Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

[stevetseitz]

The film was a slight disappointment to me, but it's my own fault.

Let me explain:

My expectations were low for the first film and I liked the second book better than the first. In other words, if this movie wasn't better than "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" it was going to disappoint me. It wasn't better but it was nearly as good!

Any fan of the books will love the movie, although some omissions and editing of material in the book was inevitable in the translation. It's an awful lot of story for even a 2+ hour kids film. Richard Harris, Daniel Radcliffe, and Kenneth Branagh were all excellent. I was unhappy that Severus Snape was not given a slightly larger role since Alan Rickman is a joy to watch. My nephews and nieces all said "That was COOL!" when we left the theater which is their version of "Thumbs Up!"

I officially nominate Peter O'Toole, Albert Finney and Ian McKellan to take up the role of Dumbledore. Terence Stamp is my pick for Sirius Black in "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". Votes anyone?

[pmw]

I saw this a few weeks back at a kids screening. If I were a kid, I would have loved it. I would recomend it as a great kids/parents movie. And yes Alan Rickman is amazing. He has "evil" down so well.

[Johann]

For some reason "Harry Potter" doesn't appeal to me. I haven't read the books and I've only seen the first film. The concept seems like a new take on "The Sorceror's Apprentice"- just with fancy speech. A lot of talent working on this franchise but it's not enough to get me to see it in theatres. Great for kids, I suppose.

[stevetseitz]

It's probably because you haven't read the books which are quick easy reads and quite entertaining, J.K. Rowling has managed to create a parallel world that has humor, fantasy and magic. They are great books for kids because they make kids want to turn the page, but I know people from age 8-60 that have read and loved them. The last two books were suprisingly dark and more complex than many children's books. Once I had seen Harry, Ron and Hermione in your imagination I was curious to see what a film version will be like.

[Russ]

Stevetseitz

What about John Hurt. He could do Dumbledore OR Snape to a tee. John Hurt is so bloody good he could even do Harry Potter himself.

I took my 6 year old son to see the 1st one. I though it was ok, but my son loved it - so I guess I'll be seeing the second installment.

PS - I was only after I wrote this that I realised that Hurt WAS in trhe 1st one. He was wsted in such a small role.

[stevetseitz]

He played the magic wand salesman in Diagon Alley right? Oh I thought of another Brit, is Richard Attenborough still alive?

[Russ]

Yes, John Hurt was the wand salesman.

The imdb claims that we was alive as recently as this year some time, so I don't think the old boy has dropped off the twig just yet. The imdb claims he was born in 23, so he'll soon be an octogenarian (sp)

[docraven]

Originally posted by stevetseitz
It's probably because you haven't read the books which are quick easy reads and quite entertaining…The books are great reading and a way to share some excitement with your grandkids (or nieces or nephews). I share your preference for the first film, Steve. The reasons may be different.

Part of it is that the second just got way too corney for me (but not for my grandkids). Kenneth Branagh is a favorite actor of mine, but Professor Gilderoy Lockhart is a silly role for him. He needs the challenge of more substantial material. His Henry V is one of the great film performances.

Also, the snake in the chamber was … what? …certainly not a snake. It just seemed poorly done compared to all the other elements in a good movie (but not as good as the first one).