happy listening!

-Jennie

There are a bunch of clips from the film here, too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jennie:
By the way...the one on TV was when Harry sees Fawkes burst into flames and comes out of its ashes.

---

Aughh! You gave away a plot point!!! Aughhh!!

HAHAHAHHAHA POTTER ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--Brian

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crono/Kyp:
Brian in Potter Mode

---

When is Brian NOT in "Potter Mode"??

Saw the film yesterday - very entertaining; better than the first one. (and a little longer, too - warning to those with small kids!! time length + more intense sequences = more crying and whining)

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgoldwas:
Saw the film yesterday - very entertaining; better than the first one. (and a little longer, too - warning to those with small kids!! time length + more intense sequences = more crying and whining)

---

Yeah, me too guys. As a fan of the books (Dan hasn't read a single one), I've gotta say that Chamber of Secrets is completely and totally AWESOME. It exceded my expectations and will definitely be a film I go see a couple more times. It's much stronger than the first. Every aspect of the film (except the editing, according to Dan - which didn't bother me) was great - from the acting, the music spotting, the effects were a million times better... it was simply an immersing experience. Potter fans will absolutely love it.

My only complaint is that they removed the Deathday Party sequence with Nearly Headless Nick... but I can understand why they did. The film doesn't suffer from its absence.

Also, pretty much everything I thought was notable about the score is present on the CD... between the first and second score, I think everyone should be covered.

Jeron

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeron:
Also, pretty much everything I thought was notable about the score is present on the CD... between the first and second score, I think everyone should be covered.

---

But interestingly enough, Dobby's theme didn't really seem to show up in the film - I might have missed it, but it doesn't sound like I was alone in that one....

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgoldwas:
But interestingly enough, Dobby's theme didn't really seem to show up in the film - I might have missed it, but it doesn't sound like I was alone in that one....

---

Right... we already established that. Just not here. Weird! I actually think it worked better that Dobby didn't have a theme in the film... or much of one, if it did show up. I don't remember hearing it, though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Brecher:
Well I don't know what the US CD cover says, but the UK one does clearly say "music from and INSPIRED by" up top.

---

Well, whatever - I'm sure that's possible. The US CD cover certainly doesn't imply that, though.

Jeron]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeron:
I actually think it worked better that Dobby didn't have a theme in the film... or much of one, if it did show up.

---

Agreed - it helps that it wasn't wall-to-wall music in the film. Moderation is good.

The new theme for Fawkes is absolutely fantastic. Too bad this score won`t be eligible for the Oscar as that theme alone would qualify it for a nomination at least.

The disc includes an extra cd-rom for the bonus material. Why can`t the Die Another Day producers go this way as well, leaving more room for the music?

NP: HP-Chamber of Secrets ****/*****

Kidding, of course.

The score was terribly unmemorable -- basically a wholesale reprise of cues from the first film, with little variation. How many aerial shots of Hogwarts were there where the main theme played without even the slightest variation.

It's a *** out of **** for the film for me, it's still a lot of fun and a worthy enough adaptation, it just carries the sense of a complete lack of confidence Columbus and Kloves must have had in themselves to fully adapt such a great story and make structural alterations in order to exploit the story in medium of cinema better.

Instead, they stick too much to the structural text of the novel that works great on the page, but not as well on the screen. I think Columbus did an admirable job on Philosopher's Stone, but here just fails to be inventive in his direction of the actors and giving any great creativity to the visual look of the film.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Brecher:
I noticed Dobby's theme twice. First when he backs up against the chest of drawers with Harrys letters, and again later on in the Hall with Harry and Lucious.

---

Yeah Dan, I just saw the film again and noticed the use of the theme. I guess I was so excited the first time, I didn't catch it.

ALSO, Voldemort's theme IS used when Tom Riddle spells out his name and the characters are re-arranged. It's there, very blatantly! My mistake for saying it wasn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Brecher:
Ryan, you're not the only one who found it underwhelming. I did, at least to an extent I suppose.

Instead, they stick too much to the structural text of the novel that works great on the page, but not as well on the screen. I think Columbus did an admirable job on Philosopher's Stone, but here just fails to be inventive in his direction of the actors and giving any great creativity to the visual look of the film.

Dan

---

Dan, I hear you. I think the film really falls apart once Harry is inside the Chamber. There's too much talk here, and the logic is a little fuzzy. Voldemort used Tom Riddle...? So? Why did he need Ron's sister? These are problems I have that might be because I haven't read the books.

Once Harry is inside the Chamber, the thrust seems to disappear and it's just a lot of posturing.

