Rating: 
Summary: Harry is back
Review: This movie has more action than the first. It's also a bit longer though, but not too long for a loyal Potter fan! The Chamber of Secrets also varied a little more from the book than the last movie, but probably just to save on time. Over all I have to say that this movie is AWESOME, and I am buying this one!!
Rating: 
Summary: Why this is a good movie
Review: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a good movie, there's no doubt about that. Someone who doesn't like this one, or the previous movie in the series is someone who had problems enjoyning his/her life in the early stages, since Harry Potter is the kid everyone wanted to be.Let's see, why would someone go to a movie? To be entertained, that's the most likely answer. Now, each individual have his own concept of self-entertainment. Some could say that being entertained in a movie is when you find a story and a plot with lots of twists, others could say that they like a very dense movie, with lots of emotive and deep dialogs, etc, and other yet could say that they go see a movie to watch the actors' and the director's performance. Or someone can go to the movies expecting many other feelings and for many other reasons or a combination of various reasons. I go to a movie expecting to have fun and get into the story, to be a part of it, like some kind of therapy. Chamber of secrets is better than Philosopher's stone. For once, the actors are more experienced, and older, and they are able to show it on screen. Chris Columbus, the director, is famous for making nice and innocent films for children mostly, and he does that again easyly. However, a more attent spectator will notice that J.K. Rowling's series are made to follow the growing-up of her readers. So, the first story (Philosopher's stone) is very simple and direcetd to people in their early teens; from that point, the series begin to get more serious and thought provoking, just like the readers should be. Chris Columbus is able to paste this situation to the screen, and that alone is a feat of directing. That said, on with the review. The plot: I read the book as weel, a year or so ago, and, as far as I remember, the movie is very like the book. Some situations are very difficult to be transformed from immagination to reality, and they were very well depicted in the movie. Two hours and forty minutes make a very long movie, but time went by and I didn't even felt my rear-end square for sitting in the theater chair that long. The actors: As I said, Radcliffe, Grint and Emma Watson are older an more experienced, and they are, in my opinion, a very similar portrait of what Rowling thinks her characters should be (she is a producer of the movie and I think it's great that she stomped her foot against a large american participation in the film, since this is a story enveloped in a british atmosphere). The supporting actors, such as Richard Harris, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane have a very strong participation, as in the first one, and help to create a strong feeling of credibility. Only Kenneth Brannagh has a weaker role, although very funny in some moments. The special effects and settings: I congratulate the teams responsible for bringing to life the magic of the Harry Potter series, such as the (obvious) Quidditch game, the flying car, the basilisk, Aragog and the scenery of Hogwarts and, most of all, the beauty (although a strange beauty, I should say) of the Chamber of Secrets. I surely hope that people are not naive enough to dismisse or dislike this movie thinking it's a movie for children. As all good movies, this one is ageless. I hope the next ones are also as good as the first two, If that happens, this is going to be one of the better and most rentable movie series of all time. Grade 9.4/10
Rating: 
Summary: tedious and overrated
Review: Yes, I'm going to pan the new Harry Potter film. And no, I am not a hyperactive parent who's scared of witches and black cats. In the same way "Titanic" combined a completely generic love story with million-dollar CGI and went on to become the highest-grossing film of all time, "Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets" (much like its predecessor) combines incredible visuals with a completely uninteresting, mundane storyline. While "The Sorcerer's Stone" had a few inspired moments, absolutely nothing in this movie hooked me in. The plot was incredibly loose (characters fumble from one encounter to the next without much rhyme or reason), and I found it impossible to keep track of all the characters (in part because they have names like circus clowns), and the villain's explanation at the end is just as contrived and unbelievable (even for a fantasy film) as "The Sorcerer's Stone." People hype these films as if they're setting some new precedent for kids' action/adventure, but in truth they don't come close to touching the one that set the standard, 1981's "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Next time, I think I'll watch that and keep my [money].
Rating: 
Summary: You want an Harry Potter experience? Read the book.
Review: You want an Harry Potter experience? Read the book. I saw the movie last week and I wasn't impressed. In compare to the book the movie is boring, pointles, suffers a great lack of details and what ever bad thing cross your mind. The book has in it not only the main story line but also small sub stort lines which makes the book the good book it is. The movie has no such story lines and that really ruin the experience we got use to find in the books.
If you still want to see this movie all I can say is that the second movie is better then the first one...
Enjoy....
Rating:
Summary: Great film for all ages
Review: The first movie turned me fast into a Harry Potter fan. After then reading all the books (okay, as I write this I am in the middle of the 4th), I have to say that Chamber of Secrets is absolutely my favorite! I was also happy to say that, even though the movie did not turn out how I imagined as I read it...it still was an amazing fun watch!
