Let me start by confessing�I HAVE NEVER READ THE BOOKS! I�m a child of the 80�s, why read the book when you can rent the video! Anyhoo, I digress.
I thought the first Harry Potter film was excellent. Just enough mind candy to make one forget the humdrum things in life, so as you can imagine, I greatly anticipated the follow-up. I don�t know how to say this, but t was so-so. Good at best, average if anything. *SPOILER ALERT* But if, like me, you are an arachnophobe AVOID THIS FILM LIKE THE DOGGONE PLAGUE or at the very least go to the toilet/refreshment kiosk/smokers bench about 100 mins into the film. The Spiders are frighteningly accurate, so much so that a fair few members of the audience were hiding behind their hands at my screening, and not just the kids! They are so much a part of the story they even warrant a warning on the advertising poster.
Harry (Radcliffe) and Ron (Grint) were sweet in the first film and its amazing how quickly they grew up in this, not just in stature. I mean, they are about 6� taller and their voices have broken. I don�t know, but it seemed like they were 6th-formers and not 2nd formers like they should have been. Robbie Coltrane�s portrayal once again as Rubeus Hagrid was not as good as in the first film and the late Richard Harris�s performance as Professor Dumbledore was not featured as much as it could have.
Ok, so I�ve been negative of the film thus far, but there were two shining performances that deserve a mention. Lucius Malfoy (played by Jason Isaacs) was excellent in his role of villain, as was the computer generated house elf Dobby, who in my opinion is the cutest / ugliest character since ET or Yoda! If he spoke ill of his master, he had to punish himself. I shouldn�t laugh, but I did chortle when he had bandages on his knuckles and proclaimed to Harry �Dobby had to iron his hands!�
On the whole, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets IS a good film, but according to my 10 year old niece, Danielle (who for the record is a Harry Potter encyclopaedia on legs) it is nowhere near as accurate as the book. Accurate book? Watered down movie? I still choose movie. But only just. |
