrested for saying so, but am I the only one waiting for Hermione to turn ! 16?

Overall I’d say this is a superb family film, a bit darker than the first and a bit less smooth running – I can see that the plot might kind of leave the uninitiated struggling in a few places – but it’s definitely worth the watch and worth them taking my hard earned cash to go see.

Cheers for now then,

LimeyFish.

Hey folks, Harry here... I see this very soon, and I'm hoping that it works. I want this to be very good, and thus far I've had fairly positive feedback on the film, till now. So is this a review from a contrary personality? Will that be you too? Personally I can't wait to see this! Hope this one's wrong...
Hey dude,

Long time reader, first time.. you know the drill.

Just watched the new Harry Potter, and I have to say I feel violated this is one huge steaming pile, it has everything which is the main problem not only dose it have some good individual moments (although there few and far between) the film largely comprises some of the worst acting, CGI, etc. i've seen in along time and I watch alot of movie (it's part of my job, I work in a multiplex).

Where do you start, the plot, the actors... PLOT - Ok I've never read the books and after watching this I'm not compelled to do so, but I can see why kids like it blood, action, a ghosts who wants Harry to join him in her toilet if he dies! In the age old tradition of children's entertainment it portrays that writing under the influence of drugs will make you a shed load of cash.

ACTORS - Right those mature members of the cast Harris, Smith, Coltrane etc they all turn in your expected half decent performance, Branagh plays the over cocky self loving idiot Lockheart very well but is an under used high point in the movie. As for Radcliffe, Grint and the rest of the 'and now I shall say may lines as if independent from the rest of the script and or reality, or just in stupidly high pitched attempt of panic that it sounds like I've been breathing helium for an hour' well need I say more. It is sad that a film with such a cast the best actor is a CGI elf 'Dobbie' who by a running mile is the one true high point of the film.

OTHER POINTS - again Quidich looks like they ran out of cash and just knocked something together in an afternoon. I can't believe that of over half a dozen visual effects companies that are involved in the movie that's the best they can come up with. Also the number of coincidental 'occurances' just becomes annoying and stupid like a certain charaters middle name (well random combination of letters) which you see breifly is a major point in identifing them.

FINAL POINT - I'll finish on a good point if you jumped during 'Eight Legged Freaks' you will again, Dobbie rules, and with that I must be punished and so will go iron my hands.

Db1animal over and out, except for, THANK GOD FOR LOTR & BOND they I have no doubt will restore my faith.

[dh1989]

Spoilers Lie ahead.....

When Harry Meets SCARY

The new Potter is a lot darker and seeks a new audience: older kids

By JESS CAGLE


At last it can be told: despite the $900 million it made at the global box office, despite its ranking as the highest-grossing film of 2001, director Chris Columbus was not entirely happy with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. "I always thought we could have gotten the visual effects better," he says. The pacing of the film, he admits, was a bit sluggish. "The first 40 minutes of the first Harry Potter film were introductions."

On Nov. 15, when the bespectacled wizard returns in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, based on the second novel in J.K. Rowling's blockbuster series, fans will see a bolder, more menacing, faster-paced movie — and to put it bluntly, a better one. "It's more of everything," says Daniel Radcliffe, 13, who once again plays Harry with brainy subtlety (but whose voice has dropped a good octave). "And it's a lot darker."

It is also much scarier. The movie mirrors the progress of Rowling's books, which become more sinister and intense as they go along. In the new film, a dead cat is hung in a hallway at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry; children are frozen stiff (or "petrified") by a monster; Harry and his sidekick Ron (Rupert Grint) are attacked with surprising violence by a monstrous Whomping Willow after crash-landing in its gnarled branches in a flying car. Later, they're chased through the Forbidden Forest by an army of giant spiders.

Warner Bros. was afraid that the movie would receive a PG-13 rating — a dangerous proposition, since Potter's most devoted fans are preteens. Just as important, the core consumers for Potter toys, which generated about $500 million in sales last time around, range in age from 7 to 11. Instead, the film is conveniently PG, like its predecessor.

Still, the filmmakers are eager to let you know that your children may be afraid, very afraid. "I would strongly caution parents," says Columbus, "anyone who has a 7-year-old or younger, to make sure they know what they're getting into."

His warning is the cinematic equivalent of a parental advisory on music, a not entirely unintentional come-on to older teens and young adults who thought the last Potter film skewed too young. In the posters for Chamber of Secrets, Harry looks intense, and he's holding a sword. It's an image designed to appeal to older audiences, the same moviegoers who embraced the other movie franchise launched a year ago, Lord of the Rings.

The competition between Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter — the sibling rivals of the AOL Time Warner entertainment family — is intense. Last year's Fellowship of the Ring, the first of three J.R.R. Tolkien — based movies to be released by the company's New Line division, came in second at the box office behind Harry Potter. Unlike Potter, however, it ended up on numerous critics' best-of-the-year lists and received 13 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. (The Sorcerer's Stone received only three.)

This time it's widely assumed in Hollywood that Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, set for release on Dec. 18, will outgross Chamber of Secrets. Potter mania seems to have quieted a bit, in part because Rowling hasn't published a novel in two years. (The author says she will deliver the fifth of an eventual seven Potter books in 2003.) While Sorcerer's Stone pulled in $318 million domestically, this one is expected to make closer to $250 million — still an impressive number. And it will undoubtedly win the merchandising race. Potter toys are already selling briskly, and stores have even reported shortages on Lego's Chamber of Secrets tie-ins, according to Jim Silver, publisher of Toy Wishes magazine. Lord of the Rings' merchandise has also been successful, but less so because of its older audience and later release date.

Going into his second year at Hogwarts, Harry is more heroic, and so is Columbus. While he was accused of being too slavishly faithful to Rowling's book the first time around, in Chamber of Secrets the director gives his imagination freer rein. In the new film, Quidditch — the ball game played by young witches and wizards on broomsticks — is as exciting as a car chase. Harry's showdown with a terrifying serpent surpasses even the most imaginative readers' expectations. It all adds up to a 2-hr. 42-min. movie--9 min. longer than Sorcerer's Stone. "The length didn't seem to be an issue last time," says Columbus, "but I wanted this film to feel as if it moved much quicker."

The movie still feels too long at times; that's the price you pay for seeing so much of the book on screen. But the inexperienced young stars are much livelier than before. This is especially true of Emma Watson, 12, as the know-it-all little witch Hermione Granger. While filming Sorcerer's Stone, Columbus often stepped into the scene, just off-camera, and coached the actors line by line. "I do a little of that now," says Columbus, "but they can literally get through entire sequences without me interrupting them."

Some things in Potter's world, though, haven't changed. Production designer Stuart Craig's Diagon Alley — the teetering jumble of Tudor and Georgian magic shops — is still standing. The original cast is intact, including Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid and, as the wise Professor Dumbledore, Richard Harris. The Irish actor, who suffered from Hodgkin's disease, died at age 72 on Oct. 25. No word yet on who might replace him, but the character does appear in the third Potter flick, The Prisoner of Azkaban, which will go into production in spring of 2003.

With each movie, Rowling seems to be stepping back; Columbus says she did not visit the set of Chamber of Secrets. "I think she was busy writing the fifth novel," he says. "She's there if we need her, but she trusts us now." The author did give her blessing when it came time to find a new director for Prisoner of Azkaban. Says Columbus, who will shift to executive producer on the next movie: "I really thought halfway through the second one, 'It's been almost two years since I've had dinner with my family during the week.'"

His replacement is Alfonso Cuaron, a surprising choice, since his most recent film was Y Tu Mama Tambien, this year's racy, critically hailed Mexican road movie about two teenage boys and an older woman. But Cuaron also has experience adapting the works of esteemed British authors — Frances Hodgson Burnett (1995's A Little Princess) and Charles Dickens (1998's Great Expectations). Prisoner of Azkaban isn't scheduled until summer 2004, so there will be no new Potter film next year. This will allow Radcliffe to spend time in a normal school rather than with tutors on the set. Though the world is watching Radcliffe grow up onscreen, he insists, "not much has changed." Except that his world is becoming scarier.

[dh1989]

Originally posted by dh1989
writing under the influence of drugs will make you a shed load of cash.



I kind of lost any respect for this person's opinion after reading that sentence about J.K. Rowling.

[dh1989]

Here is some new stuff from AICN.....

First, is a another review written by the man who disliked CoS and sent in a review yesterday......

Hey folks, Harry here... Yesterday we posted a review from a fellow that seemed to feel that he hated HARRY POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS... This struck many of us as odd, as thus far, save for a few quibbles here and there, the word on the film has been sterling. Plus the review was written in what felt like a very rushed and non-thought out manner. Well that writer is back to clarify his disdain for the film in a couple of clearly stated points. HOWEVER, and I must stress this, that at this point this seems to be an EXTREME minority. We've got two over reviews after this one that just sing the song of Harry Potter and it sounds like an Ode to Joy. To each their own, eh?
Hey Harry,

Wrote in last night with a review of Harry Potter 2 (the very negative review). If you post this it would be appreciated, if not no harm no foul. I have no excuse for my bad grammar, spelling, ability to review and inform, except for being in that zone where your just moaning about anything and everything because you just need to get it off your chest. To all my appolgies, I've learnt my lesson and will proof read my work from now on.

I have no intention of changing my opinion of the film, it made my skin crawl, but I would like the opportunity to somewhat reclaim an ounce of my respected with a couple of clear points.

Firstly the 'Potter' novels are not kids books just as many adults buy and read them as do kids so anyone calling the films 'kids films' is way off base, and because of this you would expect a film with wide appeal. As I stated before I have not read the books so I cannot say if anything has been lost in its translation from page to screen. All I can comment on is the feel and flow of film on screen, or more plainly the lack of it. Example: there are too many scenes where the dialogue between characters just doesn't feel right, as if one actor filmed part of the scene one day and another has done their lines a few weeks later the tone and flow isn't there. For me it is this basic flow of dialogue between characters which keeps me hooked to what's happening no matter what type of film I'm watching.

Secondly, I do watch a lot of movies, I love watching films, I loving being apart of the industry (the final part in fact, I show the films to all who enjoy to watch), and more often than not I enjoy most of the films I see, but every now and then films which alot of people adore, I find seem to lack something and vice a versa. Example: Star Wars Ep2, I loved it, it gave me exactly what I wanted and what I was expecting, where as Spider-Man just left me feeling disappointed, whether too much hype affected my judgement as to what to expect I'll never know. Back to Potter, I wasn't expecting much from it, I'm not a fan I didn't think much of the first, yet I still came out criticising it because of basic flaws in script, acting, editing and direction that a film with this sort of budget shouldn't have. It came across very half hearted in the effort put in by those involved.

Finally, this film will make mega-bucks, millions will love it, millions will feel the same as I and curse it, millions couldn't care less and won't even watch it. I am however eager to see the next purely because of the director, whose last film I saw 'Tu Mama Tambien' I found very entertaining.

