What can I say? The film was bad ass! While some fun scenes were cut that I would have liked to have seen on film, the 161 min cut is a wonder to behold.

Filled with the magic that made the first one so amazing, "Chamber" continues the tradition with a great script, better acting by the Trio, better VFX (ILM), better score, and better camera work, for you Potter fans, this is a treat!

If I keep this up I'll be here all night. Take my advice, see the movie.

I'm sad that Chris is leaving the directors chair. I think his vision is amazing, while doing the book and world of "Harry Potter" a great justice. Yet, according to reports (by JK herself), Alfonso Cuarón is right for the job.

Keep it tuned right here in 2004 for my full report

Also, stay after the nice long credit roll, you'll see a nice surprise

Potter Forever!

--Brian

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crono/Kyp:
better score

---

I wouldn't say that. Even if the score as presented on the CD is better than the first one (and I don't think it is), there's way too much 1:1 repetition from the previous score in the movie.

The cinematography was better than the first film, but will reach a new high in the next one if Cuaron is allowed to bring in his main man Emmanuel Lubezski. The special effects were also very much improved. Animated characters actually looked like they belonged in the shots this time. The only exception was Fawkes, who I thought looked ridiculous in both his robotic and animated versions.

And speaking of looking ridiculous, what was up with Rupert Grint? His makeup made his skin look pasty and his lips far too read, and with all those faces they forced him to make he constantly looked like a clown. I already know the kid can act (he was my favorite of the three in the first film)... just let him do his thing.

I did think Daniel Radcliffe and (especially) Emma Watson were both much more natural in their roles this time around. Perhaps some of the pressure was lifted now that they know they've been accepted by the fans.

I do agree with Marian that there was too much music taken note-for-note from the first score to really make this one better. I'm sure this is Ross's doing, but I'm just as sure it's the producers' fault. They didn't want anybody from "outside" bringing in anything new. Still, Ross does shine through a little bit. Sometimes the action music seemed more Ross than Williams to me, and that ending (the last minute or so of "Reunion of Friends" on the album) is definitely a Ross finale.

My biggest problem with the film was that there were just too many scenes where Chris Columbus was starting to show himself. One of the things I liked so much about the first film was how much it didn't seem like something Columbus had done. In this one there was a little too much sap in certain scenes. This was especially apparent at the end feast, which could have easily avoided the sentimental overkill if it had only had about fifteen second trimmed here or there.

I am very happy Columbus is giving up the director's chair next time, and I am immensely pleased that it's being turned over to Alfonso Cuaron. He is a truly brilliant director, unlike Columbus, who I have always thought of as something of a hack. (Until Potter, I don't think he'd made an enjoyable film since Adventures in Babysitting.)

Brian, if you need to be convinced that Cuaron is right for the job, rent his version of The Little Princess. It is an absolutely beautiful film in every way imaginable. He should have been doing Potter from the beginning!

Seriously, rent it (widescreen is mandatory!). Tell me what you think.

Kirk
NP - Steve Reich: The Desert Music

It's on DVD right?

--Brian

The irony is that while the music sounds now MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE BETTER, the movie itself is worser than the first one. A year ago I complained that POTTER lacked any heart, and this second film is definitely WORSER, because the heart - and the entire point of the story - is NOWHERE to be found. Last year I was highly disappointed with the first movie because it felt so cold compared to the book, but the sequel was even COLDER, and further irony is that I have NOT EVEN READ THE BOOK 2 !! As a result I am more than anxiously waiting for Alfonso Cuaron to step in with the third part, because I too loved his version of THE LITTLE PRINCESS, which was warm, magical, and believable with its marvelous child actors.

A further point in this chaotic CHAMBER OF SECRETS is that it takes far too long to tell a story (IS THERE A STORY ?!!??) which could be told in less than 60 minutes. And for a person who hasn't read the book, the ending is totally predictable and yet so complicated that one may have serious problems to understand who was a villain and who was not - and what was the point in the entire story.

THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS is a disastrous example of two totally different movies pasted together. With the exception of the very good adult cast there is really no believability in the child actors whatsoever (sorry Radcliffe, Watson & Grint). So, what happens when these same children are put into some of the most intense scenes in children's movie history ? The result is a movie that feels like Home Alone 5 (but without any humor) in its calm sequences, and in the action scenes like Nightmare on Elm Street - enough to give sensitive children, as well as adults, nightmares for the three next months. With this movie I myself started to feel mighty disgusted by Rowling's certain creations, and after this I'm not surprised that so many people have compared POTTER books to real witchcraft and serious devil worship...

It's a somewhat pity that William Ross' magnificent adaptions are placed within such a stupid movie - if Ross would have been around already during PHILOSOPHER'S STONE, I'm sure I would have adored the score. It's easy to realize that this second POTTER score uses much more strings on its music than the first score, and this fact is enough to make me adore the music. Besides, in my humble opinion there is little, if any, repetition from the original unmagical score - and besides, in William Ross' hands even the "Hegwig Theme" gets at last true wings underneath its melody. THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS is really a terrific, warm, and wonderful score, plus the intense sequences contain magnificent orchestral rumble from the great London Symphony Orchestra.

