Page 1 of 82: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] |
Index | 813 reviews in total |
If you liked the first one then you're going to love this! There's a darker
atmosphere this time around and more characters are introduced including
Gilderoy Lockhart (hilariously played by Kenneth Branagh), Draco Malfoy's
father, Lucius (a great performance by Jason Isaacs, exactly how I imagined
the character from the books!), Ron's father, Arthur, and the mysterious
Dobby the house elf (fortunately he isn't anywhere near as annoying as other
CG characters in other movies, but I won't name any names...
*cough*JarJarBinks*cough*)
The movie sticks closely to the novel, but as in the last movie we miss some
of those scenes where we start to learn a little more about the characters,
especially the hate-hate relationship between Harry and Professor Snape (who
was seriously underused in this movie!)
All in all it's definitely worth checking out, the running time of 160
minutes may seem a little long but it doesn't seem that long when you're
watching it. By the way, whatever you do DO NOT leave until the credits
have ended, otherwise you'll miss a little extra treat...
Chris Columbus said he wanted to make a 2,5 hour movie that feels like 30
Minutes. Well, in my case he surely succeeded! I saw the movie as a member
of the press and couldn't get enough of it. I would have gladly sat in the
cinema for another two or three hours with a biiiig smile on my
face.
Like part one, "chamber of secrets" stays true to the book. I don't know
about you - but I HATE it when movie makers change the storylines, add or
remove characters and do it for the "sake of the art". I think they do it
because they are too lazy to create their own storys, so they rip off other
peoples ideas and crush them to make it more comfortable... If a book is
loved by millions of readers there must be a good reason for that. Chris
Columbus has captured the essence of the book on screen. So, after
"philosophers stone" he delivered again!
When reading the book I always envisioned Michael Crawford playing Gilderoy
Lockhart. His broad smile and clumsiness à la Frank Spencer would have been
perfect for the role. But instead we get to see Kenneth Branagh, so of
course you won't see ME complain. The great find of the movie is Jason
Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy. In his short scenes onscreen he makes your blood
freeze. And again: all the casting is brilliant. Every character just feels
right - even if you imagined something different when you read the book.
There also has been talk about the young actors getting older. Well, let me
remind you that this also happens in the books. In every book Harry Potter
and his friends are one year older. So there's no excuse to take the roles
away from Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. I couldn't imagine
someone else playing their parts.
Go see "the chamber of secrets". It's pure fun and excitement! And it will
wet your appetite for more to come. Richard Harris couldn't have asked for a
better movie and legacy to be remembered by.
Lessons learned since the 1st film!
Clearly this film was edited at script stage rather than the cutting room
floor stage!! This story reads as film narrative, rather than a book
illustration, which was the big mistake of the 1st film. Anyone can watch
this film and follow it without knowing the book.
The 1st hour is pure laugh out loud fun (the adults in my Cinema audience
were shouting with laughter!).
The last hour is scary, wand dropping tension.
The problem is: how do we convince muggles put-off by the 1st film to go see
this one? Why should they give this one a chance?
Answer: If you know someone who likes Fun, make them see this film! This
film is not about 'Oscars' & Acting, despite the fabulous performances by
all the adults, it is about enjoying the overall effect of the film, this
being to give the viewer a long lasting buzz. Brilliant!
The staging is very theatrical in it's minimalism, yet extravagantly arty in
visual specifics. In the not to distant future I see fans going to a regular
weekend slot at their local cinema for Audience Participation fun. Wands,
swords, sorting hat, spiders, mandrakes & crucial ear muffs as standard
props! Lots of gaps for us to shout out funny quips. A Rocky Horror Show
Audience Participation Show for kids! Long overdue.
My Rating: 8/10. Not a masterpiece of cinematic potential, but such jolly
good fun that no one should be denied the joy of a "Bloody Marvelous"
frolic. A film for the child within us adults. Go see it with a
predominantly adult audience if you want to experience the real buzz of
unfettered emotion. Only three children were present at the Preview I
witnessed and they were silently spellbound whereas the adults evoked
emotion noisily throughout and then stood up, cheered and applauded at the
end! I shall never forget this truly magical experience.
Richard Harris you can not be replaced, you will always be Dumbledore, and
hence Omnipresent. Thank you for the fantastic finale to a wonderful life
that you gave us. Thank you.
And Thank you JK & Chris. You did it, the Chamber is well & truly open
now!