Db1animal, Signing Out

P.S. - 28 Days Later rocks, finally got round to watching it tonight and I was very impressed, zombie fans will enjoy.

Well I know I have different tastes than this person. I loved Spider-Man, but thought the new SW was a bit dissapointing.

Second, here are two new extremely positive reviews sent into AICN......

Ok, so you've just read a more reasoned and thoughtful look at why the fellow from yesterday hated this new Harry Potter film. He admits that it'll delight and thrill millions and anger others. Typical. Well, below you'll find two people that really loved the film. The first says it is better than the first film. The second declares it their favorite film of all time! Here ya go...
Hi Harry!

I saw the new Potter on November 3, London premiere and I absolutely loved what they did with the second movie. I`m a fan of the books and I was disappointed with rather unimaginative first movie which failed to capture the spirit of the books which made them so popular. I didn`t mind bad effects as much as bad direction, lead actor`s wooden acting (Radcliffe seemed so stunned by set pieces that he forgot to breathe let alone act) and horrible, horrible final showdown among many other things.

Since the second book is the least favorite with fans I as worried how it was going to turn out. You see, it is still a very good book which could`ve been great if Rowling had had the right focus. There`s this incredible plot about pre-teen Nazis and racial bigotry, however, Rowling created this horrible character Gilderoy Lockhart and got so carried away with him that intriguing plot I mentioned above plays second banana to Lockhart show. Fortunately, someone in WB realized what the book`s biggest shortcoming is so the movie is much more about Harry vs Draco Malfoy, Gryffindor vs Slytherin, Mudbloods vs purebloods than Lockhart`s antics.

Another thing that makes COS a better movie than book are characters. While annoying to tears in the books, the likes of Ginny, Colin and Lockhart are anything but in the movie thanks to well-cast actors. Branagh makes stuck-up Lockhart watchable, the boy who plays paparazzo Colin is a quirky addition to the cast, his camera immortalizing every embarrassing moment until getting dusted off by resident monster`s fell stare and Bonnie Wright who plays Ginny makes the character tougher and spookier than she`s supposed to be in the books. Oh, and flashing her knees didn`t hurt either.

But standouts among newcomers are Jason Isaacs` Lucious Malfoy and the teenager who plays Tom Riddle. Isaacs` Malfoy is different Malfoy from the one in the books and this is magnificent change. This new Malfoy is creepy, dangerous and powerful, something you couldn`t feel about his book incarnation who is mostly a snob. But in Isaacs` interpretation Mr Malfoy oozes power and jeopardy, you can feel that this guy could just raise his finger and erase little Potty if the timing was right. Also, his nasty son Draco shits his pants when his dad`s around which is an edgier interpretation of their relationship. And the nasty guy gets some quotable new lines which I wish were in the book. BTW, his name pronounces Lou-sea-ous, not Lou-shoe-ss as I thought but I like this Latin, ancient pronunciation more.

Tom Riddle rocks too. In the books, Harry`s nemesis strikes a slight physical resemblance to Harry but the boy who plays Riddle looks more Potter (as described in the books) than Potter himself - malnourished, paper-white, green-eyed, bad hair day - if he had been 11 he would`ve cut it as Potter hands down. And the boy has obvious acting range so kudos to casting managers for hiring such a talented "Dark Potter".

Which doesn`t mean that Daniel Radcliffe didn`t begin to deliver goods, finally. Last year I was convinced he was so wrong for the role but after COS I must admit he is Potter, albeit handsome one. I don`t know where all this toughness comes from but something happened with the young actor between 2 movies and this is awesome change. He gained so much confidence and leading man attitude and at times you can see that Dark Lord is lurking inside Harry...but I shouldn`t have said that, shouldn`t have said that! He`ll be magnificent when Cuaron takes him in his capable hands. The kid pulls off tough, sword-wielding hero despite glasses, no small feat.

I hated child actor`s acting(or lack there of) in the first movie but even than the kids had great chemistry. It shines in this movie and kids were obviously sent back to acting school so their interacting is believable. Giving Draco Malfoy almost as much screen time as leading trio`s is excellent and some of the best scenes are trio`s bitching with the Nazi boy who looks so much like mini Eminem.

Rupert Grint (Ron) excels at physical comedy, his comic timing is perfect, while beautiful Emma Watson(hermione) oozes butt-kicking mojo.

Philosopher`s Stone lacked of charactererisation and character develpement, COS is character-driven. The lead and other characters get more meat too - Ron`s family members (poor yet good-hearted wizards as opposed to rich and evil Malfoys), Neville and Seamus, above mentioned newcomers, Dobby the House Elf, Moaning Myrtle.

Alright, the plot or what trailers didn`t tell you (kudos to WB for keeping the best surprises under the wraps instead of flaunting them in trailers). Some evil stalker attacks Hogwarts students who aren`t 100% wizards. Kids wind up petrified so it`s up to Harry&co to find the attacker who calls himself Heir of Slytherin.Slytherin is, BTW, big bad founder of Hogwarts who believed in racial purity and wanted Hogwarts "ethnically cleansed" from Muggle-born students. Now his heir conducts "ethnical cleansing" much to delight of young Malfoy, his goons and other student from Slytherin House named after the Big Bad. Turns out the Big Bad was parsletongue and, surprise, so is Potter! The kids get freaked out thinking he`s the Heir of Slytherin and begin to avoid him. Harry, on the other hand, does have some doubts about his connection with Slytherin and ...I`ll stop right here cause things get too cool to be spoiled.

I mentioned the awful showdown of the original movie, bad execution, atrocious Mummy-like effect. This time around the climax is outstanding. I can`t decide what`s better, action or wordy part of the Chamber showdown, both are awesome with some changes for the better (like most of the battle taking place on top of Slytherin statue which is more appropriate given the Slytherin-themed plot) but what send chills down my spine is what`s written in the air (you`ll know when you see the movie, book readers know what I`m talking about). Despite the fact that I knew what was coming it`s done so well that it gave me goosebumps. The climax mixes horror and beauty in equal measure, it`s trully a must-see.

Some Potter fans will hate me for saying this but I think that COS turned out great thanks to FOTR. Simply, WB suits realized that the competition did much better job when it comes to book adaptation and decided to follow their cue and deliver a good movie. Without LOTR Potter wouldn`t have had a strong fantasy movie to compare to and I think that comparission in favor of LOTR made after their release helped COS shape up into a great flick. You can see LOTR influences throughout the movie especially during the Duelling Club where kids pull Gandalf/Saruman-like wizarding duel with stunning mid-air twists and turns (in the books they are supposed to be more gimmicky). Also, Columbus improved his directing and took some liberties among which is cutting out some really unnecessary scenes such as Deathday party, a real pain in the ass to read. And shippers will spend months discussing the ending where Hermione hugs Harry but not Ron!

Conclusion: great little flick mixing genuine creeps and darkness with fun (including gross comedy such as Ron vomitting slugs, Moaning Myrtle`s toilet antics, Harry`s boneless hand), action and lots of heart. That`s right. Heart. First movie didn`t have it, this one has found it, let hope the third one will keep it.

Dino

Here's a review from an absolute lover of all thing Harry Potter:
Hey, Harry. I just saw the CoS film and figured I'd send in my review.

First, I'm one of the biggest HP fans around. So this will be somewhat biased...but ah well.

In short: My favourite movie ever!!!!! I LOVED it!!!!

It opens hilariously, and you soon meet Dobby the House-elf, a funny but slightly irritating...well...house elf...who warns Harry not to go back to school.

Of course, he does anyways. And it's all okay at first. Harry and his classmates repot Mandrakes (plants whose roots are small, ugly babies), transform animals into water goblets, and face a cage full of Pixies.

Soon, however, they discover that something is Petrifying the students (amoung other things), and, of course, it's Harry's job to stop it.

The cast does wonderful. Harry gives a much more satisfactory performance (I found his performance in PS to be a tad unconvincing), and Rupert and Emma have grown into their roles, as well. Rupert is hysterical, and Emma is so believable, it's scary. The new cast members, particularly Jason Issacs and Kenneth Branagh, are fantastic. Jason gives a chilling performance as Lucius Malfoy, father of Harry's arch-nemesis (aside from Snape and Voldemort). He is pure evil. And Mr. Branagh plays Professor Gilderoy Lockhart, a world renowned wizard, "Order of Merlin, Third Class, Honorary Member of the Dark Force Defense League, and 5 times winner of 'Witch Weeklys' Most-Charming-Smile Award." Lockhart is exceedingly arrogant and narccistic, and completley full of himself. But of course, everyone already knows that...

The CGI was much better. There are no troll-looking scenes in it. Dobby looks stunningly real at points. Fawkes the Phoenix (also a puppet) looks fairly good. And the Quidditch match...I never had a problem with the Quidditch Match in PS. It was fine to me. This is even better. It looks much more realistic, and it's faster paced. And the basilisk...Wow. Amazing. The basilisk is probably one of the most realistic CGI monsters ever. It even rivals the Jurrasic Park dinosaurs. This scene is truly scary. And the dialouge between Harry and Tom Riddle (a former student at Hogwarts), is chilling. Much better than the final scene of the first film. Very scary.

So anyways...the ending is good. I won't give anything away, I'll just say it's good.

Conclusion: Amazing. The Flying Car scene will entertain you, the Quidditch match will excite you, Aragog (a gigantic spider) will scare you (I have a minor form of arachnaphobia, so this was horrifying for me...I closed my eyes at parts), and the final sequences will chill you. In all, you're in for one amazing ride.

~ C.D.

Overall, I think most of the folks who saw CoS at an early screening enjoyed the heck out of it, spare a few.

[dh1989]

Todd McCarthy, the top critic from Variety, has written his highly positive review of Chamber of Secrets. I have posted it below. As always, spoilers ahead....

There's Still Something About 'Harry'

By Todd McCarthy, Variety Chief Film Critic

HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - While "Harry Potter (news - web sites) and the Chamber of Secrets" may slavishly adhere to its source novel nearly as much as its predecessor did, it is on every count a better movie than last year's first film installment in the telling of the story of a young wizard's startling education.


Darker and more dramatic, this account of Harry's troubled second year at Hogwarts may be a bit overlong and unmodulated in pacing, but it possesses a confidence and intermittent flair that begin to give it a life of its own apart of the literary franchise, something the initial picture never achieved.


With Pottermania perhaps having cooled over the course of a year from the heat level of a burning furnace to that of a happily bubbling cauldron, it can't be expected that "Chamber of Secrets" will hit the dizzying commercial heights of "Sorcerer's Stone," which at $967 million total gross ($317.6 million from the U.S.) stands as the No. 2 worldwide box office hit of all time. But its mammoth success remains a foregone conclusion.


