|
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (November 17, 2002)
At this rate, thoughts and expectations for the holiday season won’t be of turkeys, menorahs, and Santa anymore, but of muggles, Dumbledore, and magic potions. And I think I’m getting used to that idea, because if these “Harry Potter” adaptations remain this good all the way to the fabled 7th book of the series, then they can have all the holidays they want.
Picking up a handful of months after “Harry Potter And the Sorcerer’s Stone” ended, we now find Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) stuck again in the Dursley household, waiting for his friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) to contact him after a summer away from the Hogwarts School Of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Trouble finds Harry in the form of elf Dobby, who warns Harry not to return to the school because evil will surely befall him if he tries. Harry ignores Dobby, returns to the school, and finds that an evil force has taken over the halls, immobilizing people in terror, and taunting Harry to find the source.
Simply put, if you liked “Sorcerer’s Stone,” you’ll like “Chamber Of Secrets.” The two pictures, though not interchangeable by any means, share the same production values, casts, and behind the scenes talent. So “Chamber Of Secrets” easily matches the original film in ambiance and spirit. Directed once again by Chris Columbus, “Chamber Of Secrets” has a more defined edge than “Sorcerer’s Stone,” brought on by a bolder sense of filmmaking, the first picture’s overwhelming success, and the creepy crawly story laid out by author J.K. Rowling, adapted here again by Steven Kloves. It’s a different experience delivered in the same candy shell. “Chamber” goes for scares and intrigue, where “Sorcerer” went for awe and fantasy. The darker tone of “Chamber” is a welcome sight, proving that Columbus has far more trust in his family audience than anyone else would dare, always a sure sign of a good film. Yes, all the ingredients that made “Sorcerer” such a ripping good time are here: the magic, the Hogwarts house battles, John Williams’s beautiful score, the camaraderie between the three leads, glorious set design, and all the other Rowling touches that send kids (and adults) into head-slapping fits of joy. Even the beloved Quidditch returns, albeit briefly, with all the CGI problems that slightly marred the sequence in “Sorcerer” fixed. Hindsight is 20/20, and Columbus uses the reaction and praise of the first installment to build a stronger, braver picture in “Chamber.“
Sadly, missing from this film is the delight of the little details. “Chamber” is interested solely in story, and remains feverishly locked in on getting the basics of the narrative out, and that’s all. With a running time of 160 minutes, you’d think there would be time to search around the shadowy corners of Hogwarts some more, but Columbus doesn’t set aside time for it. With “Sorcerer” being the origin story of Harry Potter, and most of the geographical work laid out in that film, “Chamber” doesn’t have many scenes of discovery that aren’t directly routed or paid off in the end. A miscalculation, but I understand the absence of wandering.
But parents be warned, as “Chamber” is a more twisted, violent trip into Potter land. Complete with giant spider attacks, messages of impending doom inked in blood, and a confrontation with a giant snake, there are many nightmare-inducing scenes for the little ones. To his credit, Columbus doesn’t shy away from the more frightening portions of the novel, and seems to take pleasure in the opportunity to play up the murder-mystery aspects of the story, while still employing his trademarked “family appeal” style of filmmaking. Columbus has always been a class act director in my book (“Home Alone, “ “Stepmom,” “Mrs. Doubtfire“), and his easy balance of light and dark tones in his two “Harry Potter” films is staggering considering the wide-ranging demographics these films reach. He will be missed for “Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban,” due in 2004, which will be directed by Alfonso Cuaron, of “A Little Princess” and “Y Tu Mama Tambien” fame.
As with any sequel, there are many new things to enjoy. In “Chamber” we learn what a “mud blood” is, spend some quality time with Ron’s family, meet Moaning Myrtle (Shirley Henderson, “Bridget Jones‘s Diary“), a ghost the haunts the ladies room at Hogwarts, take a ride in a flying car, unleash some nasty little pixies (which is a nice homage to “Gremlins,” Columbus’s first produced screenplay), and welcome the new adults to the story, including the sinister Lucius Malfoy (a scenery chewing Jason Issacs, “The Patriot“), and vain Dark Arts professor Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh).
Nonetheless, the focus remains on Harry, Ron and Hermione, and these kids are growing up fast! Now with deeper voices and richer facial features, each actor is slowly coming into their own in terms of developing the characters’ traits and emotional range. While Radcliffe and Grint have surely found their footing as the heroic and comic duo of the film, it’s Watson’s turn to shine, with “Chamber” giving a little more back story to Hermione, and Watson plays it well. Flat out, this is the type of nuanced acting you pray for from preteens, yet never seem to get anymore. As these films develop, so will their talents.
“Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets” is another winning entry in the Potter franchise, paving the way yet again for the next film to further push the boundaries of what is typically labeled “children’s films.” It’s a delight, and should please muggles and sorcerers alike.
|
|
|