I did think the photography by Roger Pratt (BATMAN) was cool, and prefered it to the rather dull John Seale. The extensive use of dutch angles lent a little quirkiness to the otherwise stand-pat directing by Columbus.

I should clarify that I liked the film, but I don't think it was what folks here are proclaiming it to be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rkeaveney:
Voldemort used Tom Riddle...? So? Why did he need Ron's sister? These are problems I have that might be because I haven't read the books.

---

SPOILERS (like anyone really cares):

Ryan,

Even I didn't read the books but could figure out quite clearly that Tom Riddle IS Voldermort. That is, Tom Riddle changes his name to Voldermort, eventually kills Potter's parents, and tries to kill Potter in the first film. However, the MEMORY of Tom Riddle is "trapped" in the diary - like a snapshot of who Riddle was at the time the Chamber was last opened. It's this "memory" that is trying to become "real" again by using Ron's sister (draining her of her life force).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeron:
Yeah Dan, I just saw the film again and noticed the use of the theme. I guess I was so excited the first time, I didn't catch it.

---

Hmm. Given how great Dobby is, it's hard to hear any score there anyway. At least I was laughing very hard during his scenes.

quote:

---

ALSO, Voldemort's theme IS used when Tom Riddle spells out his name and the characters are re-arranged. It's there, very blatantly! My mistake for saying it wasn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgoldwas:
Even I didn't read the books but could figure out quite clearly that Tom Riddle IS Voldermort. That is, Tom Riddle changes his name to Voldermort, eventually kills Potter's parents, and tries to kill Potter in the first film. However, the MEMORY of Tom Riddle is "trapped" in the diary - like a snapshot of who Riddle was at the time the Chamber was last opened. It's this "memory" that is trying to become "real" again by using Ron's sister (draining her of her life force).

---

The whole spider-sequence was extremely well-done IMO. All the kids around me in the cinema were dumbstruck.

Music-wise, the only times which made me sit up and notice the music were the great shots of Fawkes when the great new theme crops up, and the opening of the chamber. There was also a great piece during the snow scene, but I'm not sure if that was from the first film.

Memo to me: Next year, wait at least a week before going to watch it, or else catch a late night show. I have never watched a film in such a noisy cinema. I arrived at the point where I had to decide it wasn't worth getting bothered and ruining the film, so i just tried to filter it all out.

You've got to hand it to JK Rowling though - every single kid in the row behind me had read the book

There was more tension for the climax here than first time round with the last film's reveal of Quirrel which, although a nice scene, lacked any kind of build up. Radcliffe walked down the stairs, and boom, there was Ian Hart, nothing really eerie about it until he took of the turban.

There was a nice sense about Riddle at the end of Chamber (film, and of course book). I also liked the earlier flashback sequence which was fairly nicely done, if let down by the Hagrid apperance which could have been done a bit better.

Obviously they couldn't use Coltrane there, but they made it too obvious that they were trying to hide the fact that it could not be him playing the younger Hagrid.

There were a lot of VERY lazy and cheap moments throughout the second film where they took the tall Hagrid double, shot him from behind and had Coltrane ADR the dialogue to characters passing by without ever showing his face.

quote:

---

ALSO, Voldemort's theme IS used when Tom Riddle spells out his name and the characters are re-arranged. It's there, very blatantly!

---

Yeah absolutely. Sounded like a note for note lift of an entire cue from Philosopher's Stone as it goes.

And yes, Riddle IS Voldermort. Tom Riddle was his name at birth, and he ultimately changed it when he went all Anakin Skywalker "I SHALL BE THE MOST POWERFULL!" on the wizarding world. More on that as the films progress really.

Dan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Camillu:
Memo to me: Next year, wait at least a week before going to watch it, or else catch a late night show.

---

LOL - the "kiddie factor" annoyed me, too. And you're not gonna have to do it next year; the third Potter film won't be out until 2004.

Who's got that kind of time to see a 3 hour movie more than once?

(I say 3 hours because after all the crap you have to endure before the film it comes out to that length.)

I didn't even notice the score that much in the film, guess I was too engrossed in the story & visuals or the fact that the 7 year old girl next to me kept kicking my armrest when she whould jump and crouch next to her sister on the other side.

Marian was lucky to see it WITHOUT kids, but I couldn't stay awake for a midnight show.

quote:

---

Who's got that kind of time to see a 3 hour movie more than once?

---

I saw Fellowship of the Ring 7 times theatrically.... Looking to do the same for Two Towers. What that says about my private life, I am none too sure.

Overall, I'm not never a big fan of sequels that have no new music, even if it's great music. It really took away from the new themes, which I only picked up on in the end credits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff C.:
I will pick up the books and find out what I'm missing. And then I'll get excited about #3 in two years.

---