Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets

[coalescent]

It was better than the first one. This, however, is not saying a whole lot, since the first one was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Chamber of Secrets is not abysmal; it is merely bad. And, in fact, much to my surprise, it is bad in such a way that I am still willing to believe the source material may be worthwhile.

I don't like Harry Potter, though. Sure, it gets kids reading, and that's great; but as a story, and as a premise, it really doesn't do a whole lot for me. The thing that really annoyed me about Philosopher's Stone was the ending: Harry wins because he's Just So Special, and that's that. Chamber... has more or less the same flaw, but at least attempts to handwave an explanation as to why he's special. Unfortunately, the attempt is undercut somewhat by the rest of the story's world.

The explanation, for those who don't know, is that when Voldemort attacked the infant Harry, he transferred some of his powers. There are then some lines along the lines of 'it's not what's in us that defines us, it's our choices.' A valid sentiment, certainly, but one patently false in Potterworld. This is a world in which Hogwart's students are sorted into their school houses by personality type. A world in which wizards are presented, due to their magical gifts, as being inherently superior to muggles. Even enlightened wizards such as Weasley Snr seem to view regular humans as objects of curiosity and study, rather than people in their own right.

If the film were polished enough, I could forgive the above. It's wish-fulfillment, pure and simple - who hasn't wanted to be special? - and to be fair, Chamber... feels, at least in part, as though Rowling has realised the flaws in her creation and is doing her best to correct them. Unfortunately, it's not polished. It is clumsy and uneven. Whilst a couple of the set-pieces are good - yes, I'm thinking of the Quidditch match, which feels downright brutal - too often the pacing is undermined by unnecessary exposition and some truly dire acting from the leads. At least Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson are sometimes tolerable, and have improved since the first film; Rupert Grint appears content merely to spend the film in an attempt to find as many unlikely contortions of the human face as he can.

On the upside (and yes, there were a few upsides), the whodunnit plot was moderately engaging - particularly once the possibility of Harry being responsible was introduced - and the adult actors were almost universally fantastic. I'd happily watch Alan Rickman in anything, I think. The complexity added to the Hogwart's backstory is good, as well; unlike the first film, you can see the potential for further stories.

Oh, and the theme tune is good. Or at least annoyingly catchy. Doo da dee-dee da dee da-doo, da dee-dee da dee da....

Comments

[brassyn.livejournal.com]

i haven't seen it, i don't know the plot.
i don't like harry potter and i don't care!

still, i may see the film but only to accompany my sister.
so i haven't read your post, but i am sure it was lovely.

[gagravarr.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the book, and I've yet to watch the film...

Agreed on most points ...

[applez.livejournal.com]

as you can read in my own less-thorough review.

If there were to be a Harry Potter spin-off (yeah, and you diehard fans can stop hissing now), an all-Alan Rickman villain with goodly goals movie would be too fascinating to pass up. :)

---

Harry Potter Neine Danke

[xsabx.livejournal.com]

I'd rather have Bond. Sorry...

Re: Harry Potter Neine Danke

[ex-toastie256.livejournal.com]

you rock

[malenfant.livejournal.com]

We thank you for your contribution. :-p