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

[Phil Florian]

Had a great time with the Potter yesterday, gripes and all (cell phones, etc.). It amazes me that folks don't realize that they can turn their phones to vibrate or (gasp) off. One guy got three calls. Kids asking their parents questions don't bother me in a kids movie. It does bother me during Blade 2 or some such, though. Great flick all around, though, but even at 2.41 it still seemed rushed since they tried to capture a little bit of all the storylines. I am hopeful that the next director (Curon?) will do as Jackson did and boil down the story a bit more to its essentials. Though it was sad to see Harris in his last film, it was really noticable that he wasn't doing well. He lacked a lot of the energy he had in the first film. He will be missed, though.

The adult cast is still what sells this flick to me. The additions (Mr. Malfoy, Lockhart, Sprout, Mr. Weasley and the Nurse) are literally a who's who of British screen, at least to me and my wife...we kept doing a "wasn't he in...!" take at every new actor. It was great and they pegged their respective parts completely. The scenery chewing was in evidence but it was done grandly and not to the detriment of the show.

Good stuff. Sad there will be only one more with this crew (minus Harris, of course).

Phil

 

[andrew markworthy]

Eric, all I can say is that the kids were as quiet as church mice during the showing I saw. Maybe Brit kids are better behaved.

 

[Dan Brecher]

Full house at the Odeon Leiecester Square list night. Some kids, but this was a screening that wasn't going to finish until 11:35pm so there were not too many. Those that were there lapped it up, lovely and quiet.

I got a LOVELY print of the film, looked pristine at 60ft+ width.

I did enjoy the film, perhaps a *** out of **** compared to my ***1/2 rating for Philosopher. I'll be seeing it again soon to make a final descison. I feel they stick TOO close to the book, like they are somewhat scared to change things around a bit for the sake of cinema.

Peter Jackson changed so much around with Fellowship of the Ring, both regarding scenes, timelines and dialogue, and it worked a charm, the spirit is till very much there. The spirit of the Potter books is truly with the films too, but I am none to sure if that spirit is exploited at it's best in the film medium.

I did like much of the Tom Riddle stuff, but while I don't mind Columbus as the director at all, I am pleased he's taking a break as there's just little to no inovation from him. His work is admirable to be sure, but again he's just not exploiting these stories as they work best for cinema.

I still don't get why the Nearly Headless Nick stuff in both films is so bland, both in his "hellos" to the students and their shallow replies back.

Dan

 

[Patrick Sun]

The Quidditch match was very much Columbus' Pod Race homage.

I swear the ending scene in the banquet hall were first shot, and then the early scenes from the 1st act were shot later because the child actors looked younger in the ending scene and older in the earlier scenes, much noticeable.

So what was up with Hermione hugging Harry, but handshaking with Ron, they got something cooking that we (non-readers of HP books) don't know about? Or is Ron just that icky for Hermione?

Even though Lockhart was good for laughs, I was hoping for involvement in the furthering of the plot with this character since they did cast Branaugh for it. But he was just window dressing for the most part.

Maybe it's the "Word Jumble" player in me, but as soon as I saw that name for Riddle, I immediately saw the name of the person who gave Harry his scar (I can't recall how to spell the name at the moment, ironic as that may sound).

Moaning Murtle could have been a Harriet Potter of the past (in the looks department).

 

[Kirk Tsai]

As someone pointed out, the Quidditch match seems to be a homage to the speedy bikers in ROTJ than anything else.

I viewed the not hugging Ron part the setup for a potential romance. Don't know if it's true, but these kids are going to go through their teenage years....

It seems to me that the movie really needed to establish Ron's sister better, especially with its plentiful running time. A key plotpoint involving her just seems to come out of the blue. Maybe those who have read the books can tell us if she had more involvement in the books. They also could have drawn the parrallel between Harry and Tom stronger, making Harry's own journey more frightful.

 

[Patrick Sun]

But the Quidditch bit was Potter and Malfoy going around in circles under the "bleachers", much like the Pod race over the ROTJ chase through the forest.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Hermione gave Harry a big hug and then looked at Ron like she had just encounted a snake in the garden.