Having done a good job with the first Harry Potter flick, one shouldn't
be surprised Chris Columbus was asked to direct the sequel as well. And
the second film actually improves on its predecessor, getting a little
edgier and less children-friendly (two factors that raise exponentially
with each new installment), even though it does repeat an old mistake
in certain places.
So, what about the plot? Well, it's Harry's (Daniel Radcliffe) second
year at Hogwarts, and everything should be fine, given he defeated
Voldemort in the previous film and there are no other threats lurking
in the magical world. Or are there? A mysterious house elf named Dobby
seems to think so, as he repeatedly tries to prevent Harry from
returning to school and keeps asking him to leave when students start
being attacked by a supernatural, unknown foe. All this seems to be
connected to the Chamber of Secrets, but that isn't of much help,
especially considering the new Defense against the Dark Arts teacher,
famous writer Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh), is a complete idiot.
Darker and faster, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets repeats the
Philosopher's Stone's mistake of being slightly too faithful to the
literary source, but Columbus manages to compensate this flaw with
better visuals, some really creepy set-ups and improved acting from the
younger cast members (Emma Watson in particular). He has also made
interesting choices when it comes to the new faces in the adult group:
Branagh is very, very funny as the ego-fueled Lockhart (a role
originally intended for Hugh Grant), but the most interesting addition
is Jason Isaacs (whom I can't wait to see again in the fourth film) as
Lucius Malfoy, an intriguingly sinister wizard who is as racist and
arrogant as his son, Harry's arch-nemesis Draco. As for Dobby, a CG
creature voiced by Toby Jones, he is interesting at first but rapidly
becomes annoying, his masochistic antics being repetitive and a little
dull.
Finally, a special mention for Chamber's best element: Richard Harris,
who sadly passed away a few weeks before the movie's premiere. He was,
and is, incredibly good as headmaster Dumbledore and despite a worthy
replacement (Michael Gambon), in the purists' hearts he will always be
the one and only greatest wizard of all time.
Verdict: good, but they could have done better. Thankfully, they did
with number three...
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
A lot has been made about the pubescence of the three leads in this new
Harry Potter installment and it is a bit disconcerting when Harry (Daniel
Radcliffe) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) speak their first lines in
those
awkward cracks of pre-adolescence. However, their growing up, along with
the physical blossoming of their friend Hermione (the perky and smart
actress Emma Watson) seem mark a general growing up of the whole Harry
Potter series. This one is more for grown-ups: the first one hooked the
kid demographic and no doubt they will still be enraptured by "Chamber of
Secrets." This is the film, however, that hopes to attract a whole new
audience in the parents of those kids. It is darker and has more layers.
The explanations about wizardry are less cursory and the acting seems
stronger.
I have never read the books so I bring an outlook to the films that is
free
of personal bias toward the quality of the adaptation or the faithfulness
to
Rowling's words. One thing this film does do, that the first one did
not,
is it made me want to read the books. I was more drawn in, in a literary
sense, to the world, to the stories, and particularly to the characters.
Whereas the first film was a passable introduction to everything Harry
Potter is about, this seems like a deeper riff on some of the same themes
that the first one only glossed over.
However, I might not have enjoyed Chamber of Secrets as thoroughly if I
had
not first seen Sorcerer's Stone. It gave me (and Chris Columbus'
production
team) a framework that invited expansion. Without the background of the
first film, I might not have been as emotionally invested in Hagrid
(Robbie
Coltrane), or have understood the mechanics of "Quidditch," or even have
cared about the tenuous future of Hogwarts School for Wizards.
In a word, the performances are "marvelous." I read somewhere that
Rowling
wrote with a Dickensian sense of character and that seems to carry over
to
the film. Robbie Coltrane as the affable Hagrid is still my favorite.
Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman are woefully underused in this film but I
can
only hope they will resurface in the others; they can still steal their
scenes with the tiniest pursing of the lips or eye flickers. (As a side
note: Outside of Coltrane's Hagrid, I find Rickman's Professor Snape the
most interesting and multi-layered character across both films). Richard
Harris is suitably noble and wily in one of his last roles. And Kenneth
Branagh, as the egomaniacal new Hogwarts professor and author of wizardry
books, is perfectly cast and very funny. One thing this film does is
allow
room to explore these characters in a full sense and give the audience
time
to get under their skin.