Just as author J.K. Rowling assumed a certain reader knowledge in her second book (published in 1999), so do returning director Chris Columbus and screenwriter Steve Kloves rightly presume to pare exposition down to the minimum this time out (it's hard to imagine anyone seeing this who hasn't caught the original). So it's only a matter of about 20 minutes until Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), who has endured a dispiriting summer as a virtual prisoner at the suburban home of his dreadfully conventional uncle and aunt, is off again to Hogwarts to resume his study of witchcraft and wizardry.


Happily, a good part of the buildup is spent back at Diagon Alley, where Harry first encounters Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh), so ideally cast you'd think Rowling wrote the character with him in mind). The preening author of the autobiography "Magical Me," Lockhart is joining the Hogwarts faculty as teacher of Defense Against the Dark Arts. Also entering the stage for the first time is Lucius Malfoy (Jason Isaacs), the blond-tressed, evil-oozing father of Harry's school archrival, Draco.


Mysteriously prevented from passing through the barrier to platform nine and three-quarters at King's Cross station, Harry and his best friend, Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), are forced to travel by car -- Ron's dad's flying Ford Anglia, to be specific -- which lands the boys safely on the school grounds, but none too smoothly in the mighty branches of an ancient tree that takes great offense at the intrusion.


Although Harry's voice has dropped an octave or so since the first year, he's not really a teenager yet; all the same, there is a new ardor in his excitement over reuniting with Hermione (Emma Watson), the top student in their class. Aptly, Harry, Ron and Hermione seem more truly and enthusiastically like best friends and co-conspirators this time around; a little self-consciousness is evident, and the young leading thesps indulge in moments of spontaneity that reassuringly suggest they now feel more at home in their roles.


Although Hogwarts is still dominated by the same figures -- headmaster Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris), Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith), Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) and Hagrid the Giant (Robbie Coltrane) -- and classes begin promisingly with Lockhart and the new professor of Herbology, Sprout (Miriam Margolyes), who performs a particularly amusing demonstration of the proper method of topping mandrakes, all is not well. Harry starts hearing a malevolent voice of unknown origin urging him to kill, and a pet cat is found hanging in a hallway.


These and subsequent events, in which students are found "petrified," lead to speculation about Hogwarts' legendary Chamber of Secrets, which is thought to have been reopened. Professor McGonagall tells her charges such a chamber, the alleged home of a terrifying monster, has never been found, which only encourages Harry, Ron and Hermione to dig into its mysteries.


Conflict hinges on the supposition that whoever opened the chamber must be the descendent of Salazar Slytherin, the renegade co-founder of Hogwarts who insisted only pure-blooded wizards and witches should be permitted at the school. Suspicion naturally falls upon Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), whose father is ardently committed to ridding the institution of "Muggles," or the children of normal human beings; to this end, Hermione begins preparing an exotic potion to enable her and her two friends to interrogate Draco on the subject.


But the possibility cannot be ignored that, in the manner of "Star Wars"' Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter himself is the unknowing descendent of the most accomplished and evil wizard on the books. Certainly others think so; Harry conveniently turns up wherever an unseemly incident occurs, and he surprises even himself by being a Parselmouth, someone able to converse with a snake.

In a nicely rendered sepia sequence, Harry learns a good deal from the "interactive" diary of a long-ago student named Tom Riddle, whose exploits in the chamber reveal the involvement of Hagrid and Dumbledore and the portentous escape of a spider. When Hermione becomes petrified and is removed to hospital, and the school's very existence becomes threatened by all the disturbances, Harry and Ron undertake a visit to Hagrid's, then to a spider-infested forest, to crack the puzzle.

Ultimately, however, Harry must enter the chamber himself and sword in hand, Siegfried-style, confront the beast. The nocturnal spider sequence will spawn many a childhood nightmare, to be sure, but the climactic serpent battle packs genuine tension; differentiating between this PG-rated action and that in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," which earned a PG-13, is an exercise in hair-splitting. In any event, parents might want to think twice about taking genuine small fry along to "Chamber of Secrets."

With the newfound confidence shown by Columbus and the continued shrewd stewardship of producer David Heyman, improvements over the first film are to be found in all departments. Cinematographer Roger Pratt ("Batman," "The End of the Affair"), taking over from John Seale, whose strength always has been location lensing rather than studio lighting, has Columbus moving the camera much more than before, which gives the film increased momentum and visual energy; greater contrasts between light and shadow add a darker tone.

Production designer Stuart Craig, whose splendid work was perhaps the felicitous highlight of "Sorcerer's Stone," adds to his accomplishment here with superb creations for Dumbledore's office, the spider's lair and the massive chamber itself. New costume designer Lindy Hemming ("Topsy Turvy") has added to the imaginative costumes established by Judianna Makovsky with witty creations for the showy Lockhart and the sinister Lucius, among others. Even the new Quidditch match is better achieved than the blandly computerized-looking counterpart the first time out.

The greatest relief of all: The volume and aggressiveness of John Williams' calamitous score for the original has been reduced several times over, to the point where the musical accompaniment, which still remains more ever-present than absolutely necessary, nonetheless functions in a properly supportive and helpful manner.

Near-epic running time, which filmmakers might rationalize as necessary to accommodate all the essential incidents of the novel, might prove wearying to some, but won't be a barrier; at 161 minutes, the picture is nine minutes longer than "Sorcerer's Stone," although final credits run a full 10 minutes. At the end of them is a very short filmed coda revealing the humorous fate of one of the principals.

A more muscular filmmaker might have made the film seem to pass more quickly via imaginative pacing -- Columbus gives every scene equal weight and never varies the tempo -- but pic is not likely to induce active squirming despite the length. However, if Kloves' scripts are to remain as all-inclusively faithful to the novels as the first two have been, one has to begin worrying about the running times of the forthcoming productions, given the massively expanding length of the books.

In addition to the welcome contributions of series newcomers Branagh, Margolyes and Isaacs, film features a commanding turn by Christian Coulson as the mysterious Tom Riddle. Rather less enchanting is a CGI creature named Dobby, the elfin servant of Lucius who at intervals imparts crucial information to Harry but, in the way he annoyingly prattles on and on, threatens to become the Jar Jar Binks of the Potter series. By contrast, some of the other creatures, notably the mandrakes and the serpentine Basilisk, are splendidly realized.

While the late Richard Harris plays a much more significant role than he did in the first entry and seizes opportunities to inject whimsy when possible, it must be said that he looks none too well here: The voice is weak, the skin noticeably pale even with all the makeup.

For the next series entry, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," which begins production next spring and therefore won't be ready for holiday release a year hence, Alfonso Cuaron will assume the directorial reins from Columbus, who will remain as executive producer. It's a prospect that has fans curious already as to the different inflections the talented Mexican helmer might bring to this very British franchise. In the meantime, the series has already taken a step in the right direction.

Harry Potter ............ Daniel Radcliffe

Ron Weasley ............. Rupert Grint

Hermione Granger ........ Emma Watson

Gilderoy Lockhart ....... Kenneth Branagh

Nearly Headless Nick .... John Cleese

Hagrid the Giant ........ Robbie Coltrane

Professor Flitwick ...... Warwick Davis

Uncle Vernon ............ Richard Griffiths

Albus Dumbledore ........ Richard Harris

Lucius Malfoy ........... Jason Isaacs

Professor Snape ......... Alan Rickman

Aunt Petunia ............ Fiona Shaw

Professor McGonagall .... Maggie Smith

Mrs. Weasley ............ Julie Walters

Moaning Myrtle .......... Shirley Henderson

Aragog .................. Julian Glover

Professor Sprout ........ Miriam Margolyes

Mr. Weasley ............. Mark Williams

Dobby ................... Toby Jones

Ginny Weasley ........... Bonnie Wright

Draco Malfoy ............ Tom Felton

Argus Filch ............. David Bradley

Madam Pomfrey ........... Gemma Jones

Tom Riddle .............. Christian Coulson

A Warner Bros. release of a Heyday Films/1492 Pictures production. Produced by David Heyman. Executive producers, Mark Radcliffe, Michael Barnathan, Chris Columbus, David Barron. Co-producer, Tanya Seghatchian.

Directed by Chris Columbus. Screenplay, Steve Kloves, based on the novel by J.K. Rowling. Camera (Technicolor, Panavision widescreen), Roger Pratt; editor, Peter Honess; music, John Williams; production designer, Stuart Craig; supervising art director, Neil Lamont; art directors, John King, Steven Lawrence, Andrew Ackland-Snow, Lucinda Thomson, Peter Francis, Mark Bartholomew; set designer, Patricia Johnson; set decorator, Stephenie McMillan; costume designer, Lindy Hemming; sound (Dolby Digital/DTS/SDDS), John Midgley; sound designer and supervisor, David Randall Thom; visual effects supervisors, Jim Mitchell, Nick Davis; visual effects, Industrial Light & Magic, Mill Film, the Moving Picture Co., Framestore-CFC, Cinesite (Europe); special effects supervisor, John Richardson; creature & makeup effects designer, Nick Dudman; associate producer, Paula Dupre Pesmen; assistant director, Chris Carreras; second unit director, Peter Macdonald; second unit camera, Michael Brewster; stunt coordinator, Greg Powell; casting, Karen Lindsay-Stewart. Reviewed at the Grove, L.A., Nov. 4, 2002.

Cool, huh?

[dh1989]

Screen Daily fromt the UK has posted a highly positive review of CoS.....

Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets

Allan Hunter in Edinburgh

Dir: Chris Columbus. US/UK. 2002. 161 mins

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That seems to be the guiding philosophy behind the second instalment of the gilt-edged boy wizard franchise. Scrupulously faithful to the J K Rowling book, director Chris Columbus does nothing that will disappoint fans or alarm exhibitors anticipating a pre-Christmas bonanza. There are plenty of new ingredients to keep the franchise fresh, from an obsequious elf to an enchanted flying car, and if anything the second film is more thrilling and involving than the first as the emotional stakes are raised by placing Harry and his schoolmates in mortal danger. Critics may reserve their loftiest superlatives for the Tolkein trilogy but neither the darker tone nor the excessive running-time should prevent Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets matching or even surpassing the box-office benchmarks of its predecessor.


Unburdened by the need for introductions or scene-setting, the second Potter film cuts straight to the story as Harry (Radcliffe) finds his suburban incarceration interrupted by Dobby, an elf who warns him not to return to Hogwarts for the start of term. Rescued by Ron (Grint) and his brothers, he ignores the predictions of danger and continues his education. Soon, bloody writing on the school walls reveals that a hidden Chamber of Secrets has been opened, pets and pupils are found petrified and Hogwarts is no longer thought to be safe.

Constantly in the wrong place at the wrong time, even Harry begins to falls under suspicion especially when it becomes apparent that he possesses the rare and deadly gift of being able to talk in snake language. When headmaster Albus Dumblebore (Harris) is suspended and the loyal Hagrid (Coltrane) is dispatched to the notorious Azbakan jail, Harry is left vulnerable to his enemies but if he is to survive, he must confront the evil that lurks in the Chamber of Secrets.