She did shake his hand... that was a bit of awkward embarrassment. In Book 4, Ron shows quite an interest in Hermione (though of course he doesn't let her know that.) I think this was the setup for that.
.
.
.
I'm looking forward to the third book as well. I just hope that Kloves has realized that Prisoner of Azkaban is first and foremost a character drama; his filmography certainly shows that he has talent in the area. But looking at the first two, I'm just afraid that he'll write any other point a to b to c, etc. screenplay, trying to cram in all the set pieces instead of the important character moments. If the moment when (Book 3 Spoilers) Harry overhears that Sirrius was the one who betrayed his parents at Hogsmede isn't in the film, I'll be severelly dissapointed. Prisoner of Azkaban was my favorite so far, so it's the one I have the most hopes for. Hopefully, Mr. Cuarón can pull it off.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I'm a little confused, but is

Tom Marvolo Riddle the same as Voltomore?

 

[Ryan Peter]

He's the memory of Voldemort

 

[Jim_C]

Just got back and I have to say I like this one much more than the first. More humor, which is in line with the book, Branaugh was excellent as Lockroy, and Doby was far better than I was expecting.

After the first one I didn't have any urge to watch it again, even though I enjoyed it. I bought the DVD and watched it again. Same reaction. Walking out of the theater tonight I had the urge to go buy another ticket.

Unfortunately, I had a lot of problems with the presentation. The audio kept dropping out. It seemed to happen the most at the end of scenes. That might just coincidence though. It was really annoying.

 

[Chris]

Dome - yes, they are one and the same, which is explained in greater detail later. He is a child in this memory, at age ~16, a 4th year..
Ok, I'm going to chime in with opinion outside of my review:
I am very glad that the movies are as true to the book as they are, and I would probably not go if I thought there were any significant alterations from the book. All to often, I have attended films, with a fond love of the book to find myself shaking my head at the mockery of the book presented in film format. And it doesn't take too far to look in quite a few genres. When I attended "Dune" (1984) I was shocked at how different from the book the storyline was, distortions of characters and places, and a creation of entire storylines which were non existant. I immediately (and still do) consider the movie itself a basic abomination of a good work of literature. The same holds true for other releases, such as "Starship Troopers" a great book, written in a vein where you understood that the human race had become almost third reichian, whereas the movie presented the matter so popcorn that those effects were not implied and the characters were thin as paper.
A few years ago, when JK Rowling signed off on the Harry Potter movie series, she put in an unusual stipulation: before any movie can be released, she has final approval, something that she has been adamant in using - she overruled the use of any american to play Harry Potter, and she has been directly involved in the casting process.
In interviews with Rowling, she has absolutley acknowledged that she will not allow movies to be released that she feels tampers or strays from the continuity of her books, which still have three more to go in the series. In the end, as she says, nothing done on film can hamper the through line of story of the books.
Kudos to Rowling for doing so. I fell in love with the Harry Potter book series because of their brisk read and interesting characters, minutia of detail and side barbs. I admit, I would have preferred that this move be LONGER then it was, and include scenes such as the de-gnoming. However, you can't always have everything.
There are several film based adaptations in which the author themselves have been able to steer the direction of the film, and we do not speak ill of them (see: Coen Brothers, David Mamet, etc.) Rowling is, in the end, making sure that the movies fulfill her goals of presenting her stories.
And while some don't like it, as long as those who buy books - which still continue to sell like hotcakes, she will still pull her strings to get the films she wants made. I often think that if other writers could have had equal clout (or been alive) we would have far better adaptations of their content.
It's hard to shoe horn long books into brisk 2-hour cinema. I'm glad they chose not to. I'm sure Rowling would make sure that it never happened. It does make me wonder (and believe) that a book such as "Goblet of Fire" which is almost twice as long as COS, may be broken into two films (which is OK by me).
Fact is, with an opening weekend on track for $80M, and merchandising still selling like hotcakes, Rowling has more clout to get what she wants now then before.
For those that felt the end didn't present well, I thought that it was very, very true to the book, and in many ways represented a lot of what Harry is starting to go through... that he is beginning to wonder how much like Voldemort he really is.. and whether or not he is bound to head down that road.
Kirk is pretty close on the Romance part.. things begin to change in the third year, but all the signs are there of what may be to come. But I think some will be surprised at the direction it takes.

 

[Joel C]

The end of every Potter book is full of expository dialogue, which can be deadly boring onscreen. I though much of said was pretty clumsy in CoS, with all the "Yes, Potter, I..." lines that Riddle had to spit out. What I really hated was how much of the IMPORTANT exposition, like WHY Ginny was writing in the diary (gushing about Harry, which is how Tom found out about him) was left out.

