Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets (Widescreen Edition) DVD

Average Rating:

Like all the books, "Chamber" begins midway through the summer as Harry's twelfth birthday is nearing, and again he faces a rather dismal one in the company of his horrible uncle, aunt and cousin. Excitement is already on the move however, as when Harry enters his bedroom the house elf Dobby is waiting for him, who warns him that under no circumstances is he to return to Hogwarts, where a great danger is waiting for him.

But return he does, after being rescued from his family by the Weasley family and the now-famous flying blue Ford Angelia, and indeed finds what Dobby promised - something is stalking the halls of Hogwarts, putting all the students in great danger. Taking it upon himself to save his beloved home Harry and his friends Ron and Hermione seek out the clues, and find themselves facing a terrible evil. In a story filled with giant spiders, savage willow trees, magical swords, disembodied voices, mysterious diaries, glorious phoenixes, flying cars and Quidditch matches, the action and excitement doesn't let up until the ending credits.

Once again Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson return as the three main protagonists, and I'm glad to say that while their acting was a little awkward in the first movie (understandable for newcomers) they've mellowed out and are much more natural with their characters and each other. Under-rated actor Tom Felton is again wickedly good, and Maggie Smith (McGonagall), Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) and Alan Rickman (Snape) roll out brilliant performances. Unfortunatly I can't say the same for Richard Harris - Dumbledore in my mind is an elderly yet lively and energetic man, yet here I was petrified he was going to kneel over any second.

The best part of any sequel in a series is the myraid of new characters to see, including the afore mentioned Dobby, the mysterious and sinister Tom Riddle, the narcissic Gilderoy Lockhart (played with great pizzazz by Kenneth Branaugh), and pompous Cornelius Fudge, and more of the Weasley family - more from Julie Walters as Molly Weasley, an introduction to Arthur Weasley, and from George, Fred and (especially) Ginny.

Three performances stick out though: Lucius Malfoy was great - cold, calm and elegant, this guy just *oozed* sinister charm, Moaning Myrtle, with her high-pitched sobs and shrieks was an unexpected surprise and Colin Creevy, the forerunner to Book Four's reporter Rita Skeeter and J. K. Rowling's dig at the media was a small, but essential gem, and I love that split-second scene of horror on his face as the runaway Buldger hurtles towards him!

Finally the sets, costumes and props are lovely, but the special effects are only so-so. The Quidditch game (again more visually exciting than any written account) is very good, as is the 'monster in the chamber', but the phoenix, spiders and Dobby could have used some tweaking.
All in all, a fun, interesting, colourful, sometimes-scary, and faithful adaptation to a beloved book, that (along with the Two Towers) brought 2002 to a fantasy-filled climax in the movie industry.

Not being a real fan of the Harry Potter series, I have not read the books. So I am reviewing this movie from the view of someone who has seen only the movies.

*PLOT* - The plot of the movie was the real downer of the move for me. I had found the first Harry Potter to be really interesting with its fun story and interesting theme. But unfortunately, "Chamber of Secrets", gives the feeling of déjà vu to the movie watcher, except this time we're led into a two hour and forty minute movie. Somehow, I must say that the story was (I'm sorry to have to say this Potter fans!) dull and boring. The plot seemed to drag a bit, and I felt that there were too many similarities between the two Potter movies. There's the Quidditch (forgive spelling mistakes) match, a secret room with deadly forces at work, a venture into the deadly forest, and much more. Maybe it's just me, but I also felt the movie was too long. The movie seemed bogged down for its length, giving the feeling as if the director tried to hard to contain as much from the book as possible while still trying to keep it interesting enough for youngsters to sit through the movie. Well, the special effects and some masterful action sequences may help to keep kids occupied, but I think the teens and adult crowd may have found it a bit tedious.

*ACTING* - Daniel Radcliffe has certainly grown up since the first film and handles his character very well. A bit more serious and not quite as 'innocent', he give the characterization of Harry Potter a bit more maturity. Emma Watson as Hermione Granger also does a good job, her haughtiness from the first film toned down more. Unfortunately, Rupert Grint as Ron Weasely seems to be only a comic relief to the movie as his only acting ability seems to be having this weird expression whenever his character is supposed to be scared. I couldn't help but cringe whenever he made that face, couldn't he have done a better job? Best acting done by the adult actors and actresses are most notably Richard Harris (Albus Dumbledore), Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall), and Alan Rickman (Severus Snape). I was disappointed that there was not much of Alan Rickman's character Snape, he was one of my favorite characters from the first film. Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart is little more than an annoying character and there should have been less of him. The same could be said about Moaning Myrtle (Shirley Henderson) who was VERY annoying!

*PG RATING* - It was a bit surprising for me to see that this movie is aimed for younger children. I can see how some may say how this movie shows very good morals, I must point out some conflicting points on this subject. Not only does the film make a point to show that Harry and his friends deliberately disobey the teachers and break rules, in the end they are rewarded without any punishments! I'm not sure what children are supposed to learn from this. Another reason parents might want to be cautioned is the violence. Oh, I know the violence is nothing compared to other films rated PG-13 or higher but I do know that some parts may be a bit disturbing for children. Most especially the end where Harry goes into the chamber of secrets, there's a battle going on that doesn't end simply. A bit gruesome and disturbing, I suggest that parents be cautioned.

*OVERALL* - Overall, the movie is a mediocre film. The good points of the movie include: 1) some good morals are shown, mostly about strong friendship and good triumphing over evil, 2) pretty good acting, nothing dramatic but still pretty good, 3) terrific effects, and 4) some nice action scenes. On the other hand, some of the bad points of the movie include: 1) a plot which seems to drag and feel stretched over a too long amount of time, 2) some unnecessarily realistic violence, 3) some questionable morals, and 4) too many similarities between the previous Harry Potter movie. As a series, I must say that unless the next movie has more of an intriguing plot with better pacing, I'm sure that non-Harry Potter fans might start finding the movies getting a bit old.

First off, the acting of the kids have improved. Dan Radcliffe has gotten quite good at being a sweet-looking hero with a tragic past, and the already superb skills of Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have only gotten better. Hermione, who seemed overly know-it-all-like in the first movie, has become more like the book character, who is an insufferable know-it-all with good intentions. One major nitpick for me was how minor a character Ginny Weasley (Ron's sister) was. It seemed that she would have been cut out, but she was needed for the later plot. And the Valentine sequence was cut out. Maybe I'm the only one who felt that Ginny needed more screen time.

The CG-ed scenes were a lot better than before. Quidditch scenes were amazing. They were a lot faster and more realistic (if flying on a broom can be realistic) than the last time around. Dobby didn't look quite like I imagined, but it seemed as though he was really in there, not as if he was placed in the picture afterward. The Spider (Aragog) scenes... that was scary, but watching Rupert be adorably frightened? Priceless. And the final battle... well, you'll have to see for yourself.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was certainly a big improvment on its preceedor, and it certainly has not torn Mrs. Rowling's magic apart, but it isn't the book. I recommend that you see it, but try to read the books, also. They are two seperate things, but I feel that it will be a more rewarding experience with the combination of canon and the movie.