Friday, November 15, 2002
The Chamber of Secrets has been opened.
But there's nothing to beware -- except for the spoilers ahead. Yes, it really IS better than the first movie, and I'm not just saying that because it features Tom Riddle. Everything has improved: the acting, the storyline, the effects. There are a few drawbacks, but overall, it's a much more enjoyable film. And since I quite liked the first movie, this is saying something indeed.
In a critical light: As many have said already, the pacing is probably the biggest flaw -- I think this is in part a trade-off for sticking so closely to the books. Although it does lag a few times, I wouldn't call it an egregious problem and there are plenty of things that draw one's attention away from it.
Although the child actors, especially Daniel Radcliffe as Harry, have definitely improved, Emma Watson as Hermione still tries too hard, and Harry still has moments of non-expression that disappoint. But Rupert Grint still makes a wonderful Ron.
The ending is not all that it should be. For some reason, Hagrid is the center of attention at the end -- though throughout most of the movie he's fairly inconspicuous -- and the parting shot in general is terribly corny and cliche.
There are some minor additions that I found unnecessary and kind of annoying. Harry falling out of the Ford Anglia, for instance, and the spiders pursuing Harry and Ron for much longer than they should have. There are other things I would have preferred to see over the spider-chase.
The late Richard Harris still is not up to par as Dumbledore. I have a very clear idea of Dumbledore's character, and although there is some slight improvement in Chamber of Secrets, Richard Harris has never done him justice. We shall see what his eventual successor will make of the character. Oh, and the movie needed more Alan Rickman. Duh.
But enough about what I didn't like. There are many more things that I absolutely adored, ranging from the general to the specific.
The effects are so much better this time. Dobby is even a lovely little character, which was a great surprise for me, as I was expecting Jar-Jar the House-elf. The Quidditch is great, the spiders are cool, and the Whomping Willow... whomps. In a very good way. The Cornish pixies look goofy, and Fawkes sometimes resembles a rubber chicken, but the basilisk looks suitably scary, and the Chamber of Secrets itself is fantastically creepy. I disagree with those who maintain that the special effects "take away" from the human element of the film. I don't think the Potterverse could be captured quite as well without them.
The storyline makes much more sense than that of Sorceror's Stone. The first movie contained so many introductions that the plot was kind of muddled in there somewhere -- not so with Chamber of Secrets. It's got a problem here and there -- Ginny's lack of involvement till the very end is rather disappointing and kind of messes things up a bit -- but it's definitely easier to follow for someone who's not read the book, in my opinion.
I really liked the representations of the Burrow and Knockturn Alley. Very cool settings, and very true to the book. The Burrow really does look like it's only being held up by magic, but it has a cozy feel to it, and even includes the Weasley family clock. And Knockturn Alley is a spooky, unsavory place, though still intriguing.
I do like the portrayals of Arthur and Molly Weasley -- especially Arthur's reaction to the "success" of the flying car, and Molly's Howler.
Jacob Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy. Wow. I was stunned by how wonderfully he brought the character to life. He just was Malfoy: perfectly cold and condescending and evil in every way. I even like the long blond hair now. And the snake cane-wand was pretty cool.
Snape and Malfoy sit next to each other during the Quidditch match. A minor detail, but one I liked. And Snape's not-quite-defense of Harry and co., along with his deference and attitude to Dumbledore, is nicely done.
Draco: Why are you wearing glasses?
Harry-as-Goyle: Uh, er... reading.
Draco: I didn't know you could read.
Kenneth Branaugh as Gilderoy Lockhart was delightfully entertaining to watch. He captures Lockhart's arrogance and "charm" very well. I would have liked to see more of Lockhart's self-imposed "role model" attitude toward Harry, though.
The dueling club scene was awesome for a couple of reasons. The Snape vs. Lockhart moment was priceless. And Harry speaking Parseltongue was creepy enough that I'll overlook the fact that most of the spells didn't do anything special. Snape's reaction to Harry's newfound gift is perfect, too.
The supporting cast is great overall. I enjoyed Miriam Margoyles as Professor Sprout, Robbie Coltrane still creates a funny, loveable Hagrid, and Maggie Smith's Minerva McGonagall is better than before.
If you ever doubted it, well, doubt no longer: Dumbledore can see through invisibility cloaks, and it's a neat little addition -- probably one of Richard Harris' best scenes, where he comes closest to realizing Dumbledore's character.
The Chamber scene is cool. Really cool. I think I liked pretty much everything about it.
And, speaking of the Chamber, we've reached a major point of interest. Most of you probably know what it is. Last, but especially not least...
Christian Coulson as Tom Riddle. He's good. Powerful. Frightening. Insane. He's a wonderful young Voldemort -- though a bit too maniacal for older Tom, in my obviously very specific and biased opinion. It makes me think that perhaps this diary!Tom reflects more of Tom's young-Voldemort self than I previously suspected. I was disappointed that there was none of Tom's high, cold laughter, though -- I was really hoping for that. And I think Coulson didn't quite grasp the disturbing calm that Tom exhibits in the book. But he portrayed Tom's arrogance, intelligence, and obsessive creepiness quite well indeed. I was anything but displeased.
Finally, I reiterate, Chamber of Secrets is simply excellent. Go see it.
And that, everyone, is the longest movie review you will probably ever see on this site. Until Prisoner of Azkaban, that is. ;)
| 3:13 PM |
Comments
Who am I? I'm a twenty-two-