In the books, Rowlings takes some time re-introducing characters and wizard world elements to you in each installment. For the sake of time, Chris Columbus leaves a lot of that out of the movie. Another words, he assumes that you have at least already seen the first movie and know who Hermione and Snape are and what Quittich is. So, I would not jump in with this sequel without seeing the first movie. With all that said, you will enjoy being back at Hogwarts with Harry in no time. It is very gratifying and moving to see these favorite characters come to life on screen again, which the actors and director has captured wondefully!
The other major thing about this movie is that Columbus also made cuts leaving only scenes that progress the plot and continually move the story along. This is great for the flow of the movie, however it sadly leaves out the "Deathday Party" one of the fan's favorites of the book. Because of this, you will also notice that the start of the film and setup of some characters may seemed rushed allowing the story to jump quicker into the plot.
In the first movie, it was obvious that you were watching a book being translated...the scenes playes as such. This movie does take a few more liberties and blurs those lines....which good or bad in translating, makes an actual better film to stand on its own.
What is still here is the magic and wonder of the Hogwarts world. The awesome details such as moving portraits, floating candles, and so forth are all captured again beautifully. The computer and other effects look great, especially house elf Dobby amazingly (Thank God he's not another Jar Jar binks as I feared). Another words....you buy this world and feel instantly part of its reality.
The kids performers also learned how to act a little better. Ron's cracked voice will shock you at first, but his comic expressions will win you over in no time. Hermione also has become portrayed more solid and interestingly. Harris' Dumbledore and Rickman's Snape will always capture my heart with their portrayal. Draco's father Lucious also shocked me at first with his look but instantly became fasinating to watch....he's much like Snape with more bite (those two actors do wonderful things just by stares and sneers). Of course, if I was the Academy....I'd quickly nominate the great Kenneth Branaugh who treated a highly comic role with serious dedication. His Gilderoy is perfect and hysterical!
I was worried upon reading the book that the abstract ending and dealing with death may be too much for kids and not easily conveyed in the making of the film. (how else do you portray fighting and killing a "memory" who has become flesh...pretty abstract for kids)I was surprised on how concrete the handling of the plot reveals were done....it was easy to follow and grasp in the visuals and direction. Harry is also clearly the hero here and for good clear reasons (much better than the Sorceror's Stone)...so the fears of kids should be quickly solved when seeing a peer become such a strong victor.
Yes this film has the potential of becoming very scary. In the fist film, Harry is rescued from his nightmare (the Dursleys) and treated to this magical wonderful world. In this film, all that he has won in that world during the past year- his school, his fame, and mostly his close friends (Hagrid, Hermione, and Dumbledore included!) are all at risk and taken from him! He must overcome his fears and questions of who he really is to save everyone. All very nicely done. The excitement, humor, mystery, and magic will keep you captivated for this entire 2 hr 40+ min movie!
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Review: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is the best movie of the year.Rupert,Daniel and Emma are the best actors.I think David Heyman had a great imaginaition to make the Basilisk look so real. I went to see it Dec.,Sun.1,02 with my friends Austin and Anthony.There were only 3 scary parts in the movie.The Aragog was awesome too.I rate it five stars!
Rating:
Summary: I know you're going to hate me but I just have to say it.
Review: All I can say is that Chris Columbus and friends have once again succeeded in completely slaughtering a perfectly good story. Okay, I lied; that's not all I can say. I can say much, much more: I can understand the first film being a poor adaptation but one would think that somebody would have fixed that problem before attempting to make a second movie. Why, then, were the same people allowed to wreak havoc all over again? Why did whoever was in charge let the carnage continue? Unfortunately I do not know the answer to that most important question but I will answer a question that I'm sure most people would ask at this point. By now, whoever is reading this is probably wondering just what type of mental illness I am suffering from. After all, practically everyone else in the World is under the obvious misconception that the movie versions of the first two books were obvious examples of cinematic perfection. I'm almost certain that people are - at this moment - stewing in anger, wondering what type of heartless person would have the audacity to say that Harry Potter stinks. Let me set the records straight; I loved the books. The books were great! They were entertaining and provided amusement for a wide age range. The books had a certain, hard-to-define charm inside of them that made reading a delight. This "magic," though, was not present in the movies. The movies were apparently designed solely for the amusement of children, as is evident in their live-action cartoon look and feel. The first problem with both films was the poor acting of the younger cast members. Every word - every action is grossly over-emphasized, detracting from the believability that made the books so endearing. If you don't think this is a credible argument, if you think I'm completely off my rocker then I encourage you to take a look at the facial expressions of Ron in "The Chamber of Secrets." Half the time he is not acting but simply putting on a grotesque display