Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Review
by Tim Wick
One thing that is secure no matter what anyone thinks of this movie - Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets will be one of the top box office draws of the year. Does it deserve to be? In terms of quality, perhaps not. In terms of a clear recognition of it's audience and what they will pay to see - probably so.
My initial impression of the first Harry Potter film was positive and I continue to like the film. However, as I thought about the movie, there were several things that began to bother me. I felt that some of the effects work was a bit shoddy. I thought that the movie tried so hard to be faithful to the book that it missed some opportunities to make the story more effetive in the medium it was being presented. I thought that Harry Potter himself lacked conviction. In the Harry/Ron/Hermione triad, Harry is the leader. In Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, Harry seemed to be along for the ride but lacked any drive of his own.
While Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets may still be a bit too faithful to it's source material, most of the other problems have been solved. The result is a movie that certainly ranks as one of the better family films I've seen in a long time. Not only is it seriously entertaining, it respects it's audience and typically avoids dumbing down the story line.
My last point is important. Children are far smarter than most movies would have us believe. A movie that respects that intelligence is a rare thing and should be appreciated. I often wonder if producers in Hollywood actually have any children and if they do, are they home enough to discern what their kids really like? If I'm constantly amazed at the cognative abilities of my three year old, how much more capable is a child twice his age?
I watched the film at 2:00 in the afternoon with a crowd that was equally balanced between adults and children. Most of the kids looked to be around 7 or 8 years old. Depite the a film that was nearly 3 hours in length, the majority of the interruptions were from idiotic adults who had failed to turn off their cell phones. The kids were enraptured.
And why not? If anything, the Harry Potter films have been extremely successful in replicating what we all think the books would look like. The previews for last year's Harry Potter film impressed me so much because every scene looked like something I remembered from the book. For someone who hasn't read the book, the visual texture of the film can only be even more impressive.
Improvements in technology or (more likely) some extra time has resulted in far cleaner and more impressive special effects. I found the Quiddich match to be especially improved in this film. I also found that the movie seemed to rely less on CGI than the last time out. If modern special effects have taught us anything, it is that there is still a great deal of need for practical special effects. I didn't really feel they got it in Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone but they did get it this time.
Harry himself (as played by Daniel Radcliffe) is much improved. There is a strength to the character that truly comes out in this installment. We are told that he was destined for great things in the first film, in this one we can actually start to believe it. Emma Watson and Rupert Grint (Hermione Granger and Ron Weasly) also seemed to grow into their roles. They are both more confident and capable in this film.
The addition of Kenneth Brannaugh as Gilderoy Lockhart is truly inspired casting. Lockhart was one of my favorite characters from the book and Brannaugh manages to capture every ounce of his personality with each furtive glance and self satisfied pronouncement.
In all, the cast just feels more comfortable this time out. With the exception of the late Richard Harris as Dumbledore, I will be happy to follow these actors through the series. Harris was a fine actor, but I have never felt he captured the proper whimsical nature of Dumbledore. The character seemed a bit boring, in fact. Now this could easily be a directorial problem rather than an acting problem, but his is the only character with whom I could not connect.
The most common criticism levelled at the film is it's length. I would like to echo critic Roger Ebert who says that no good movie was ever too long and no bad movie was ever too short. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a good movie and the added lenght does nothing to detract. In fact, the story is so convoluted and involved that any attempt to cut the film would probably result in considerable confusion.
In my personal opinion, the only shortcomings in the movie are shortcomings I already saw in the book. Many situations require deus ex machine sorts of solutions to save the characters involved rather than allowing them to rely on their own strengths and weaknesses. Much of the story feels like a charming little mystery to bridge the gap between the entertaining first installment and the sweeping epic that the next two stories begin to make clear. I've always felt that Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was the weakest of the Harry Potter books. The film, of course, is working extremely hard to remain faithful to that story. Is it any wonder then, that my primary issues with the film are some of the plot choices?
Gripes about the storyline aside, however, I think this movie is an improvement over Harry Potter and the Soceror's Stone in just about every major way. The caracter definition is deeper, the visual framework is stronger and the acting is better. For a film that will most likely be one of the top two box office draws of the year, we could ask for a lot worse.
|
