|
| . |
|
Harry Potter: The Chamber of Secrets 2002 |
Review by Jonathan Cornwell |
Directed by Chris Columbus
PG, 161 min. (scary moments, some violence, mild language) |
 |
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Kenneth Branagh, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, Jason Issacs
Producers: David Heyman
Screenplay: Steve Kloves
Cinematography: Roger Pratt
Distributor: Warner Brothers
Released: 11.15.02 (Wide) |
Rating:
  (out of ) |
Harry Potter mania is back with Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, but this time the proceedings are quite a bit
darker and the suspense level is elevated. In fact, I'm surprised this chapter didn't receive a PG-13 rating for its intense
final act and disturbing images that could clearly frighten some children. Nevertheless, director Chris Columbus has quite
a franchise on his hands, one that will remain popular because of its strict adherence to J.K. Rowling's books. Admittedly,
I'm not very familiar with the novels, but it's obvious that her fantastical stories have struck a nerve in people much like
George Lucas' Star Wars franchise did in the '70s. Although I appreciated this film more than Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, critically speaking the result is pretty much the same. In other words, it's an effective but unspectacular chapter in
the Harry Potter franchise.
I must admit I'm a bit perplexed at some of the critical praise heaped upon these first two installments - "masterpiece" has
been thrown around by some respected film critics. While the stories are involving, the characters well developed and
interesting, and the special effects wizardry impressive, the films lack the weight or surreal nature that define true
classic works of art on the big screen. They are pleasing and worth caring about, but placing them on equal footing with,
say, the aforementioned Star Wars original trilogy, is a stretch. One of the strengths of true classic science fiction
is the ground-breaking effects or "wow"-factor that accompanies their initial release. Harry Potter has some nice visuals,
however, there's nothing here we haven't seen somewhere else first. For this franchise to reach classic status, it must be
willing to take risks outside the comfortable confines of Rowling's books, maybe in the form of another director who decides
to take the stories in a different direction (this was rumored to be Columbus' final film in the series).
Columbus' strength is clearly in his ability to create a smooth transition from source material to the big screen. He's
able to craft some atmosphere and portray the joyful camaraderie of Harry and his friends, but from what I've read it seems
the sets and backdrops are identical to Rowling's standard, which means very little wiggle room for creativity. Unlike the
first film, this story has a cloud of dread hanging over it from the outset. This is reinforced with few daytime scenes,
instead saturating the narrative with darkly lit, somber pieces of storyline that contain numerous night scenes and underground
tunnels. If the first film was about discovery and enchantment, this one is about facing fears, self-doubt, and the darker
shades of one's personality. This is where Harry must grow up faster than he'd like.
All the familiar faces are back - Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends, Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint).
Hogwarts' instructors also return - headmaster Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris), Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith),
Professor Snape (Alan Rickman). A new addition, the egotistical Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh), also joins the fray.
And of course, Harry's rival Draco (Tom Felton), along with mysterious father Lucius (Jason Isaacs), return to make life difficult.
Harry must uncover who's behind the re-opening of the Chamber of Secrets, which is rumored to contain a monster that
kills with eye contact. With various students and others turning to petrified statues of themselves, the panic level
at Hogwarts is high. Now, Hogwarts will be closed if instigator is not caught.
The film is clearly at its best in the final act, as Harry is desperately trying to resolve his connection to the Chamber of Secrets,
and time is running out for everyone. It's frantic pace is in stark contrast to the story's beginning, which lumbers along
without much sense of purpose other than to refresh the viewer's memory of the characters here. Columbus has traded
some exposition for excitement, and the results speak for themselves. There are some geniunely disturbing moments
in the film's climax, thus its dark nature.
The story does touch upon one theme that has some staying power. Hogwarts is divided into two groups - the "pure
bloods", or those with parents who are descended from a long line of wizards, and the "mud bloods", or those with
one parent who is descended from the arts. It's interesting that Rowling approaches the subject of racism and prejudice
with characters who are cliches for real world racist groups of the past. Draco and Lucius are blonde, blue-eyed biggots who
despise any students at Hogwarts who are mud-bloods, or not pure-bloods. The similarities to the Aryan race and Hitler's
dangerous ideas are obvious. Rowling uses this point of emphasis to present her readers with the insanity of racism and
the amount of evil that follows this line of thinking. For a children's story, this is heavy material.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is enjoyable theater, but its running length must be addressed in future films.
At nearly three hours long, if you include previews before the feature, it's simply too long for most people to remain
fixated at one position. This type of film needs an intermission to allow time for restroom breaks and refreshments -
I can't imagine a child's patience holding out this long. For the Harry Potter series, which is rumored to contain seven
films, this effort is effective cinema for almost all audiences. Now, if only someone would take this franchise and
surprise the viewer with a newer, fresher vision of what we've already seen.
© 2002 Jonathan Cornwell
|
|
 |
 | Masterpiece - Film perfection |
| Excellent - A Must See |
| Good - Highly Recommended |
| Fair - Worth seeing |
| Average - Viewable, but not recommended |
| Below average - View at own risk |
| Poor - Avoid at all costs |
| Very poor - An embarassment to the film industry |
| Zero | Awful - One of the worst films ever made |
© 2000 - present ReelCriticReviews
All movie pictures are registered trademarks and/or copyrights of their respective holders
Their use on this site is for informational purposes only and does not imply ownership
|