Ginny NEEDED to be a more significant presence, in the book her breakdown builds, in the movie she just wakes up and goes, "Oh, Harry, I swear... ect." A little lame. I'm able to fill in this info, of course, and I can't imagine what a non-reader would be thinking about the abrupt conclusion.

Everything after they've left the chamber is unbelieveably dull, IMHO. Well, the Dumbledore chat was fine, taken from the book. But the following confrontation with Lucius was overdone (and did I hear him begin the "Avada Cadavara" curse on Harry? Seems a little extreme for freeing a house elf). And the ending dinner scene was horrible, not only the weird scene with Hermione and Ron, but the horrid slow clap with Hagrid. It was like a Spielberg ending, just some reason to end everything all happy and glowy. Why not just have Gryffindor win the house cup again instead of all the dorky cheering?

Oh, and before I forget, the kid who plays Malfoy is terrible. I mean, the character is one-note and unlikeable in the books, sure, but I can't stand him onscreen. He constantly has the same expression on his face and all his lines are delivered the same way whether it makes sense or not. That scenes with him and the polyjuiced Ron and Harry was utter crap.

But, nitpicks aside, this was a far moe coherent film that the first, and quite enjoyable throughout. I'm just very, very fond of the sorce material, and the littlest things grate on my last nerve.

 

[Chris]

Ginny NEEDED to be a more significant presence, in the book her breakdown builds, in the movie she just wakes up and goes, "Oh, Harry, I swear... ect." A little lame. I'm able to fill in this info, of course, and I can't imagine what a non-reader would be thinking about the abrupt conclusion.

I would agree with this. It seems as though it was touched on early (when he appeared at their house) but that storyline, important within the book, did go missing.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

I enjoyed the film but I thought the end ran on for too long. I also didn't like how the Pheonix basically did half the work for him in the final showdown.

I thought the Riddle name thing was a bit of a stretch - I thought they could have built up a possible connection to Voldomort that would have made this more plausible.

The last scene was also puzzling because they never, in the films atleast, build up the Gameskeeper character as someone who is universally beloved. I understand why Harry and his gang were happy to see him back but not the whole standing ovation from everyone.

On the plus side, I loved the adult characters, particularly Snape and Lockhart. I thought Dobby was great also. The first two-thirds of the film work very well but I felt it really ground down in the final third.

 

[Chris]

I thought the Riddle name thing was a bit of a stretch - I thought they could have built up a possible connection to Voldomort that would have made this more plausible.

I think, since it was as true in the book, it would not be changed for the film. That having been said, the concept is not that the connection was by name, it is that Riddle used his name at that time to become Voldemort; and that the real connection between Riddle and Voldemort that made them one in the same was the prescence of him in that setting, that Riddle was very much a rarity in the wizarding world.. he was a parselmouth, someone who could speak to and hear snakes, and that was the dead give away. Spelling it out for Harry was just a way for Harry to realize how connected the two were

 

[Ryan Peter]

Dobby always seemed annoying but luckily he wasn't, however does anyone think Winky will be actually annoying?

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

I think the difference between a Dobby and a Jar-Jar is that Jar-Jar does one thing to move the plot along at the beginning (getting the Jedis to Gunga City) and then hangs around for the rest of the film basically doing nothing. Each time Dobby shows up, he moves the plot along and he doesn't hang around long enough to become grating or overexposed.

 

[todbnla]

Me any my wife were wondering how many of the little kids in our showing had nightmares? Like some else said, this is really not a movie for younger kids, IMHO. We had to swap our first tickets to a showing 30 min later cause there weren't any good seats at the one we originally attempted to go to, it was packed.

 

[BrianShort]

Todd: I definitely think there are things in the movie that arent for the younger kids... especially the end where Harry is stabbing the diary with the bassilisk tooth. Yikes!
It's been awhile since I've read the books, so I actually forgot quite a few details (even major ones, such as Ginny being the one that opened the chamber). I guess I should read through them again, they dont take that long
I really hope that most of this cast will stick around for all the movies. It would be really terrific to see them grow up through the series.
Brian

 

[Patrick Sun]

Danielle Radcliffe isn't optimistic about doing HP4 because he thinks he might be too old to play the part by then. Is there any room in the HP books for Radcliffe to play HP when he's 15-16 years old (he might get a growth spurt by then, which would make him look too old, I suppose).