Chris Columbus has been called a tactless director and I can see where
some
of his scenes, particularly the action ones, are played so broadly that
they
lose all semblance of meaning. He is not particularly adept at handling
the
young actors, who come across as pretty bland and uninteresting (Rupert
Grint as Ron is sort of annoying, overplaying the stuff that was likeable
at
first). Likewise, he is unable to invigorate some of the scenes (the car
scenes, the spider scene, and even the final encounter between Harry and
the
Chamber of Secrets' monster) come off as overlong and particularly flat.
The running time of 2 hours and 41 minutes is a bit exorbitant: To me it
just suggests that Columbus doesn't have the necessary audacity to
deviate
too much from Rowling's source material. I know that he has to maintain
a
certain level of faithfulness to the books but, to be honest, what is
exciting on the page does not always translate well onscreen. Perhaps
Alfonso Cuaron, slated to direct the new film, will have a better,
snappier
sense of how to energize the action scenes without losing the obvious
positives of sticking to the novels.
However, the movie did energize me enough to want to go and read the
books.
The scope, the palette of, yes, Dickensian characters, and the
intertwining
of stories makes me want to see how Rowling fits it all together. Then
maybe I'll be able to talk more intelligently about faithfulness when
Cuaron
releases `Prisoner of Azkaban.' Maybe I'll undergo a massive reading
program this holiday season.
Not being a fan of the Harry Potter Movies, I toddled along to the first
showing of this movie at my local UGC Cinema and sat down and thirly enjoyed
this movie, but not in the way that I would enjoy something like the Lord of
The Rings or Spider-Man. Of course Harry Potter's target audience is of a
younger age so I can see how I might not have enjoyed it as much as a
slightly younger audience, but to say the least it is a lot better than some
of the crap that is fizzled out these days.
Crap this is not and a year on the main characters are a lot older, taller
and voices broken. Many of the original cast return and a few new characters
appear in this such as Kenneth Branagh and Jason Isaacs. Kenneth Branagh
plays a wonderful part of Gilderoy Lockhart who seems to think he's adored
by all and quite frankly he is adored by women for his charm and bravery. He
was one of the better bits in the movie as was Jason Isaacs who played
Lucius Malfoy father of Draco. Jason sports a nice long wig and plays the
evil father/villian down to a T. He plays it much like his villian in The
Patriot. I was sometimes phased by Rupert Grint's "Ron". He isn't that great
an actor, but he could play his part satisfactory. He could have done
better, but then again I have not read the book so I would not know how Ron
would have behaved. I guess the scenes he played a scary person (which was
quite a lot) in weren't convincing enough for me, but kids should get a good
laugh out of him more than I did. I suppose you can't hold it against the
kids who aren't up to par because they're just young and learning the actors
trade, but for those who play their part well they should get a pat in the
back.
The SFX were impressive, especally the character of Dobby. He was well
great. I couldnt tell he was CG by his bad creation, but through the fact
there was no way they could have done it otherwise. In fact the CG character
of Dobby is very similar looking to Gollum in Lord of The Rings and the CG
Asgard in television series Stargate SG-1 (speaking of textures) which which
speaks well for Stargate SG-1 if it can do just as good as a top movie like
this...and top it is. The CG Spiders were incredibly creepy and realistic
looking. Not being too scared of Spiders, they kind of made me jump. I felt
by body tense up as the gave case to Harry and Ron, which is a good thing
because not often do I find myself doing this in movies. The person I had
sat beside seemed pretty scared of the spiders as well.
John Williams score was very much like his original score with old themes
returning and some of the music sounding like music from his Indiana Jones
scores. I found myself whistling the main theme of Harry Potter for most of
the night and on occasion not realizing I was doing it until someone else
pointed it out to me.
This movie certainly had better action sequences and a lot more action
geared than The 1st Potter movie. I found myself clenching up at points as
they were really tense. The story wasn't too difficult to understand from a
non-potter-fan point of view and the film was a lot shorter than I expected.
I had thought it ran for three hours when it was more like 2 1/2. In some
cases I found that you had to have seen the 1st movie to understand some of
what was going on, but that was mainly due to the back story of he who shall
not be uttered and some of the gags. The only thing that annoyed me was that
the cues in the Foyer were too long and I couldnt get an ice cream and there
was some little toddler crying down the front row for a few minutes mid-way.
Why bring a toddler who's going forget about the film by next week? You may
ask this yourself.
If you're not a mad-potter-fan then I would suggest you wait a few weeks so
that you're not over run with humans who stand 4 feet tall...ie. CHILDREN!
(I'm not talking about Dwarves)
I'd give it 8.5/10. But I am not a huge fan of these movies and I am not the
target audience. That's a good thing in case you were
wondering.