Although there are some sluggish passages towards the half way mark, the film does benefit from a rattling good mystery yarn as the gloomy Hogwarts castle becomes even more of a haunted house in which anything could be lurking around the next dark, shadowy corridor. The effects are noticeably more effective this time around as they conjure up a convincingly fearsome snake, a cave of angry arachnids and an exciting, high-speed Quidditch game. The tiniest of tots my find it all too much for their delicate sensibilities but children should relish all the attempts to scare them out of their wits.

The three main child actors, including Emma Watson as Hermione, have gained in confidence and grown nicely into their roles and all of the regular ensemble from the first film return, including a frail-sounding Richard Harris in a touching swansong and an underused Robbie Coltrane as gentle giant Hagrid. New recruit Kenneth Branagh adds considerably to the fun as conceited, matinee idol wizard Gilderoy Lockhart who is hired as the Defence Against The Black Arts teacher. A flaxen-maned Jason Isaacs is a suitably chilling and hissable Lucius Malfoy and Shirley Henderson makes a delightfully petulant schoolgirl ghost Moaning Myrtle as she haunts the ladies lavatory.

If comparisons are made with soulless Summer blockbusters like Scooby-Doo and Men In Black 11, then the Harry Potter franchise is all too clearly in a league of its own in creating exciting, fun-filled large-scale entertainments that cross all boundaries of geography and age. A greater sense of wonderment and a little more directorial flair would be welcome but those might well be issues that Alfonso Cuaron will address when he takes command for Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban.

The Hollywood Reporter has posted a negative review of CoS.....

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

By Kirk Honeycutt

In his second movie adventure, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is still a resourceful and engaging lad.

Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry remains a magical kingdom of state-of-the-art visual effects. His young pals -- the earnest though easily frightened Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and preternaturally beautiful and brainy Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) -- stand fast in their loyalty to the film's young hero.

So fans of the first movie and, of course, J.K. Rowling's series of children's books, will embrace "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" with the same enthusiasm they did the first film, released a year ago. For the casual moviegoer, though, some of the charm of Harry and Hogwarts has diminished.

The sense of discovery, that initial encounter with the stories' vivid characters and whimsical parallel universe, is missing. In its stead comes frantic activity. Characterization takes a back seat to action, and "magic" serves as the author's escape hatch: Whenever Harry and his sidekicks stumble into danger, a flying car or charmed phoenix materializes to save the moment. None of which will damage the bottom line: This Warner Bros. Pictures release, again adapted by Steve Kloves and directed by Chris Columbus, will suffer little if any erosion from the boxoffice magic of the first film.

Most of the adult actors -- a British hall of acting fame that includes the late Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, John Cleese, Julie Walters, Robbie Coltrane, Richard Griffiths and Fiona Shaw -- return, albeit in ephemeral appearances that fail to deepen one's understanding of their characters. Two new characters, though, are dubious additions.

One is Kenneth Branagh's preening Gilderoy Lockhart, a narcissist and charlatan of the first order, who takes over as Defense Against the Dark Arts professor. This maladroit magician, more interested in penning his memoirs than practicing witchcraft, is an amusing creation but such a one-note cartoon that he swiftly wears out his welcome. A much worse irritant is a neurotic elf named Dobby, a CG cousin of "Star Wars' " Jar Jar Binks, who incessantly grovels and punishes himself with self-abuse worthy of a medieval flagellant.

After the obligatory opening scenes in the world of the Muggles (humans with no magical abilities), Harry returns for his sophomore year at Hogwarts with difficulty. Finding the rail station's invisible portal to the Hogwarts Express mysteriously blocked, Harry and Ron hop into his parents' flying Ford Anglia for a wild ride to Hogwarts.

Soon the school falls under a dark cloud. A chilly voice whispers from the walls to Harry in a language he surprisingly can understand. Students are found "petrified," warnings appear on walls in blood and a monster moves about the school unimpeded. Apparently, someone has opened the legendary, though hidden, Chamber of Secrets.

Harry, Ron and Hermoine's struggle to get to the bottom of these frightening incidents is not helped when a rumor spreads that Harry is the long-dreaded heir of Slytherin, one of the school's founders, who created the Chamber of Secrets. Then from a secret diary springs a spirit, Tom Riddle (Christian Coulson), who offers to show Harry what lies behind a mystifying incident that took place at the school 50 years before.

Again, all of this takes place in a tradition-minded British boarding school where staircases and portraits move, giant spiders and rambunctious spells lurk and fretful ghosts, including a new one in Moaning Myrtle (Shirley Henderson), drift through chambers.

And again, the filmmakers fear to tamper with the holy writ of Rowling. Rather than shape her material for cinematic purposes, Kloves and Columbus retain the most tangential subplots and weakest characters. What plays like an intriguing side excursion on the printed page merely gums up the works in a film that at 161 minutes feels as bloated as an overfed child wobbling away from the Christmas table.

More than ever, the film must rely on its technical crew. Nick Dudman's imaginative creature and makeup effects, Roger Platt's painterly cinematography, Lindy Hemming's flamboyant costumes and Stuart Craig's labyrinthine sets that melt into many visual and special effects all convincingly usher us into the realm of the fantastic. Thankfully, John Williams has toned down this episode's score, so it playfully supports the action rather than swamps it in melodic overkill.



HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS
Warner Bros. Pictures
A Heyday Films/1492 Pictures production
Credits:
Director: Chris Columbus
Screeenwriter: Steve Kloves
Based on the novel by: J.K. Rowling
Producer: David Heyman
Executive producers: Mark Radcliffe, Michael Barnathan, Chris Columbus, David Barron
Director of photography: Roger Platt
Production designer: Stuart Craig
Music: John Williams
Co-producer: Tanya Seghatchian
Costume designer: Lindy Hemming
Editor: Peter Honess
Cast:
Harry Potter: Daniel Radcliffe
Ron Weasley: Rupert Grint
Hermione Granger: Emma Watson
Gilderoy Lockhart: Kenneth Branagh
Nearly Headless Nick: John Cleese
Hagrid the Giant: Robbie Coltrane
Professor Filius Flitwick: Warwick Davis
Uncle Vernon Dursley: Richard Griffiths
Lucius Malfoy: Jason Isaacs
Albus Dumbledore: Richard Harris
Aunt Petunia: Fiona Shaw
Prof. McGonagal: Maggie Smith
Professor Snape: Alan Rickman
Moaning Myrtle: Shirley Henderson.
Running time -- 161 minutes
MPAA rating: PG

[dh1989]

Lizo Mzimba of BBC has posted a short positive review of CoS....

The first movie was the biggest film of last year, so this one has a lot to live up to. So does it deliver? The answer's a definite yes.

Everything has moved up a step from Philosopher's Stone - the children's performances, the action and crucially the special effects.

Fantastic effects

The storyline follows Harry at school in his second year, where something strange and sinister is stalking the halls of Hogwarts, attacking students so that it seems they've been turned to stone.

There are more set pieces in this movie - an extended Quidditch chase with the rogue bludger, the spiders in the Forbidden Forest and the Chamber of Secrets itself. And the effects in each are superb.

Surprise for fans

As ever, a few bits of the book have had to be taken out to fit it all into one movie - Mr Borgin in Borgin & Burkes and the Deathday Party. But there are one or two surprises for Potter fanatics (stay until the very end of the end credits).

Second, Jonathan Ross of The Mirror has posted a positive review of CoS...

HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS

Cert: PG, 160 mins

HERE we go again. If you have kids, or just happen to pass them in the street occasionally, then steady yourself for another outbreak of badly drawn lightning flashes on pre-teen foreheads as Potter-mania returns.


Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets is released next Friday and it's about as close to being a must-see movie for the young as it's possible to get.

There's something almost sinister, in a dark arts kind of way, about the manner in which the nation's youth has been entranced by this likeable boy wizard and his adventures at the most interesting boarding school in the country.

But before you dust off the dunking stool, my logic system insists that the only spell Ms JK Rowling has cast is one of cracking good stories filled with imaginative ideas. And told well enough to keep kids turning the pages - so let's rule out any funny business early on.

Chamber Of Secrets takes up just a few months after the first movie left off. Young Harry has returned from his first year at Hogwarts to live with his ridiculous Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon.

But to make matters worse, it seems as if his new school friends have forgotten him, as he hasn't received a single letter from them all summer.

The appearance of a mysterious house elf called Dobby, who warns Harry not to return to Hogwarts, offers up an explanation - Dobby has been hiding Harry's mail in the hope that he will forget his new friends and stay with the Muggles.

In fact, Dobby is so keen to stop Harry returning to school that he even barricades up the secret entrance to Platform nine and three-quarters, forcing Harry and Ron to make their way to Hogwarts under their own steam - with a little help from a flying Ford Anglia.

Hogwarts is just as special as Harry remembers, although the new Defence Against The Dark Arts teacher, Gilderoy Lockhart, makes for some more colourful lessons.

Lockhart is an attention-seeking buffoon and his lust for celebrity means he tries to associate himself with young Mr P whenever possible, as does new boy Colin Creevey and Ron Weasley's sister Ginny, albeit for altogether more normal reasons.

BUT none of that matters as Harry finds himself implicated in a series of strange and near-fatal attacks that have left some students, and the caretaker's cat, petrified.

Harry, Ron and Hermione have to face up to the sinister threat if they want to live see another term.

Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets is, as might be hoped, a great film for the kids. There's more action and less exposition than in the first film and most sequences are better handled by Chris Columbus and his special-effects team.

The quidditch match is more exciting and there's a more consistent tone of dark, scary magic that keeps your interest piqued.

A word of warning - if you don't like spiders keep your eyes shut during the scenes set in the woods. And if you don't like slugs, look away after Ron tries to curse Malfoy.

But aside from that, you should enjoy yourself. Ken Branagh is terrific as Lockhart and Jason Isaacs is great as Malfoy's dad, although I wanted to see more of Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith and,of course, the late, great Richard Harris.

But if you leave the cinema wanting more, then the movie has got to be good.

The young cast are all pleasant and watchable, although it is a bit weird seeing them grow up so quickly.

I suspect that by film three they might have to resort to a little trick photography to keep us believing that they are still schoolkids and not a bunch of undercover social workers investigating weird goings on in boarding schools.

Fans of the book might be a little cross to see that Peeves the poltergeist is again omitted but even with several fairly judicious cuts, the long book still makes for a lengthy film, coming in at more than two-and-a-half hours.

But as kids' movies go, this is one of the best and will no doubt enjoy quite a few weeks at the top of the charts. In short, HPATCOS is even more magical, exciting and fun then the first. Roll on number three.

[dh1989]

Tons of new reviews today for CoS......


First, here is a review from The Daily Telegraph..........



