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

[Brian Perry]

I thought the movie could have been shortened--there was no reason to have another Quiddich (sp?) match, especially one that was essentially the same as the one in the first movie.

I also agree with Jonathan about the lazy writing with respect to the "rescue" scenes.

Finally, the applause for Hagrid was over the top and an unsatisfactory ending for me.

I did enjoy certain aspects of the film, but was disapppointed overall.

 

[GregBoehme]

We did actually see the hat before, and were told of the purpose it served. I don't see why it should have been explained beforehand that the hat was magical, since it was told to us later.

Again the only thing I remember is the hat saying it put Harry in Griffindor because that's what Harry wanted, I can see how it could've been taken further saying the hat gives people what they want but I didn't get that.
Guess I also missed the part about pulling objects out of the hat, always thought it's only function was sorting the students. But again I may have totally missed something, but thought I was paying pretty good attention.

The original was on HBO last night so got another look at it and have to say the story flowed much better in that one.

Greg

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

Brian,

I haven't read the books but going by only the film, it doesn't look like Harry summons anything. Afterwards, Dumbledore gives that explanation. I think that needed to happen beforehand and I also think Harry had to try something to make the sword appear. As it is, the sword is just there and that is too convenient.

I don't think the fact that the hat is magical makes it okay for it to do anything anytime. The hat had been established earlier to have a singular purpose - to decide which house to place each student. Once that is established, it should somewhere be hinted or shown beforehand that it has another element to it.

 

[Chris Farmer]

Funny, but I was of the opinion that this movie blew the first one away, completely smoked it. the first one felt to episodic at times. It just felt like there was a laundry list of important scenes from the book that they were checking off. Letters in the fireplace? Check. Hagrid smashing down the door? Check. Diagon Alley? Check. etc. It felt like they were trying to put in as many scenes as possible, while leaving out the transitions. This, incidentally, was one of my few gripes about Fellowship of the Ring (which was fixed by the EE), that it jumped to much from scene to scene. I felt the deleted scenes on the DVD would have helped a lot with that passage of time aspect.
COS to me at least, had more of those transitional elements, as well as getting rid of more elements that weren't needed. You can't eliminate the Quidditch game, but the subplot of Filch (the janitor) being a wizard that couldn't work magic was dropped. As was the question of Percy's big secret, I felt this movie was more streamlined. Even though it was longer then the first, it came across as shorter. The acting I thought was far better (although Rupert seemed to be wearing his terrified look for 3/4 of his scenes, guess he heard how much people loved those in the first ). Emma Watson especially I thought did very well bringing Hermione's hurt about having muggle parents out.
The big questions that people have can be understood by reading the book. yes the movie needs to be able to stand on its own, but conversely, there's some development that just can't be done in a movie. COS even with a lot of that development axed was still 2:40.
My only two complaints were the some lines that shouldn't have been said (the "The bird may have blinded the basilisk..." line especially should have never escaped the cutting room floor, although the parseltongue comment was nice as I wondered why Harry didn't try to command the basilisk in the book. the other thing that bugged me was the ovation for Hagrid, nowhere in the books or the rest of the two movies did you ever get the feeling Hagrid was universally popular, rather you felt like Harry, Ron, Hermione, and
Dumbledore were his only real supporters. The absence of Ginny didn't bother me much, she was a plot device in the movie, which worked. I would have liked ot see more development as in the book, but the way she worked was good enough for me at least.
So that's my opinion, and I'm very much looking forward to PoA.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

Chris,

I agree about Hagrid at the end. The ovation scene made no sense to me either, for the exact same reasons.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Picked up Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Let's face it, I walked into the kids section, picked it up, and didn't care that some mother looked at me funny. I find it hard to believe that a young adult would have the patience to read a 700+ page book.

 

[Chris Farmer]

Don't bet on that. My youngest sister, who was 10 at the time, downed that 734 page sucker in two days flat. I downed it in one. .

 

[Chris]

Picked up Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Let's face it, I walked into the kids section, picked it up, and didn't care that some mother looked at me funny. I find it hard to believe that a young adult would have the patience to read a 700+ page book.

That's my argument to those who dislike Harry Potter. My two nieces both had to buy copies of that book.. and both finished it within 4 days. Neither is over 14 years old.
Anything that gets kids to read with that kind of ambition (the TV did not turn on in their household for any of those days until they were finished) is a damned good thing

 

[Brian Ford]

Todd,
You may want to watch the Phoenix scene again sometime. When the phoenix arrives, it drops the sorting hat. Harry picks it up and we can tell that it is empty. Later on, we see the sword materialize out of thin air, half way in and half way outside of the sorting hat. I would call that a summoning.
As for the explanation for all the workings of the hat, I just don't need that much foreshadowing. One key element the books use is throwing around odd occurences and then explaining them in full detail later on. It keeps you guessing and wondering, and I think it worked here.
As for reading the Goblet of Fire in one day... Whoa...

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

Brian,

It appears but without any effort from Harry. I didn't see anything to indicate that he did anything to summon it. As for it materializing, for all I know it was invisible or hidden by some illusion. Only after the fact is the summoning explained. That's too late for me. As it's happening, the sword just appears for whatever reason.

My feeling is that once you create the rules of your world (whatever they may be), you have to live by them. By not somehow indicating that the sorting hat had any other powers, I feel like they broke the rules by suddenly giving it more abilities. It broke my suspension of disbelief.