Prepare yourself for a darker fantasy this time with some harrowing and
scary special effects. Apparently J.K. Rowling has hit upon the fact that
kids love to be scared stiff along with being entertained by touches of
humor and excitement--although I think her imagination works overtime on
scenes like the vomiting fit for Ron, one of the more tasteless
sequences.
And apparently the makers of this Potter film have met the challenge of
providing spiders and snakes that are hideous enough to have Ron and the
audience in a fit of hysterics. It's all here--the main events anyway of the
Rowling book--and for extra measure they've given a much needed humorous
role to Kenneth Branagh who has great fun with his role as the self-loving
Gilderoy Lockhart. The only real drawback is that Maggie Smith has very
little to do--but the main chores belong to Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson
and Rupert Grint who continue to charm as the three leads. Jason Isaacs as
Lucius Malfoy has a commanding presence and an amusingly wicked final scene
involving the computer created Dobby who steals every scene he's
in.
Should keep Potter fans happy--and for a movie two-and-a-half hours long it
moves along at a brisk pace from one adventure to another with what by now
appears to be mechanical skill, thanks to artful direction by Chris Columbus
who knows how to keep this sort of thing moving. John Williams' perky score
is a distinct help.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a huge step on from the first
film. In the Philosophers stone we were introduced to the the world of
Harry Potter and given a taster of what lies ahead.
In the Chamber of Secrets the main story line for the series of books really
starts to be told. It is much darker and sinister than the first film and
Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint give good performances and
give us a glimpse of the fine actors they are becoming.
Kenneth Branagh and Jason Isaacs are perfectly cast as Gilderoy Lockhart and
Lucius Malfoy and truly bring the characters from the book to life. Mark
Williams as Arthur Weasley while under used in this film is going to be
great in the next few as his character has more to do. The Cinematography
is again superb and somehow the Quiddich game is better than in the first
film.
A fine sequal to the first film and should dispel any notion that the first
one was just a one hit wonder.
A firm 10 in my book.
I thought this was better than the first Harry Potter movie because it
didn't overdo the action scenes as the first film did, and the
special-effects were better. It's not "Lord Of The Rings," of course,
but it's still decent entertainment, even for us older folks. It got
even better with the third installment, which has been my personal
favorite of the four I've seen now.
I don't buy into all the occult baloney and black magic stuff, just
enjoying the special-effects that go with it with these stories. It
also was interesting to see how the three young stars - Daniel Radcliff
("Harry"), Emma Watson ("Hermione") and Rupert Grint ("Ron") have
physically matured since the first movie. All of a sudden, the boys
have reached puberty and their voices are changing. "Ron" squeaks half
the time he talks!
As with many modern-day, big-budget films, the visuals, the
special-effects and the surround sound are all astounding. Definitely
entertaining for all ages with no worries about language.
Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets is the type of movie that will be
around forever. So far the two Harry Potter movies have been excellent
movies in which spirit of the books by JK Rowling has been captured and
expanded upon.
Chamber of Secrets is about Harry Potter's (Daniel Radcliffe) second year in
Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry and something is attacking the
students. The fact that these students are of mixed parentage, one being a
muggle(non-magical and the other being a witch or wizard) leads to a very
unstable environment at Hogwarts.
Directed by Chris Columbus and written by Steve Kloves this movie packed
with the details that Rowling weaves throughout her book. The score by John
Williams is excellent and well suited to the movie. Roger Pratt's
cinematography is amazing. There is flashback to an earlier time at Hogwarts
by way of a magical Diary that is brilliantly lit and shot in a sepia tone
that looks just like the color of old paper.
Kenneth Branagh gives a great performance that should have gotten more
attention at award time. Jason Isaacs owns the role of the villainous Lucius
Malfoy. His costuming and look are very well matched with that of Draco
Malfoy, a nemesis of Harry's. Shirley Henderson as a ghost is also very good
and steals her scenes. Returnees Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Robbie
Coltrane, and in particular the late Richard Harris as Dumbledore are very
good. Christian Coulson does a good job as the mysterious Tom Riddle.
Daniel Radcliffe Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) are very good
in this movie and have their characters down. Watson in particular is
excellent.
Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets in an underrated movie that is a
must see.
Page 1 of 82: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] |
Plot summary | Plot synopsis | Ratings |
Awards | Newsgroup reviews | External reviews |
Parents Guide | Official site | Plot keywords |
Main details | Your user reviews | Your vote history |