of mouth contortions. Who told him to do that? To whom should the blame fall? Why, to the director, of course! Chris Columbus is notorious for inflicting young over-actors upon unsuspecting moviegoers; just take a look at the youngest girl in "Mrs. Doubtfire." She, like every young actor in Harry Potter, is suffering from a chronic case of over-enunciation. That, however, is only the most obvious of several problems with "The Chamber of Secrets." The next flaw is un-necessary scene embellishment and omittance. The spiders, for example, had a much more prominent role in the movie than in the book, giving the impression that - for an instant - we are watching a corny, fifty's horror movie. Harry Potter was not meant to be a horror movie! And how, when that spider popped its head in through Ron's window, did Ron not get bitten? It had a good, strong grasp of his neck for about fifteen seconds! If you're going to embellish scenes at least allow them to make sense! While we're on the subject of small changes in the plot, let us discuss some of the blunders made in the Chamber itself. (The room, not the movie.) Rowling's choice of words for Tom Riddle when his basilisk had been blinded was much more appropriate than its substitute in the film. The Author allowed Riddle a bit of intelligence by having him hiss instructions to his monster while the movie version of this scene gave Tom a very different persona - almost that of a cheesy action flick villain - and the lines: "No! You may have blinded my basilisk, but he can still hear you!" One almost expects the words "James Bond" to be worked into that corny announcement of an evil plan. Similarly, I prefer Rowling's sequence of events regarding Harry's near-death experience. By giving the remembrance of a Phoenix's healing powers to Tom Riddle, she managed to support this miraculous save of the main character with much more credibility than the movie did. As it is, the film version of this scene comes off as a cheep way of saving Harry Potter for the next installment. Speaking of things, cheep, did any one notice the look and general size of the sword that Harry pulls from the sorting hat? It was comically small and did not fit any definitive description of what a working sword should look like. While on the subject of horrendously stupid alterations, one can not forget Lucias Malfoy's "concealed weapon." Who the heck keeps a wand in a cane? It created the impression that we were watching some sort of secret agent movie and I half-expected Harry to take off a shoe, convert it into a small firearm and shoot Malfoy. So, we now arrive at the end of the movie and perhaps one of the most inappropriate plot changes to date. In the book there is virtually no indication that Hermione is even remotely interested in Harry as anything other than a friend. Throughout the film, however, there are numerous hints that this is not only a fact but also that the feeling is apparently mutual between Hermione and Harry. Then in comes Hagrid who is greeted by a tumultuous wave of applause. Of course, Rowling mentioned all of these ending components in passing but Columbus chose to milk them for all they were worth, turning the end of the movie into a warm, fuzzy, Disney cartoon-esque conclusion to a film already rife with problems. I hope you are now convinced that "The Chamber of Secrets" is not the magical experience that everyone claims it is. I hope you can appreciate the astounding differences of quality between an exemplary book and a let-down of a film. I hope you can now see that this failure in producing a satisfactory cinematic adaptation is due mostly to over-acting and unnecessary changes in the story brought upon, no doubt, by an inept director.
Rating:
Summary: Another great book-to-screen adaptation
Review: "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is much better than "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." The new movie contains more action, more suspense, and a darker story than the first one. I had already seen it three times, once a week since it came out, the first being on opening day. I can not wait till the DVD comes out!
Rating:
Summary: Lets hope Harry keeps getting better
Review: What the first movie suffered from, was a lack of flow from jumping from scene to scene without much set-up. Here, they learn from their mistakes to make a more mature, grown-up and highly superior movie to the first. The first thing you notice is that all the cast (including the new ones) are so damn comfortable in their roles you forget they are real people. Now, the plot is Harry Potter (a much more confident Daneil Radcliffe) goes back for his second year, but not without an ominous warning from the lovable CGI creation Dobby the House Elf, who claims something awful will happen and plenty will come. But before that, Harry catches up with his friends Ron (the underrated Rupert Grint) and Hermonie (a more mature Emma Watson thanks to the first film and puberty) and begins his studies. But soon enough, evil messages written in blood appear some next to petrified bodies which leads some to believe that the legendary Chamber of Secrets has been opened by an heir who will bring the downfall of wizards and witches who are not fully magical, but mixed with muggles as well. Overall, director Chris Coumbus and Screenwriter Steve Kloves have created a masterwork of fantasy and even action (see the giant spiders and the snake). As well, there is a cream of the crop supporting cast which includes a wonderfully naieve Kenenth Branaugh (Gilderoy Lockhart), the late Richard Harris as Dumbledore, Maggie Smith as Mccgonagal and the deliciously sinister Chris Issacs (this guy played the corrupt British solider in "Patriot") as Lucious Malfoy.
Rating:
Summary: Movie making at its' best!
Review: This is entertainment. A little over 2 1/2 hours of excitement, wondering what is around the next corner. These child actors are inspiring, playing such brave and intelligent beings. Don't leave before the last credit rolls or you'll miss a little extra.
|