 

[Brian Ford]

Quick link...
http://www.warnerbroscanada.com/prom...bby/index.html
It is only a matter of time until someone sprays paints this under some highway overpasses.

 

[Dan_J_H.]

I was pleased to see the actor Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy) in this film. I only wish he was in more scenes. Jason was great as Colonel William Tavington in The Patriot.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Jason was great as Colonel William Tavington in The Patriot.

He plays an awesome,mean bastard in every film, even when he's a good guy.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Lou Sytsma in the official review thread said:

Pretty well sums up my feelings Edwin.
The improvements in supporting cast ie Lockhart and Lucius Malfoy were offset by some of the story elements that didn't work properly. The sudden reappearance of the Weasely car at an opportune moment was the worst offense.

I read somewhere that to find this as a problem with the film is to blame the author (Rowling) instead of the director (Columbus).
I disagree. Does that mean a flawed novel which is adapted faithfully by a director automatically becomes a good film? I think not. Is garbage in (bad novel) = garbage out (film) = a good product? I emphasize, not that the film is garbage, alright?
In the end, if a director cannot take creative and artistic licenses with the source material to make it any better, he/she remains just as a director for hire.
~Edwin

 

[Kevin Korom]

The improvements in supporting cast ie Lockhart and Lucius Malfoy were offset by some of the story elements that didn't work properly. The sudden reappearance of the Weasely car at an opportune moment was the worst offense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I read somewhere that to find this as a problem with the film is to blame the author (Rowling) instead of the director (Columbus).

I disagree. Does that mean a flawed novel which is adapted faithfully by a director automatically becomes a good film? I think not. Is garbage in (bad novel) = garbage out (film) = a good product? I emphasize, not that the film is garbage, alright?

In the end, if a director cannot take creative and artistic licenses with the source material to make it any better, he/she remains just as a director for hire.

Well, regarding the car's too-easy appearance, you can put the blame on the filmmakers, if you must. IIRC, the car found Ron & Harry while they were following the spiders (scared the crap out of them), so the car didn't just magically appear out of nowhere during the climax in the book.

But they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they put the scene in the film (the car appearing earlier in the scene), just as many others would say it just bogged down an already long film even further...

 

[Adam Horak]

Was it me or was the Pheonix the absolute butt ugliest bird ever? I had a hard time thinking of it as a wonderful magical creature because it was just so nasty looking.

 

[Chris]

I read somewhere that to find this as a problem with the film is to blame the author (Rowling) instead of the director (Columbus).
I disagree. Does that mean a flawed novel which is adapted faithfully by a director automatically becomes a good film? I think not. Is garbage in (bad novel) = garbage out (film) = a good product? I emphasize, not that the film is garbage, alright?
In the end, if a director cannot take creative and artistic licenses with the source material to make it any better, he/she remains just as a director for hire.

Hmm. Well, I've always taken the opposite approach: the film is but a supplant to the literary effort. I have almost never seen a film that has taken "artistic liberties" with a book that I found superior to the book; in fact, I'd say more often, they tend to turn into outright disasters (see: Bonfire of the Vanities, Dune, Starship Troopers). Adaptations that tend to be faithful or at least work to be faithful tend to have a fonder place in my heart
That having been said, I think if you don't like this film, you can't say it's all Rowling's fault or all Columbus fault. A lot of elements which work well in print do not work well in film. The scene with the car, which is detailed over a longer course in the book, would have made for damn boring film scenes; but would have explained it's appearance. (as well as an early event in the book, which better explained the car altogether)
The effort of taking a book to a film is always a difficult one. I have almost always been in the camp that good literary work can be made into bad film - especially when the director decides to take liberties. But even the best of books can be made into "eh" movies when they follow the script but don't do so well.
Yes, yes, I'll know, I'm going to get people who will say 'what about'.. and I'm sure we can point out exceptions, but even some of the movies based on books that have been significantly changed that people will point to (see: The Shining) have always left me cold.
I understand that in going to film "decisions must be made" then again, I guess that is why I have always believed some book should never become films..
Now, Harry Potter is not one of those, it should make for entertaining fare at the audience level it is geared to. If a kid starts the Harry Potter series of books (and movies) at 12, and follows it through to the end, they will find that each book in the series grows more complex in the elements that are added and adjusts for the perceived age of the viewer/reader. Hopefully, the movie series can do the same.
I've seen COS twice now, and there are moments within the film that I found lacking, especially in the way that they portray scenes which in the book presented a lot more wonderment and challenge. Some elements the movie left out.
(Then again, you're listening to the same person who complained in the LOTR thread last year that I thought it was wrong to exclude Tom Bombodil and to remove elements of the book regarding the travel to Brie, which took more from the animated version of the past rather then the book)

 

[Russell B]

Heres a rumor of Tom Felton leaving the third movie.
http://www.cinecon.com/news.php?id=0212046

 

[Lou Sytsma]

The scene with the car, which is detailed over a longer course in the book, would have made for damn boring film scenes; but would have explained it's appearance.

Then come up with a cinematic equivalent or don't use the car use something else.

The movie makes no explanation at all and based on the last time we saw the car it was presented as being mad at Ron and Harry.

 

[Sam Davatchi]

Anyone knows why Ron didn’t review Harry Potter this year?