Yep, a pity.

1) You seem to have liked the first book - why did you watch the second movie without reading the book first? For one thing, you'd probably like the movie more/dislike it less that way. But much more importantly, and I keep saying that over and over again whenever someone speaks of watching the movies first: You're totally spoiling a Potter book when you watch the movie first. Believe me, NONE of the books are even slightly predictable, that's part of what makes them so great.

2) I disagree that the first movie lacked a heart. I kinda agree that the second movie did though. Or rather, I think all the parts of it were excellent, but it didn't have a theme to bind it together. The theme is very much present in the book, but lasts only a few minutes in the movie. The excellent parts are what make the movie very enjoyable for me. The lack of a theme is what makes it somewhat disappointing in the end.

3) I STRONGLY disagree with your calling the child actors bad.

On TVGuide online, they've got someone called "flickchick" (who's probably some loser in his/her basement, like AICN), who says this about the Potter movies...

quote:

---

...Warners recently announced that director Alfonso Cuaron would be taking the reins from Chris Columbus on the third installment in the series, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban... he stands to bring to Prisoner of Azkaban the distinctive directorial sensibility that's missing from the first two films.

---

Sounds like someone must have gotten mad that Chris Columbus didn't like her script.

You can rant all you want. Go read the books then come back and talk to us.

Of course you might not be a fan and that's ok too, no one's perfect.

--Brian

(PS: Thanks Kev )

That's why I'm waiting for Cuaron to step in because, for example, with his beautiful THE LITTLE PRINCESS I had NOT read the original book, nor seen the original Shirley Temple classic... Geddit ?

I don't think "being a fan" means that you can say what's good and what's not.

quote:

---

watching film #3 without reading the book first will be like having someone tell you the entire plot of a movie with a dozen twists each minute in advance.

---

With all due respect, Marian,
I thought reading the book first would have a similar effect.

Anyway, seriously,
what is a point of MAKING A MOVIE just to VISUALIZE a book and not telling its story ?
- Because you, Marian, make it sound like that these POTTER movies are not to be regarded as serious movies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken S:
With all due respect, Marian,
I thought reading the book first would have a similar effect.

---

My point is, and this is especially for the Potter books: The probably best thing about the books (and most people will agree with me here) is that they keep you trying to figure out the clues all the time. The plots are very complex, and while you'll have many ideas while reading the books, I haven't heard of anyone so far who figured out what really was going on before the end. And the best thing about that is that all the clues are there. Read the first few chapters, and you basically should know everything you need - just that you don't realize it. Every single word has a meaning, but what that meaning is doesn't become obvious until the end - and then you realize that you should have known it all the time.

And that's coupled with the facts that the books are simply much longer than the movies could possibly be. This means that much more tension can be built in the books, mostly because they're at a school - the plot constantly alternates between the "main plot" and the kids having to worry about exams or other school stuff which keeps them from other things. And there are the Quidditch match, which add more tension, because they're basically a third thing that's not directly connected to the others but still are important to win. So while the main plot is always there, it gets much stronger because there's more than just that.

Take Philosopher's Stone, for example. In the movie, the plot is very linear. Harry finds out he's a wizard, he comes to Hogwarts, discovers all this stuff, makes friends, finds out something is going on, learns about his parents, learns about the Stone etc. They keep searching the library for information on Nicholas Flamel, until Hermione returns from her Holidays and brings a book that has what they want to know about them. But in the book, the collectible card Harry finds in his Chocolate Frog mentions that Dumbledore is a close friend of Nicholas Flamel - which is why Harry thought the name sounds familiar, and that's what leads them to finding out the next bit and so on. Basically, everything that's obvious (perhaps sometimes even too obvious, finding out stuff just at the right time) is infinitely more complex in the novel. That works in a book, but a movie where you can't make a break or think things through before reading the next chapter is different - particularly if it's made for children and you can't make it too complex.

So my big point is: What makes the novels so thrilling, particularly when you read them for the first time, is that you're constantly trying to figure it out yourself, and get tons of information, just that you're never able to solve the puzzle. That builds enormous tension and makes the ending a total surprise. The movies just can't do that, good though I think they are. Even if they were perfect, they couldn't possibly do what the books can do when you read them for the first time. Which is why I also think that nobody who watches the movie first can really understand what's so great about the books, even if (s)he reads them afterwards.

quote:

---

what is a point of MAKING A MOVIE just to VISUALIZE a book and not telling its story ?

---

None. But few movies tell the story as well as the books. Sometimes it's better to read the book first, sometimes it doesn't matter, sometimes one is good while the other is crap. But I think every Potter fan, even those who adore the movies, will tell you to read the books first.

quote:

---

- Because you, Marian, make it sound like that these POTTER movies are not to be regarded as serious movies.

---

I hope I cleared that up now.

Oh, and you could say that I think the second movie wasn't "serious" enough. Or rather: I think it was more a retelling of the book than a really good adaption. As I said, I think all the parts it was made of were nearly perfect. But the movie as a whole was missing some of the most important things (not scenes, rather themes or concepts or whatever, hard to explain) of the book.