Chamber of secrets about the darker side
By MICHAEL BODEY Showbiz Editor

HARRY Potter has pimples – but that's the only major blemish in an otherwise much improved second film in the smash series.

The first Australian screening of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets unveiled a darker, funnier and scarier film than its predecessor, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.
That film became the second-highest grossing film internationally behind Titanic.

In Australia last year it took about $42 million, falling short of rival The Lord of the Rings' $46 million.

This Christmas will see a fairer comparison, because the Rings sequel is also released. Chamber of Secrets is far more captivating than the sluggish Philosopher's Stone.

On every level it tops its predecessor. From the opening scenes, in which we're introduced to a self-flagellating house elf called Dobby, director Chris Columbus makes it clear he wants to push the franchise a little before he hands it over to Mexican director Alfonso Cuaron.

That results in wonderful cinema with more fantastical creatures, better integrated special effects and more comic touches.

At more than 2½ hours in length, it can also qualify as an adult film. Despite the pedestrian plot in the second book – a terror in the Chamber terrorises Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft – the second film is quite dark and even menacing.

At pre-season Quidditch practice, one player notes they will "train harder, earlier and longer".

The same effort has gone into the film, which means younger audiences will struggle with it.

The Quidditch game, for instance, is quite thrilling and brutal, demanding a visceral reaction.

In a big film the little moments – such as a surprised owl or Julie Walters' performance – make this more than a blockbuster ride.

And the real-life urgency of its three growing stars, Daniel Radcliffe as Harry, Emma Watson as Hermione and Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley, adds an intriguing sub-plot.

They all deliver better performances, with Watson particularly brilliant. Radcliffe gives Harry an angry edge that permeates the film.

It's clear why Chamber of Secrets works. It's melds all the great family films of modern times, such as Back To The Future, ET, Indiana Jones and even Gremlins.

Although the plot can be laborious, it's not because Steve Kloves' exposition is slow but rather because the book contained so much.

And as long as JK Rowling lives, the Potter films will remain faithful to her novels.

That's no bad thing when the script is savvy, the performances are solid, the effects are wondrous and the metaphors intriguing.

It's loud, bad and full of scary beasts but it's a terrific piece of entertainment.

Second, here is a review from online movie site EDP24.......

They're all still potty about Harry

They came from far and wide in varying states of excitement, but one thing they all agreed on was that Harry Potter's latest adventure deserves a big thumbs up.

Over the next few weeks thousands will flock to cinemas to see the latest adaptation of author J K Rowling's series of hugely successful books.

For the 300 readers who won the EDP's competition, the chance to see it before their friends was a bonus – even if it meant some had to leave school early.

As people flooded out of Norwich's Ster Century Cinema, the verdict on The Chamber of Secrets, which goes on general release on Friday, was unanimous – it was more exciting, magical and better than the first.

Brooke Primary School pupil Katie James was buzzing with enthusiasm and could hardly wait to get into the cinema with her mother and two friends.

"I found out we had won the tickets on Monday and I've been very excited since then.

"I thought the film was brilliant and Harry Potter is still my favourite character," said Katie, who is nine.

The film sees young Harry, played again by 13-year-old Daniel Radcliffe, returning to Hogwarts School for the second year following a dreadful summer spent with his overbearing Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon Dursley.

Together with his friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) the wizard in training faces new challenges as they try to uncover a dark force at work within the school.

Ross Holman, aged seven, and his sister Gemma, five, from Worlingham, near Beccles, thought the film was brilliant, although Gemma did find some scenes a little frightening.

"Harry is my favourite character and I thought this film was a lot better than the first. I don't think anyone else in my class was here but I'll be able to tell them all about it," said Ross.

Stephen Fox, nine, and Robert Fox, six, from Bunwell echoed Ross's sentiments.

"I thought it was really better than the last one," said Stephen, who like his brother was wearing a Harry Potter T-shirt.

Robert added: "I thought it was quite scary but my favourite bit is where the car is chased by the train."

News of Harry's first year heroism has spread through Hogwarts and he finds himself the centre of much unwanted attention – including from Ron's little sister Ginny, played by Bonnie Wright.

Also joining the original cast, which includes Alan Rickman and Richard Harris, who died last month, are Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart, Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy, Miriam Margolyes as Professor Sprout and Mark Williams as Ron's father Mr Weasley.

Although the new characters proved a hit with cinema goers, the main three were still firm favourites.

"I like Ron because he uses some funny expressions. I thought it had more action than the first and although I jumped a couple of times I wasn't scared," said Tyler Smith, eight.

Both he and his sister Olivia, six, were pleased they were seeing it before their friends and promised to keep the story a secret.

"I thought it was very funny," said Olivia, like her brother a pupil at Poplars Primary School in Lowestoft.

Director Chris Columbus had a weight on his shoulders to make the second film as good as, if not better than, the first but he seems to have won audience approval.

Many people were disappointed to hear Alfonso Cuaron would be taking over the helm for the third film, The Prisoner of Azkaban. But fans can breathe a sigh of relief as it is thought most of the major actors, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are expected to sign up for the next film, which begins production next spring.

The Harry Potter phenomenon still has a long way to go before it runs out of steam and according to last night's reviewers, The Chamber of Secrets will be another box office smash.

Third, is a review from This is Lancashire......

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Certificate: (PG)

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Tom Felton, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Kenneth Branagh, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Jason Isaacs, Richard Griffiths, Fiona Shaw, Julie Walters.

Website: www.HARRYPOTTER.com

Rating: 7/10

AFTER Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone failed to live up to expectations, you could be forgiven for approaching the second big screen outing of the boy wizard with trepidation.

The follow-up adventure is funnier, smarter, slicker and much more exciting, engineering a series of breathtaking action set-pieces befitting an event movie. The young cast are coming into their own, supporting performances are suitably larger-than-life, and the screenplay remains faithful to JK Rowling's bestseller, yet avoids being too slavish.

Chamber Of Secrets opens where Philosopher's Stone ended, with Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) back under the unwelcoming roof of his only relatives, the Dursleys. Uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths) and overbearing Aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw) have moved their nephew from beneath the stairs into their porky son Dudley's spare room, on the strict understanding that Harry keeps out of sight and refrains from using magic in front of the neighbours.

The trouble begins with the arrival of Dobby the House Elf, who warns Harry that danger lies ahead if he goes back to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry ignores the elf's heartfelt warnings, and reunites with best friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) for their second year of spells and trickery.

Little has changed at Hogwarts. Professor Dumbledore (Richard Harris) still presides over the school with majesty, abetted by his right-hand lady Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith). while wily Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) continues to deal out detentions and abuse to all but his beloved Slytherin house. The only new addition is the new Defence Against The Dark Arts teacher Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh), a legendary explorer who sends the female pupils into a dreamy swoon.

Then Harry begins hearing strange voices in the school corridors, and a number of students ‹ including Hermione ‹ are discovered in a petrified state, seemingly scared to the brink of death by some unseen dark force. Harry and Ron join forces to uncover the mystery that lurks in their beloved school, and reveal the truth about the fabled Chamber Of Secrets.

While Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone suffered from a surfeit of plot and exposition, the sequel wastes little time plunging into the action. If anything, Chamber Of Secrets could do with a bit more narrative meat on its bones.

Screenwriter Steve Kloves has reworked the action set-pieces to make them more cinematic, and more thrilling for audiences. He has borrowed liberally from other blockbusters ‹ Harry and Ron's collision with the Whomping Willow bears more than a passing resemblance to a key sequence from Jurassic Park.

Radcliffe as Harry has transformed from inquisitive child to full fledged hero, and he is involved in all the action set-pieces. The young actor still isn't entirely comfortable as the lead. Ron and Hermione's roles have been reduced to shift the focus onto the hero.

Branagh is deliciously slimy as the narcissistic and infuriating Lockhart, always gazing into mirrors to admire himself. Equally impressive is Jason Isaacs as the villainous Lucius Malfoy - a skin-crawling vision in fur-lined suits and waist-length blonde hair.

Sadly since the film was completed, Richard Harris has died. In only a handful of scenes, the great actor bestrides the film as the ultimate symbol of goodness and benevolence.

Art direction, set design and costumes are beautifully realised, and the computer generated special effects have progressed in leaps and bounds since the first film. Dobby the House Elf is realised entirely through CGI, and genuinely seems to inhabit the world of Harry Potter.

Parents should bear in mind that, like JK Rowling's book, Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets is darkly atmospheric and frequently unsettling, particularly during the Spider's Hollow sequence and the climactic confrontation between Harry and the Basilisk.

Despite the PG classification, the film is almost certainly not suitable for very young audiences ‹ if in doubt, view the film for yourself, then decide whether to take the whole family.

And make sure you stay to the very end of the credits, the film-makers have created an extra scene to ensure you go home with a smile on your face.

[Wildbilld]

Ebert & Roeper give it two thumbs up! Reviews arent printed yet.:)

[dh1989]

MAJOR SPOILERS Lie Ahead.




First is a review from Harry Knowles, webmaster of AICN, with a positive review of Chamber of Secrets.......

