*** Official "HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Yee-Ming]

funny how everyone seems so worked up about the ageing of the three lead actors. after all, in 90210, there was someone in his late 20s playing a high school teen and no one seemed to kick up much of a fuss...

for that matter, how old are the actors in Smallville? I'm sure Tom Welling is in his 20s, yet no one questions his playing a 15-year old Clark Kent.

so, what's the problem with a 17-year old Daniel Radcliffe playing 15-year old Harry Potter?

turning to someone's earlier complaint about cellphones, I had the same experience when I watched CoS. fortunately it only happened twice. the other big downer was that the speakers in the cinema were incredibly bright, so loud screeches were truly unbearable. IIRC, it was the same cinema I watched Minority Report in (my last trip to the cinema), and we had the same complaint then.

I can really understand why many now swear off the theater-going experience and wait for the DVD instead.

 

[Iain Lambert]

Well, it wasn't the Leiecester Square Odeon, but my one had a simply gorgeous print for a Super 35 film as well; much nicer than the Philosopher's Stone one.

As for the Quidditch match / Pod Racer similarities, that was fair, I thought. The minimal build-up to the match was indicative of how it only made the final cut at all because we needed Harry's arm broken and its necessary to establish that he's being threatened; the general bits before the snitch-chasing were fairly short, and then you needed that chase to go behind the bleachers. The jinxed ball is dangerous, and will do lots of damage if it hits Harry - how better to establish that than to give it some scenery to smash up?

As for it being unsuitable for younger kids due to the scary stuff, our group's token 9-year-old was fine (partly because she was well prepared for what she would see, thanks to reading the books a lot), while her mum can't cope with snakes and my wife hates spiders. Its the adults that were the ones who were hiding behind cushions...

 

[Iain Lambert]

Oh and George:

Didn't one of the principal child actors die from cancer?

No, it was Richard Harris (who played Professor Dumbledore) who recently passed away. Its too soon for them to discuss a replacement yet, but the tabloids have already incorrectly rumoured just about everyone who has played a wizard in a recent film as being approached.

 

[Ralph Summa]

My wife and I went with another couple on Saturday afternoon. I made them sit through 9 minutes of credits and I didn't see what Kirk said we should have seen. The theater must have cut it short.

I liked it a lot. Kind of a toss-up as to which one I liked better. Our 3 year-old daughter loves the first movie. We show her most of it minus the troll scene, the fluffy scenes and the Voldemort scene at the end. She won't be seeing TCOS until she's 10! I saw a 3:15 pm show on Saturday and there were two phone calls and one child that jumped up and down throughout the movie. The biggest offense was 20 minutes of previews and commercials!

Ralph

P.S. How many of you jumped and ducked from the bludgers like I did! :b

 

[Malcolm R]

As for it being unsuitable for younger kids due to the scary stuff, our group's token 9-year-old was fine (partly because she was well prepared for what she would see, thanks to reading the books a lot),

Exactly. Chances are any children familiar with the character have already read the books. Why should the film scare them more than the books? Chances are their imaginations (do children have imagination any more?) conjure up more horrible pictures than they show on screen. I actually saw an article that reported a lot of children are somewhat disappointed with the movies because they don't look exactly "like I pictured it in my head."

I think it's somewhat of a shame that they made these movies at all. This would have been a wonderful series of books to get each new generation of children interested in reading. But now subsequent generations will be able to just watch the movies instead.

 

[Iain Lambert]

I think it's somewhat of a shame that they made these movies at all. This would have been a wonderful series of books to get each new generation of children interested in reading. But now subsequent generations will be able to just watch the movies instead.

Thats probably true for subsequent generations, though I'm sure there will be other books for them to be excited about. As far as this one goes, however, the few kids that hadn't bothered reading the books yet are all reading them now. Can't wait to find out what happens in the next film? Read the novel!

 

[Dan Brecher]

Iain, where did you end up seeing it in the end? Wycombe? If so, have their facilities improved at all as I know they were re-doing a bit of it. I'm likely to see Chamber there when I go to see it a second time....

Dan

 

[Brian Kidd]

I was also underwhelmed by the film. I like the books a great deal, but am also aware that not everything in a book transfers well to the screen. Technically, it was a great film. The production design, special effects and (for the most part) acting were spot on. It was just an hour too long. What people need to realize when they adapt a book to film form is that if an incident or detail doesn't add to the overall momentum of the plot, then it needs to go. It's great to have details in the background, but every second devoted to drawing the audience's attention to that detail is another second added to the running time and detracting from the action of the film. I never felt any momentum. Eveything seemed to move at a single pace. I know that nothing I say will keep this film from making a gazillion bucks at the b.o., but I still predict that in twenty years, it will be pretty much forgotten.

