Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

[jasper]

the film broke and burned during my showing!!!
Just before lockhart releases the pixies.
Some yahoo told his son all the film guy had to do was rewind the film.
very good.

 

[Hand of Vecna]

Heh, we had an actual Basilisk in my theatre -- we kept hearing a rattling and banging on (I suppose) the heating/water pipes, thoughout pretty much the entire movie.

 

[King_Stannis]

Never read the books, but my wife has. We went saturday (11-16-02) and the place was, of course, sold out. I found the movie to be very strong. Witty, with a really good story and great visuals. Some of the highpoints being the castle itself (almost a character unto itself), the curious book that harry finds, and the chamber itself. The ending was good, but led me to a question that I got a slightly disappointing answer to...


SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ LAST CHANCE!
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
I asked my wife if Voldemort (sp?) was the ultimate antagonist in all of the books. Unfortunately, my wife said "yes". It will not ruin the movies for me, but it does detract a little when it's always the same villain behind the subterfuge.

 

[Mistwell]

I've read all the books so far. I very much enjoyed the first movie, and saw it many times.

I just saw the second movie, and probably won't be seeing it again. It lacked something for me. Wish I could be specific, but I can't. The feeling was mutual for all 6 people with me. No idea what it was, but this one was simply not as good in my opinion. I was even bored at several points (something that never happened during the first movie). One guy not with our group even fell asleep and was snoring, and had to be nudged awake, during the movie.

That's not to say there wasn't anything good in the movie - there was. It just was not as good as the first one.

 

[Pielorinho]

Worse than the first movie?!

I thought the major accomplishment of the first movie was that it managed to be both plodding and hyperactive at the same time. Nothing in the movie seemed inspired to me: the acting was (with the lovely excpetion of Snape) too inhibited, the dialogue was too expository, the visuals never surpassed my own imagination. I sat through it twice, once with adults and once with children. The second time, my arm had bite-marks on it, where I'd mistakenly tried to gnaw it off in an attempt to escape.


My main hope was that Christopher would have learned from his mistakes and done a more credible job on the second movie, would have let the actors go free, would have changed the pacing, would have cut the number of scenes down savagely so that the remaining scenes could get the attention they deserve, would have done some inspired choreography for the World's Stupidest Game That You'd Still Want to Play.

I think I'll give it a miss.

Daniel

 

[Krug]

Ebert loved it, giving it 4 stars:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-harry15f.html

 

[KnowTheToe]

Worse than the first movie?!

I thought the major accomplishment of the first movie was that it managed to be both plodding and hyperactive at the same time. Nothing in the movie seemed inspired to me: the acting was (with the lovely excpetion of Snape) too inhibited, the dialogue was too expository, the visuals never surpassed my own imagination. I sat through it twice, once with adults and once with children. The second time, my arm had bite-marks on it, where I'd mistakenly tried to gnaw it off in an attempt to escape.


My main hope was that Christopher would have learned from his mistakes and done a more credible job on the second movie, would have let the actors go free, would have changed the pacing, would have cut the number of scenes down savagely so that the remaining scenes could get the attention they deserve, would have done some inspired choreography for the World's Stupidest Game That You'd Still Want to Play.

I think I'll give it a miss.

Amen Brother, I thought I was the only one. I did see how it would appeal to children. Probably a really good kids movie, but I thought the same as you. Thankfully I only saw it once.

Daniel

 

[Crothian]

I really liked this movie. Not as good as the first, but then I think the first was spectaculiar piece of art. I think the second book was the worst of the four, but still a really good book. Can't wait till 2004 for the next one.

And when they cast for the fourth one they have to have Patrick Stewart as Mad Eye Moony.

 

[Ranger REG]

That assume if Patrick Stewart have not agreed to a third X-Men movie.

 

[Mistwell]

Ebert loved it, giving it 4 stars:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-harry15f.html

In the review, Ebert said:

...Hermione Granger (Emma Watson, in the early stages of babehood).

Am I the only one a bit creeped out by this 60 year old movie reviewer calling a 13 year old 8th grader a babe?