It is better than the first HARRY POTTER film, however it still has an excruciatingly awful ending that just never seems to end and that serves no point other than to add an extra twenty minutes to a film that could have been, should have been, twenty minutes shorter.
I’ll get to that ending problem after a great deal of praise. You see, these movies are absolutely superb children movies. Infinitely better than those non-animated Children films we’ve seen of late. There’s genuine chemistry between the kids, they aren’t just saccharine brats, they’re well developed kids with a great deal of character… independent and different characteristics ta boot.
As is often the case with second films, they improve upon the original simply because they’ve already established the universe that the characters exist in, now they’re free of introducing all the characters again and can just throw them into adventure and further good times, further develop and add to the characters and expand the world they occupy while continuing to embrace us with the familiar that we enjoyed the first time out.
The true magic of these Harry Potter films, and this one in particular, are the amazing cast members they assemble. I mean, once you get past the miracle of finding children this good.
Daniel Radcliffe has an air about him. He feels like someone with a destiny, emotional baggage from a history he has been discovering. In this episode, he’s moved past the wide-eyed OHMYGOODNESS of turning every corner with a huge goofy grin. This time, he kinda has the hang of things. He understands the basic magical order of things. He’s still very humble and a bit afraid of the ‘amazing’ things he can do. However, I can’t help but notice that when he kicks $#@%*… it is all either luck or extra-natural help from beyond guiding him. I mean, he goes running into the CHAMBER OF SECRETS, where there’s supposed to be this huge deadly monster thingee, and first thing he does is drop his wand into a puddle. LAME! I mean, that’s so Jamie Lee Curtis in HALLOWEEN of him. I mean, just because you see a still body, doesn’t mean you drop the BUTCHER KNIFE and turn your back on it. I mean… This kid is about as bright as a dying ember at times. At other times, he’s a friggin founding member of the Hardy Boys.
Having not read the books, and having no clue what is to come, all I can think is that if Harry ever actually paid attention in classes, he might be able to really kick some $#@%* without having to GET LUCKY. I mean, Hermione…
Yes, let’s talk about the impossibly cute and inquisitive and smart Hermione Granger. Emma Watson is simply way too good in these films. She completely has that, over-achiever thing going for her. She’s obviously way smarter than both Potter and Weasley. I mean, throughout the film she’s constantly… well.. let’s face it. Hermione is the Velma of the Mystery Gang, but cuter. She puts in the time to not have to be lucky, but right. I loved the whole “half-breed” sub-plot of muggle/magical types and their spawn. That really was something I wasn’t expecting to be broached here. But BRAVO! Way to go.
Then there’s Rupert Grint. Is it just me, or is the character of Ron Weasley the genetic fictional descendant of Ralph Malph from HAPPY DAYS? I mean, Grint has a more than a passing resemblance to Don Most, he has that same “wimp factor” thing going, except he has far superior comic timing, and giving him a broken wand… CLASSIC! However, I just couldn’t help, but wonder why Harry wouldn’t just throw Rupert 3 of his gold coins, which he has apparently a mountain of to get a new one. I mean, what the hell? Give a brother a hand!
Richard Harris’ final turn as Dumbledore carried a sadness today. This time out, I felt he wasn’t nearly as saccharine as he was the first turn… There was a winsome sparkle of magic in his eyes. The scene with the birth of the Phoenix was something truly lovely. His voice has this warble-y warmth that cuddles to the ears like a pair of muffs on a chilly day. He will be missed.
Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall is very strong this time out. When she is asked by Hermione to explain what the Chamber of Secrets is and if it is real… Well, the story she tells is told with that perfect, “It was a dark and stormy night…. …as we got out of the car there was a BLOODY HOOK on our door!!!” sort of flair.
I wasn’t a particular fan of Robbie Coltrane’s Hagrid this time out. He really didn’t have much to do. His ummm… “exit” scene was very nicely done, but mostly he’s just kind of wasted this time out. Most of his comedic and mysterious touches are handled by Dobby the House Elf this time, but I’ll get to him in a bit.
The intensifying of Tom Felton’s Draco Malfoy in terms of his hatred and jealousy towards Potter was a bit overdone to me. I think he has all the absolute right snobbish self-important twit ticks that his character seems to need, but it’s spread like my nephew spreads ketchup on his plate… TOO MUCH EVERYWHERE.
Also back is Alan Rickman as Professor Severus Snape. He rules. Just flat out, Alan Rickman is the gab-blamed mudderwonking bomb in these films. You can tell he wants to be evil and good all at once. Like a stud that’s become a gelding. You know he wants to just whup arse up and down every hall of Hogwarts, but he seems like he’s always concerned that he’ll forget something or get caught. The scene between him and Branagh’s Gilderoy Lockhart is just classic.
However… As good as any of these original cast members are, the best elements of HARRY POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS falls upon the new blood. Specifically three characters that outshine everyone else. Gilderoy Lockhart, Dobby the House Elf and Lucius Malfoy.
Let’s go in order of appearance shall we…
Dobby the House Elf is a wonderful lil bugger. His self-abuse reminds me of Moriarty in disturbingly odd ways. In fact, if it wasn’t for the fact that Dobby is much cuter, you’d think he was Adam Sandler pulled out of PUNCH DRUNK LOVE. Except, I actually dig Dobby more. Dobby is my hero, I think Dobby is just cool. He is very very CG, but that just seems to be the look of the ILM CG these days. It feels very illustrated living, as opposed to flesh and blood living. There is a bit of Scrappy Doo to him, especially there towards the end, but the character animation work on him.. the devilish expressions and the looks of worry are just very very good. Watch him be a devil at the Dursley’s house at the beginning. When he first spotted that cake… I squealed with glee. The look on his face was just EXACTLY correct. In a second I knew what he was up to. And when he’s trying to blackmail Potter… EXCELLENT!
Next is Kenneth Branagh’s Gilderoy Lockhart. Ok, just fantastic. I mean, wow. I’m a Branagh fan (with the exception of the excruciatingly slapdash hunk of gunk called MARY SHELLEY’S FRANKENSTEIN) and was curious ever since that very first review of Potter… all those months ago started talking about this being a brilliant work of self-parody. He plays Gilderoy as a pompous, snobbish, arrogant, showy, narcissistic, effete puffed up Pomeranian and had Fran Drescher shown up petting him and cooing over him… I’d have been just tickled as pink as Branagh’s knickers in this flick just had to be. The film is worth seeing, altogether, just for his fantastic turn.
Lastly we have Lucius Malfoy played by Jason Isaacs. He’s Richie Rich’s Daddy basically. However, nothing ever so bland. Lucius Malfoy’s character look is simply perfection. I loved the subtle tiny things that Jason was doing with his face. The sneer, the scowl, that weird Elvis-like lip snarl. That long white hair, that Hyper-Nazi feel to his character and his little Aryan bastard he has. I love that we have a villain here that is more akin to Lex Luthor in the John Byrne world than Valdemont’s JOKER-esque turns as a maniacally mad man. I get the idea that Lucius is gonna do some really nasty bad things before all of this over.
Ok… So what’s this one about? Well you Potheads already are familiar with the basic story, but frankly I rather giggled as it all played out because I recognized some very similar parallels to the old Larry Todd Underground comic book… THE FORTY YEAR OLD HIPPIE. And I wonder if J.K. Rowling in her earlier days happened to stumble across some issues during her herb research years. You see, in THE FORTY YEAR OLD HIPPIE comics there was a plotline about THE POTTY MONSTER. Essentially there is a POTTY MONSTER in the film that is paralyzing and petrifying students, kitty cats and others. Now in that comic it was actually a sludgie poop monster, and in this it is a Larry Flynnt photo spectacular of a snake. I mean, longest damn snake that anyone has ever planted. I just kinda ponder how something like that could possibly sneak around Hogwarts. I mean… Man… It’s HUGE!
How’s the action? FAR BETTER than in the original. The Quidditch match is exhilarating. The flying car stuff is spectacular. The final battles are awesome. The spider things… very cool. The only thing that really doesn’t work for me in action areas is the Tree thing. It’s just a badly designed tree. I don’t like the look of the tree, and it moves like a Fleischer no boned toon. It just didn’t work for me.
My favorite twist in the film is the CURSE OF THE DEMON twist that Harry Potter pulls on Lucius Malfoy… and it also has my biggest problem with the film. The movie should have ended right there. It was a great capper, wasn’t overly cutesy. Just real good.
Had the film ended there, I’d have walked away just singing the praises of this family film and just happy as Lardass in a pile of cherry pies, but NOOOooOOOoOOOoOOoOOoOOO…
It doesn’t end there. They have to continue with what felt like 20 minutes of excruciatingly self-congratulatory pats on the backs and clappings and hugs and presentations, and huge entrances and laaaadeeedaaas…
Now just like last time, where I was enraged at Dumbledore just arbitrarily awarding points for disobeying Hogwart rules therefore further encouraging the misbehavior that they allegedly attest to disapproving of. This time, this time it is many times worse.
What is HOGWART’s? It is a SCHOOL right? A place of higher learning for the future witches and warlocks and wizards and whatnot. Well, at the end, Dumbledore as he’s once again heaping buckets of sugar on the dragging ending of the film, he decides to announce as a reward for two characters kicking $#@%* and the safe return of everybody everywhere… He CANCELS EXAMS!
Cancels Exams?
At a school?
When there is no more danger?
Because everybody is happy?
Total and complete bollocks. Nope, the train stopped with Dobby and I got off. LOATHE THAT! Now, I understand in the book, the exams were canceled due to the on-going menace in the school. Now it is a reward for the entire school. You’re just gonna exempt the whole school from midterms? I DON’T THINK SO! YUCK! EWWW! PATOOOIE!
Why is everyone and their brother (literally) cheering Harry hugging Hagrid? Hagrid is just a groundskeeper… right? I mean, in these films he seems to completely ignore every character except for Potter and his brood and Dumbledore. Why would anyone else care for the verge clipper? I mean, would Springfield ever applaud Groundskeeper Willie? I don’t think so. In fact, I’d go so far as to say absolutely not.
As for the return of Hagrid and Hermione… Frankly I don’t think we needed to see it. We knew the potion was ready and we heard Dumbledore order the release of Hagrid. End of story. But noooooOOooOOOoooo… Ok, show Harry and Ron eagerly bedside as the potion is administered to Hermione… show her waking up to hug Harry and shake Ron’s hand, but no more award banquet bullpucky.
This is a minor nitpick in an otherwise magical film. Nothing else felt drawn out or lame, just the ending. Nearly every aspect is greatly superior to the original for me.
Now I took my lil Sister Satan and nephew Kublakhan to this. He’s 2 1/2 years old, and he was entranced. When the mummified hand clutches Potter he literally levitated 18 inches straight up. CLASSIC! The flying car thrilled him, as did the train. He was riveted by the Quidditch match and was scared, but happy with the Spiders and the end battle. HOWEVER, literally the moment after Potter kicks butt… He fell asleep, opting for the back of eyelids than the remainder of the film.
Smart kid.
BTW – there is a funny lil gag at the end of the film, after the end credits, so stick around, you should like it!
Next we have Alfonso Cuaron. I’m curious to see what is going to become of this series outside of Columbus’ hands. Both of these films have been very nicely crafted and told. Both of the films have been Chris’ best work to date. Watching someone like Cuaron handle this… I just can’t wait to see what he does, what aesthetic he brings. I mean, I take it we won’t see any… ahem… action in the next one, because these are kid movies, right? We’ll see, I’m very curious.

More in my next post.......

[dh1989]

MORE SPOILERS LIE AHEAD!

Second is a review from The Leaky Cauldron,

Review: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

By Melissa Anelli

Better than the first, better than the first, better than the first.

By now, you've heard that phrase, uttered every time someone emerges from a Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets screening. It's become something of a mantra surrounding the release of this film, so let's get it out of the way right now: the statement is not spin, overestimation or wishful thinking. It's simply true. Chamber of Secrets is the rare exception to the rule, the sequel that exceeds the standards set by its predecessor.

That's not to say the film is perfect - let's not have any Godfather II comparisons quite yet. Chamber may be a much better film than Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, but it still lags slightly under some of the same problems that shadowed its forerunner. Granted, the problems are markedly less pronounced this time and almost nitpicky to mention, but to fans they serve as frustrating reminders that these films have a ways to go before reaching the level of greatness they have every right and ability to attain.

But they are getting there. And that is a massive relief. The blockbusting success of Philosopher's Stone could easily have spelt disaster for the rest of the series, allowing the filmmakers to slack off and ignore their own faults. But the improvements in Chamber make it obvious that Chris Columbus and company took a hard look at their first effort and came away with some of the same notes any reader of this Web site would have given. In fact, should the movies continue to leapfrog in quality in this way, we could be looking at non-tech Oscar nominations by the third or fourth. That is, if the Academy ever gets over Harry Potter's British origins.