 

[Iain Jackson]

Iain, where did you end up seeing it in the end?

Which Iain are you talking to?

 

[Dan Brecher]

Lambert, sir. Lambert.
Dan

 

[Patrick Sun]

How many Iains are there in the UK?

 

[Russell B]

Daniel Ratcliff made about 3 million for COS. There is no doubt he will make more with each film but i don't think the studio wants to pay him anything near $20 million or more. The other two actors will probably want a big paycheck as well. I also don't think the actors want to be typcast and probably want to go on with their lives and do other things.

 

[Peter Kline]

It looks like the 3 actors will do only one more film. They're growing up too fast!

 

[Ken Chan]

I'm sure Tom Welling is in his 20s, yet no one questions his playing a 15-year old Clark Kent.

I do! He does a good job, but is just too old. Some episodes (like with the red kryptonite) are more noticeable than others.
There were a couple of times when the characters should have kept their mouths shut: (1) "Well, the bird may have just plucked out the eyes...." and (2) "So that's who your master is!"
Quidditch, at least as presented in the movie, is dumb. (I haven't read the books.) It's just fisticuffs on brooms. Aren't there any refs or rules? In the next movie, I expect Malfoy's broom will have spikes, and he'll be wielding a whip. Plus, there's the snitch, which'll give you a billion points, which is just another way in which Harry Potter can save the day. The low point of both films.
I suppose the movie was mostly faithful to the book, but there were too many small scenes at the beginning that had no flow, and caused the movie to drag. It's like they said, "Oh, we can't cut that scene!" a few too many times.
Here's an even more negative take on Harry in general
//Ken

 

[Malcolm R]

They're growing up too fast!

Faster than what? Harry and friends aged one year between the first and second book. Daniel Radcliffe and co-stars aged one year between the first and second film. Seems spot-on to me.

 

[Mike_Ch]

Peter,
We're talking about kids here, not adults. Kids grow up, features change... its called adolescence As others have already stated, you'd expect the actors to look different from movie to movie, its a part of the books.
Ken,
I don't get it? You said,

I suppose the movie was mostly faithful to the book

Or were you just extrapolating from other comments? I don't know about the whip thing, but it would certainly come in handy
Cheers,
Mike

 

[Sean Bryan]

Hey, what is Warner Brothers trying to pull?
They expect us to believe that these kids are aging at the unbelievable rate of one year per year! What, do they think we're stupit?!

 

[Phil Florian]

I agree with the need to cut stuff out. I think if the Potter series can learn anything from Peter Jackson, it is that adapting is better than translating. Sure, PJ's films are huge monsters themselves, but they are condensing a TON more material. They had no real fear in axing characters (from the script, not in the film) that weren't important and if they had something important to say, let someone else say it. I am glad they got rid of Peeves, for example. He is fun in the book but the movie he would be a 10 minute distraction. Come to think of it, though, I can't think what else they could have cut to make it work (it felt rushed even at nearly 3 hours). I first thought drop the Hagrid/Spider bit, but it is necessary as a red herring. Can't drop Malfoy because he is key into the whole plot. Technically they could reduce Lockhart because he has no DIRECT bearing on the actual plot. His subplot, whilea hoot in the book, is an extra (though fun) distraction from the film. But excise any more of him from the film and fans would have revolted!

So what could they have gotten rid of or cut down to make it work? Maybe it because it is a) new and b) still being written that makes it harder to cut stuff out. Who knew that Dobby's bit would be a subplot TWO books later? (though I hope the new writer gets rid of it...if they film the fourth book...as it has no point other than to give Hermione something fun to do).


Still a fun flick, either way. Good opener to the holiday season.

Phil

 

[Sean Eldridge]

Interesting parallel to Harry and Lockhart in CoS(surely intentional).

Sean

 

[Iain Lambert]

Iain, where did you end up seeing it in the end? Wycombe? If so, have their facilities improved at all as I know they were re-doing a bit of it. I'm likely to see Chamber there when I go to see it a second time....

Yes, Dan. Screen 5, to be precise. Its not that different than it used to be, but the print was nice and clear (unlike the first one), sound was generally fine bar the bass, which seemed rather overcooked, and the audience weren't a problem at all.