Chamber of Secrets' greatest improvement is of overall quality: the film is funny, wry, adventurous and at times outstandingly touching. The plot doesn't always plod, the effects are no longer intrusive, the cuts are (for the most part) wise, and the tone shifts easily from wickedly humorous (Kenneth Branagh doing anything) to dark and sublimely spooky (Christian Coulson doing anything). Columbus and scriptwriter Steve Kloves' increased confidence with the material is blessedly obvious, and Chamber on the whole has a more crafted, easier flow.

Most of all, it's fun. The bottom line is that Chamber is a ride, a great, fast, spooky ride that chills at the same time it tickles. It's family fare at its best - but for a reason that's been largely ignored by the press thus far.

Sure, Chamber is darker and scarier than the first film, boasting giant snakes and giant spiders and giant fangs and giant battles in which Harry climbs a giant face. But with such adventuresome action sequences easily filling the thrill quota, the filmmakers ran the risk of skating glibly over parts of the story that are even darker, even scarier: namely, a plot fueled by prejudice, genocide and ethnic cleansing. And slighting those ills would have been far more harmful to kids than shoving an oversized serpent in their face.

Thankfully, team Potter has been wonderfully sensitive to illustrating bigotry as it inflicts its first wounds upon virgin ears. Such excellent handling is witnessed by the key scene in which Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton, steadily improved and vividly wicked) calls Hermione Granger a "mudblood." In the book, the slur is met with a roar of fists and wands; in the film, a quiet, disbelieving murmur creeps through the screen, giving instant, lethal weight to the offending word. And though the smackdown glare that Hermione shoots at Malfoy right afterwards is one of utmost loathing and even a hint of threat, she also makes vivid how acutely she's been hurt by such bias. It's Why Prejudice Is Wrong, in two mercifully non-preachy seconds.

Then Ron belches slugs, and it all gets rather funny.

Never in the film, however, does humor sacrifice plot or tone; the creators have amped the funny without teetering over into slapstick. Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart is a piece of such perfect casting it's a wonder we can stand to watch a scene without him. And then there's Jason Isaacs, who has realized Lucius Malfoy's character with such relish that even that righteous walking stick he bandies about should get acting credit. It's a good thing Isaacs and Branagh never work directly against each other, because the celluloid might have melted under the heat of all that charisma - as it very nearly does when Branagh and Alan Rickman (as Snape) are paired for the dueling scene. All the adults, in fact, turn in solid performances that sparkle ever so slightly over their Philospher's Stone efforts - especially, and poignantly, in the case of the late Richard Harris' Dumbledore. While the kindly old headmaster's friendlier moments were cut out of the last flick, this Dumbledore is much more his twinkly, wise-with-a-wink self. Sadly, we can only imagine how Harris would have handled future material; at least his last turn in Potter is one that's full of life.

But if we're here to talk acting chops, it's our Gryffindor trio that gets the lion's share of kudos. Radcliffe, Watson and Grint are growing into their roles according to the same gait we, as readers, get to know their characters: in each book, there's a little more to go on. Radcliffe's shaded, more explored performance gives hope that by Prisoner of Azkaban, when Harry's true dark side is explored, he'll give Harry's desire to avenge his parents' death all the pathos it deserves. And there really aren't enough adjectives for Emma Watson, whose improvement as Hermione is not only tremendous, but dead-on-target with the Hermione we know in the books: she's still a know-it-all, but she's loosening up, maturing into the overly-sensitive, caring friend she was when last we saw her literary form.

As for Rupert Grint - he is, of course, still the hilarious little carrot-top, providing the wisenheimer commentary for which Ron's so famous. But one of the film's weaknesses is the downright character assassination of Ron, whose intelligence and knowledge of the wizarding world has been given to Hermione, and whose all bravery has been passed off to Harry. It unbalances the trio. Ron's just the buffoonish sidekick with nothing to contribute, dragged into risky situations by his super-brave best friend. It takes Ron's sister's being abducted to finally show his nerve (a moment Grint handles beautifully, with a shocked and devastated "Ginny!" that says it all), and while it may be wonderful to see our Ron again, it's also too little, too late. Attention filmmakers: Ron is brave. He sacrifices himself in book one, willingly walks into that forest in book two, and in book three, green with pain, hoists himself up on a cracked leg just so he can swear to die for his best friend. He may bumble occasionally, but his chutzpah comes right to the surface when needed. Ron is brave. Repeat that, mantra-like, before Prisoner of Azkaban starts filming, please, we beg.

What we do get out of our trio in this film is their growth as friends. We see their true care for each other, and that's a lovely piece of development. It's certainly one that's absolutely essential to future movies.

Chamber's pacing also improves on that of Philosopher's Stone, but not enough. It stampedes through the plot, making every step toward the climax just too coincidental; the book carefully sets up suspicion and gives sufficient motivation behind each development, while the film seems to throw Harry onto a tightrope of discovery.

But that tightrope leads Harry right into the Chamber, and that alone is worth going with the expository bulrush. Oh, is that final fight fantastic. Almost perfect. Even knowing Harry must live, even knowing that the bad guy bites it, I gripped my chair so hard there are probably still fingernail marks in the upholstery. The basilisk is so real you can almost smell its breath, and Coulson's Riddle chills the proceedings to sub-zero temperature.

That is, until Riddle utters a wooden, unnecessary line like, "That bird may have blinded the basilisk, but it can still hear you!" and the fans throw up their hands in frustration. Or Harry, wounded and almost dead, delivers a repeat line from the first film, one this reviewer desperately hopes is not becoming a trademark: "Get. Yourself. Out." We know Harry is self-sacrificing - the way he's dying is pretty good proof of that. We don't need to hear him say it, too.

As I've said, it's frustrating. Because Chamber is close. So very, very, very, close to being a perfect translation. But greatness is in the details, and that's where the scales tip. The fans' great solace is that while the film could have been that extra bit better, it could have been so much worse. In the meantime, if we can try not to nitpick, we have some fantastic entertainment to tide us over until Prisoner of Azkaban. And if Azkaban improves nearly as much as Chamber has, we're going to party hard in 2004.

No pressure, Mr. Cuaron.

More in my next post......

[dh1989]

SPOILERS LIE AHEAD!

Nits and Picks in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - because let's face it, to a fan, it's all about the details, right?

Nits

Hermione spouts Dumbledore in the middle of Flourish and Blotts: "Fear of the name increases fear of the thing itself." Okay, one, this is something Dumbledore, not Hermione has said, and two, Hermione has never called Voldemort by his name in the books, and JKR makes very clear how important it is to character when someone does / does not say the name. Harry is shocked in the third book, when Remus Lupin says it. So, let's not overamp Hermione's abilities, though she does rock the wizarding world normally.

On a similar tread: Hermione has all Ron's wizarding world knowledge. She knows what a mudblood is, that hearing voices no one can hear is bad even in the wizarding world, etc., and of course is the one to inform everyone. There's no reason to take this knowledge away from Ron, especially when Ron is just sitting there doing nothing in the meantime.

Harry knows what a house-elf is, which really makes no difference at all.

There is no mention that Harry cannot do magic away from Hogwarts; in fact, Hermione very efficiently fixes his glasses in the middle of Diagon Alley. Someone call the ministry!

Ginny's crush on Harry, with the exception of the first time she sees him, is largely dropped from the film; perhaps this was done to throw suspicion on her, but it's far too cute to leave out entirely. There is also no Valentine scene, but we all sort of knew that was going.

While Sean Biggerstaff is capable as ever as Wood, Wood's mania about Quidditch is once again left unseen. He's just not as obsessive, not the crazily colorful character we know in the books.

Everything is rushed and coincidental. Hermione and Ron just happen to be looking for Harry right before he hears the first voice; Harry has just asked Tom Riddle what his name is before asking him about the Chamber of Secrets, leaving Riddle's connection to everything shaky at best; you'd have to be clairvoyant to know it was Ginny opening the Chamber, while in the books there's enough for at least some suspicion.

Arthur is indeed very interested in Muggles, but is less bumbling and sweet; he demands from Harry the "exact function of a rubber duck" instead of gleefully asking about "eckeltricity," which may be a subtle difference, but hey, that's why these are called Nits.

At the dueling club, Harry and Draco battle it out without ever doing anything to each other. Draco's and Harry's spells only succeed in knocking the other one through the air; isn't Rictusempra a laughing spell? It's cool to fly through the air and all - but what's magic if you're just knocking each other around? At least Serpensortia does something.

Apparently Polyjuice doesn't affect your voice in the movie; what was the purpose of substituting Ron and Harry's voices in for Crabbe and Goyle's? Someone should explain that it's not a complete transformation if you still have to disguise your voice...

Ron has no reason for hating spiders, he just says he doesn't like them, making him more the kid whose afraid of little insects than the kid who had a rotten joke played on him as a child.

The wonderful scene in which Harry arrives at McGonagall's office with Ron, Lockhart, Fawkes andGinny in tow has been cut. We instead go from the Chamber to Dumbledore's office, with Harry and Ron looking as though they know they're in trouble - which is entirely baffling. Surely the kids are proud that they just saved everyone in the castle? They do wonder if they'll be punished in the book - but only after Dumbledore suggests, ever so trickily, that they might be. Here, it comes from nowhere, and is an example of faithfulness hurting the flow of the film. And oh, that wonderful line of Lockhart's: "Sword? Haven't got a sword! That boy does though." or the like - gone. I know it's piddling...but to see Kenneth Branagh deliver that line would have been a real treat.

The end. It's cheezoid to the max. Hagrid, for some bizarre reason, becomes the hero, and the film ends with the entire Great Hall cheering him. Harry says, "It's not Hogwarts without you," and everyone cheers. Why? We only see Hagrid as a friend to the trio, and if I'm not mistaken, it was Harry who just, well, saved the world. Shouldn't he be the focus of attention?

Picks

The entire film. It's an excellent piece of work.

Snape's relationship with Dumbledore is every so slightly explored, with Snape nearly losing it over the flying car. They've also kept the bit about shutting Harry out of Quidditch, and it's still that funny.

Vernon's attempts to hold Harry inside the house are hilarious; he laughs madly as he drills bars onto the window, then screams like a lunatic and falls into the flowerbushes while Harry is escaping. Harry's attempts to stop the pudding from hitting Mrs. Mason are hysterically misconstrued by the Dursleys.

Get the J-J word out of your mind. Dobby is delightful.

Ginny completely destroys Harry's room.

Bonnie Wright, as Ginny, sees Harry in her kitchen, freaks out, and runs the other way. It's adorable.

The clock at the Burrow that keeps track of all the family members has the kids' faces on it - though we obviously don't see Bill and Charlie's.

Percy's morning hair. That's all I'm saying about that.

Knockturn Alley is the stuff of Oliver-Twist-In-Hell.

Great use is made of Colin's picture-snapping, though we never understand that Colin is a Harry fanatic. Right now he's paparazzi-in-the-making, that's all.

Draco watches the scene with Lockhart in Flourish and Blotts from high atop a balcony, and it's a lovely bit of setup for his character's jealousy of Harry and his friendships. Then Lucius brushes into the store and nearly knocks him down with that stick, and you almost feel sorry for the little brat. (Almost.)

The very quick but malevolent appraisal of the Grangers on Lucius' part. Lucius says Draco has told him all about Hermione, then shoots such a disgusted look at her parents its he seems to be memorizing their countenances for future...use. It's disturbing, threatening, and so unfair to the cute little dentists with curly hair and cardigans. It's Isaacs at his best, followed by Watson at her best, giving Lucius a look that could melt the silver clasping his robes.

Ginny's "Leave him alone!" is delivered with fire and fury in her little eyes. Bonnie Wright manages to make Ginny a cute background item, despite her very little screen time. And whenever she's at Hogwarts, there is a diary in her hand, even if you only see a little bit of her as the camera pans. Also terrific is the spooky look she gives Harry - those who know can see she's possessed.

The Whomping Willow effects are out of this world. Seamless.

While helping Lockhart answer fan mail, we get an insanely funny glimpse of Lockhart on a broom; it's the picture he's sending to those who write him, and its one for the record books.

Columbus has given up on Seamus the Accidental Pyromaniac, and stuck to the books' treatment of Neville as the bumbler. And goshdarnit, it works, right up to the ceiling (which is where Neville ends up during the Pixie scene).
The scene in Hagrid's hut after the mudblood scene is one of the most touching in the film.

Robbie Coltrane is remarkable as Hagrid, giving us exactly what it must have been like at Azkaban in one brief, heartbreaking flicker of his eyes.

Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle during the Polyjuice scene. It's all well-written, well-delivered, and true to spirit. Draco is seen as a bit of a kleptomaniac, which goes with his having been emotionally abused at home (at least according to psychological mumbojumbo), and the boys who play Crabbe and Goyle do excellent Harry and Ron. We get our first Harry-holds-Ron-back moment, as Ron-as-Crabbe almost attacks Malfoy for wishing Hermione dead. Draco's casual "I didn't know you could read" is brilliant.

When Hermione is turned into a cat:
Harry: "Look at your face!"
Ron: "Look at your tail!"
Priceless.

Harry and Ron's visit to Hermione while she's petrified is completely adorable; Harry holds her hand, Ron gapes silently as he sits next to her waxen face. "We need you...more than ever," says Harry.

Arthur in Molly have the same troublemaker/woman-in-charge relationship we see in the books (Arthur upon finding out about the car: "So, how did it go?" Molly smacks him.)

The invisibility cloak is used to great effect; if we ever wondered whether Dumbledore really can see through invisibility cloaks, we now know that he can. And Lucius makes it very obvious he cannot; while he thinks no one is watching, he solidifies his evil stance on muggle-borns.

The flashback to fifty years ago is colored in sepia, with only Harry in color.

Quidditch: faster, better, more exciting, more real, terrifically handled, true to the books (down to Malfoy yelling ,"Alright there, Scarhead?" and "Training for the ballet, Potter?")

Following Quidditch is one of Columbus' best treads into original scenework: Malfoy falls off his broom right before Harry's arm is deboned, so when we get to the hospital wing we see Malfoy writhing and moaning fit to die, surrounded by about three team players. Pomfrey tells him he's fine and he can leave, and continues to bustle over to Harry, who is surrounded by his whole team and more friends, and saying nothing about his grossly rubber arm.

The confrontation of Lockhart - dead-on brilliant. Ron shoves the pompous idiot right into the Chamber (or maybe it was Harry? I don't remember.). "Do you live here?" says Lockhart, and Ron picks up a stone and smacks him in the head with it. Just...beautiful.

The Chamber: Christian Coulson. Oh, Christian Coulson.

The Chamber: The North by Northwest homage is not as intrusive as I thought it would be, and Harry makes a very brave and cunning show of escaping the blinded basilisk. And whe he kneels by Ginny and touches her ice-cold hand...sigh. I almost wished I didn't know she was going to wake, so I could be as relieved as a newcomer. It's truly spooky, and sad, seeing her lying there.

The Chamber: We get flashbacks of Ginny doing the Heir's work, and I have one word for that: thanks.

The now-infamous hug scene. Yeah, yeah - whatever it hints to, it's still cute as hell. Now as for the other ending...

[dh1989]

Spoilers Ahead!


First is a review from ComingSoon.......

What Worked:

I've read all of the books and enjoyed the Harry Potter series very much. After seeing "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets," I enjoyed it better than the first film. I think this is because my expectations were more realistically set than they were in Sorcerer's Stone. I thought this one had better effects, funnier moments, cooler action, and a darker tone that made it more appealing. I saw this film with some friends who were also Harry Potter fans. They enjoyed Chamber of Secrets but still thought the first film was better. It looks like opinions will depend on personal tastes.

Most of the cast from the first film returns for the sequel and they are still in top form. Harry and Ron's voices are notably changed, but they still deliver great performances. Emma Watson is perfectly cast again as Hermione Granger. Richard Harris, who passed away shortly after filming was completed, delivers a fine performance again as Dumbledore, but you can certainly tell he was a bit more tired this time around. New cast members include Kenneth Branagh as the flamboyant and narcissistic Professor Lockhart. He is so over the top that it's hilarious. Branagh is exactly like the character in the book and he is fantastic. Jason Isaacs plays Lucius Malfoy and is yet again cast as a perfect bad guy. It's going to be fun to see what he does in the future sequels.

Another new character is the CG creature Dobby. Annoying and mischievous, he's going to be inevitably compared with Jar Jar Binks. In a way, it's an appropriate comparison. Both are annoying CG creatures created by ILM. But while Jar Jar was "cutesy" annoying, Dobby is a bit different. He's paranoid, comical, and he has a bit of a dark side. In my opinion he's a better character than Jar Jar. His effects were done pretty well. While he at times looked overly CG, there are other times where he looked like a living, breathing character on the set. CG aficionados will scrutinize him, but he gets the job done.

For the most part, the effects in this film are much better. Those improved effects combined with cooler action also help to make this a better movie in my book. The Quidditch match in this film is much faster and more intense. The flying effects look better, too. You may find yourself ducking as Harry flies under the stands. The Whomping Willow is impressive and intimidating as it beats the flying car to pieces. The scene with Aragog and the spiders is pretty cool, too. While looking remarkably like a scene out of "Eight Legged Freaks," it still ends up being one of the coolest scenes and chases in a movie this year. The final battle in the end between Harry Potter and the snake-like Basilisk is pretty intense as well. The creature looks like the head of the Dragonslayer dragon on a snake's body. It ends up looking pretty cool.

One of the other things I liked about Chamber of Secrets is that despite being a darker film, it still offers up some funnier moments. The feral flying car reminds me of Herbie the Love Bug. The Weasley's house sets the scene for some funny moments between the patriarch of the family and the boys who were just busted and in trouble with their mother. Mrs. Weasley's "howler" letter offers a fun moment as her message proceeds to chew out Ron in front of all his friends. Their clumsy owl also has some pretty comical and spectacular crashes while delivering letters.

The movie seems to stay very faithful to the book. It has been a while since I last read it, but all the essential elements seemed to be there. The biggest thing missing seems to be Nearly Headless Nick's Dead Day party. While I would have liked to see it, the movie was almost 3 hours long as it was. I understand why it was cut. I was a bit more satisfied by the ending of this movie than I was by The Sorcerer's Stone. I guess I liked the killing the monster and saving the girl aspect of it more.

As for other aspects of the film, I felt that the music this time around sounded better than in the first one. I was a bit surprised to see John Williams credited with the music and William Ross being credited with arranging and conducting the music. I guess Williams was busy to handle all of the chores. And if you want to see the ultimate fate of one of the characters in the film, stay till the very end of the credits for a good chuckle.


What Didn't Work:

My biggest gripe with the film is the length. At 2 hours 40 minutes, it's a long haul to sit through. In trying to stay as faithful to the book as possible, they tend to drag the movie out. There are a few scenes that could have been cut, but you know the fans of the book would have raised a stink if this were done. As it was, I heard people lamenting about the few scenes that actually were left out. Personally, though, I think it could have been shorter and worked just as well.

The final scene kind of bothered me, too. If you read the book, then you know Hagrid is imprisoned because they believe he's responsible for the opening of the Chamber of Secrets. In the movie, this was more of a side note than a major plot point. At the end when Hagrid is released, all of the students go into a standing ovation cheering him upon his triumphant return. However, since he left with little fanfare, the screaming and cheering and patting people on the back seemed a little too much when he showed back up.

In any case, I think "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is a good sequel and should please all the Potter fans who made the first film a blockbuster.

Second is a review from Roger Ebert and Richard Roper......

http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/today.html

[malcolm1980]

Here's MY brief review of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. I saw it today and I'd like to tell you guys a couple of things:

01. STAY AFTER THE END CREDITS ROLL - There's a brief but funny scene in the very end of it.

02. There's also a shot, which I believe, is a sly wink at Lord of the Rings. See if you can spot it.


Without further ado, here's my brief review:

HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS
Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Kenneth Branagh, John Cleese, Warwick Davis, Richard Griffiths, Richard Harris, Jason Isaacs, Alan Rickman, Fiona Shaw, Maggie Smith, Julie Walters, Shirley Henderson, Christian Coulson, Tom Felton, David Bradley, Mark Williams, Toby Jones, Julian Glover, Hugh Mitchell.
Dir: Chris Columbus

Believe it or not, I actually walked inside the theater with lowered expectations. But it was suprisingly good this time around. It seems that Steve Kloves took a cue from the criticisms of the first film and added a lot more of cinematic suprises to the second film. It seems less episodic and less like a checklist of sequences from the book and flows more like a real, live movie this time around. I have to say that as much I don't like him, Chris Columbus's mise-en-scene is a lot better this time around.

Oscar Prospects: A strong contender for Cinematography, Art Direction, Sound, Sound Effects Editing and Visual Effects.

Grade: B+

[Horror whore]

I can't wait to see JoBlo's review of the film. Even if it's negative (like the Sorcerer's Stone) I'm still interested in reading his thoughts on it. I wonder if he's already seen it since most critics already have... Only one day left!!!!!!

[BarkingSparrow]

RottenTomatoes score thus far is 73%, 19 positive, 7 negative.

[Wildbilld]

Originally posted by BarkingSparrow
RottenTomatoes score thus far is 73%, 19 positive, 7 negative.

Is there any place better the RT when it comes to alot of reviews????:confused: