Enchantress
First Post
Are you saying I'm not a calm, rational person?????!!!!!!!
The nerve.
The nerve.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
- Thread starter Krug
- Start date
Enchantress
First Post
Aaaahhhhhhh! How sweet! You noticed!
Michael Tree
First Post
MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The HP books are great, and I dislike it when people get the wrong idea about them based on movies produced by hollywood hacks.
By all means, but I'd also like to hear what you liked. It's very easy to get caught up with the negatives, and forget about the positives.
I liked the greater darkness and drama in this movie, as opposed to the purely flat and mechanical presentation of the first movie. The three kids were all surprisingly good, and seemed to have developed a real sense of comraderie since the first movie. If only the kid playing Malfoy could act. I was particularly impressed with the acting of Tom Riddle, and the subtle way that whole plot was developed. Finally, the visual presentation and art design was great, from the appearance of the mandrakes, to the design of the Chamber of Secrets, even to the final image of harry stabbing the book.
The aspects of the movie that most irritated me were, in order or most to least irritating:
- Richard Harris once again utterly murdering the character of Dumbledore. Dumbledore is not a doddering ancient half-corpse. He's a lively eccentric, with more life and wisdom in him than any two other characters, and a complete awareness of everything that's going on (the scene with the cloak in Hagrid's hut was decently done in that regard, but that's it). Dumbledore is an old English word for bumblebee, with J.K.Rowling chose because she pictured him wandering from hallway to hallway, happily humming to himself. (I've heard a rumor that Tom Baker, of Dr. Who fame, may be playing the role. If he looks the part, the eccentric livliness and wisdom may finally come out.)
*ahem*
- The sword of Griffindor looks like a cheap toy. This was the sword of a grown man, so it shouldn't be scaled for a boy, and should look like a real sword, not a shiny plastic one.
- And a bunch of things you've already mentioned, particularly the unneccessary car scenes, the fake-looking spiders, and Lockhart being portrayed as an incompetent from the very beginning, rather than as a merely vain and self-absorbed wizard.
I found dobby annoying, but then I found dobby annoying in the book too, so that's hardly surprising. The Chamber of Secrets is my least favorite of the HP books, but I was riveted to my seats for many parts of this movie, especially the ending.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
My pleasure.reapersaurus said:
The HP books are great, and I dislike it when people get the wrong idea about them based on movies produced by hollywood hacks.No, but I do swallow the idea of a 20 ft snake sneaking thru the school's pipes.About the basilisk sneaking around - I hope you don't swallow the idea of a 60 ft snake sneaking thru the school's pipes.
They're both, and many other things besides. Peeves is a PITA, the Bloody Baron is downright frightening, NHNick is a nice patron, and Myrtle is annoying.
By all means, but I'd also like to hear what you liked. It's very easy to get caught up with the negatives, and forget about the positives.
I liked the greater darkness and drama in this movie, as opposed to the purely flat and mechanical presentation of the first movie. The three kids were all surprisingly good, and seemed to have developed a real sense of comraderie since the first movie. If only the kid playing Malfoy could act.
I was particularly impressed with the acting of Tom Riddle, and the subtle way that whole plot was developed. Finally, the visual presentation and art design was great, from the appearance of the mandrakes, to the design of the Chamber of Secrets, even to the final image of harry stabbing the book.The aspects of the movie that most irritated me were, in order or most to least irritating:
- Richard Harris once again utterly murdering the character of Dumbledore. Dumbledore is not a doddering ancient half-corpse. He's a lively eccentric, with more life and wisdom in him than any two other characters, and a complete awareness of everything that's going on (the scene with the cloak in Hagrid's hut was decently done in that regard, but that's it). Dumbledore is an old English word for bumblebee, with J.K.Rowling chose because she pictured him wandering from hallway to hallway, happily humming to himself. (I've heard a rumor that Tom Baker, of Dr. Who fame, may be playing the role. If he looks the part, the eccentric livliness and wisdom may finally come out.)
*ahem*
- The sword of Griffindor looks like a cheap toy. This was the sword of a grown man, so it shouldn't be scaled for a boy, and should look like a real sword, not a shiny plastic one.
- And a bunch of things you've already mentioned, particularly the unneccessary car scenes, the fake-looking spiders, and Lockhart being portrayed as an incompetent from the very beginning, rather than as a merely vain and self-absorbed wizard.
I found dobby annoying, but then I found dobby annoying in the book too, so that's hardly surprising. The Chamber of Secrets is my least favorite of the HP books, but I was riveted to my seats for many parts of this movie, especially the ending.
Last edited:
reapersaurus
Explorer
Good post, Michael.
I also thought they pulled off the darker feel, but personally I feel it should have stayed lighter (remember, I haven't had the books 'taint' my impression of the movies. I'm serious.)
I don't think that what they presented in the first film can necessarily withstand an assault on its characater and spirit by having so many dark elements thrown in the 2nd film.
Each time they have a dark element, it jars me out of this happy, safe, kid-like heroic story-world that they presented in the first film.
The sets WERE great, especially the Chamber with the huge snake-heads. I kept saying to my wife, "Geez, is that a SET?!"
Tom Riddle WAS good, and actually just about all the character were good (I didn't know that about Dumbledore's book personality).
The problems I have (Enchantress...) are with the jarringly-bad STORY.
It's like they have this beautifully-layed out castle, world, and characters, and their actions are being directed by a nincompoop who has no understanding of rational actions.
For example, why would they repeatedly show spiders leaving the scene of the crime, and NOT have Harry follow them? Or even point them out to his 'trusted' superiors?
If they AREN'T trusted (i.e. Dumbledore), than they have just broken one of the conventions they established in the first film.
Further, why WERE the spiders there at the scene?
They weren't involved in the crimes (as established in the "Spider-Scene"), so why did they show Harry repeatedly seeing them leaving a proverbial trail of crumbs that he kept ignoring?
Enchantress, it's not asking for perfection in a movie - if you think that it's asking much to not present a story that has a frickin' CAR act as the Hand of God and pull Harry and Ron's butts out of the fire that HAGRID HIMSELF threw them in, than you really should look at the movie without rose-colored glasses on.
That's not a quibble.
That's not a 'gripe'.
That's an insanely stupid scene, with HUGE story problems created because of BAD direction combined with BAD writing.
(to wit:
** Hagrid basically mudered the kids by sending them there.
** Army of flesh-eating spiders in close proximity to kid's retreat.
** Car being omniscient.
** Bad looking big spider.
** Why is Hagrid friends to an army of Evil spiders? (eating schoolboys qualifies as a sign that they are Evil, in my book, how bout yours?)
Michael - you mentioned the bad acting of the boy Malfoy.
I was confused at the end of the movie - Harry calls the older Slitherin "Malfoy" - I'm sure of that.
But when I heard it, I could have sworn I remembered them calling the younger blonde boy Slitherin "Malfoy"?
I already mentioned that I liked the racism/classism angle - lots of good grist for drama there.
Here are some other problems with the story, not with the execution (for the most part):
1) Why would Harry even think about going back to those horrible people during the summer? They showed him being systematically abused, and then send him back home at the end of each movie??!
It makes no sense - here's a world where everyone reveres Harry like a celebrity (he's even got fans), yet he has to go back to Abusive-Muggle-Land in the off-season?
Not damn likely - He'd stay at the school, or with the Weasely's
2) Why did Dobby go WAY out of his way to 'protect' Harry?
At that point in the story, Harry wasn't in any more damnger than anyone else at the school, right?
As far as Dobby knew, his master was going to give the Weasely girl Riddle's diary and have her open the Chamber of Screts.
How does that endanger Harry more than any other student?
He SHOULD have been warning the Weasely girl.
3) The afore-mentioned flying car in front of the train scene.
4) It was jarring to have the Tree they smashed into be such a menace.
Why would they allow these things on the schoolgrounds if they would kill the kids that go there?
5) Why is so much story happening in the girl's bathroom?
6) Why did ALL the students spontaneously show up in the hallway right after the first attack? Some internal Trouble-Alert in the school?
7) The Powers That Be never knew that TomRiddle (their own student) grew up to be Voldemort?
8) They never thought to look at the big piece of paper crumpled up in Hermione's hand?!
9) Something smacked me as wrong about "I am Lord Voldemort" being created from his Muggle name, and I can't put my finger on it.
10) Harry and Ron were uncharacteristically aggressive with Lockhart. They actually pushed a grown adult male BACK? Then pushed him down the open well that they didn't know what the bottom was?
Further, WHY would Lockhart have been frightened in any way by being 'guarded' by Ron Weasely and his broken wand pointing at him?
11) The Chamber of Secrets scene:
a) I didn't like Harry dropping his wand while looking on the girl - too stupid, and he'd be unlikely to drop the only thing that makes him different from a normal little kid.
b) Speaking of just being a Muggle, it was quite insulting to the viewer (IMO) to have the entire film's drama resolved because a little kid kills the Basilisk. There is NO WAY a normal kid could kill this monster that frightened generations of powerful mages.
They never should have had the drama resolved by relying on Harry's physical skills.
It would be like Luke defeating the Emperor by taking out a book and studying him to death - it doesn't fit, and Luke's schtick is not being good at reading.
c) The Phoenix conveniently showing up and blinding the Basilisk.
Another example of Deus-ex-Machina in the story.
d) The Pheonix's tears (?!) healing Harry from certain death - another deus ex machina.
12) This whole concept of Voldemort creating a diary which "contains his 16 year old self" is problematic.
If he can create a diary that could take over any kid and make him live again, than he effectively can never be destroyed.
BTW: HOW did the girl get taken over by the power of Voldemort, yet somehow escape the power to throw the book away so Harry could find it?
Now some of these might be explained by info from the books, and Id be happy to hear from anyone who has read them and can 'correct', or explain any of them.
I also thought they pulled off the darker feel, but personally I feel it should have stayed lighter (remember, I haven't had the books 'taint' my impression of the movies. I'm serious.)
I don't think that what they presented in the first film can necessarily withstand an assault on its characater and spirit by having so many dark elements thrown in the 2nd film.
Each time they have a dark element, it jars me out of this happy, safe, kid-like heroic story-world that they presented in the first film.
The sets WERE great, especially the Chamber with the huge snake-heads. I kept saying to my wife, "Geez, is that a SET?!"
Tom Riddle WAS good, and actually just about all the character were good (I didn't know that about Dumbledore's book personality).
The problems I have (Enchantress...) are with the jarringly-bad STORY.
It's like they have this beautifully-layed out castle, world, and characters, and their actions are being directed by a nincompoop who has no understanding of rational actions.
For example, why would they repeatedly show spiders leaving the scene of the crime, and NOT have Harry follow them? Or even point them out to his 'trusted' superiors?
If they AREN'T trusted (i.e. Dumbledore), than they have just broken one of the conventions they established in the first film.
Further, why WERE the spiders there at the scene?
They weren't involved in the crimes (as established in the "Spider-Scene"), so why did they show Harry repeatedly seeing them leaving a proverbial trail of crumbs that he kept ignoring?
Enchantress, it's not asking for perfection in a movie - if you think that it's asking much to not present a story that has a frickin' CAR act as the Hand of God and pull Harry and Ron's butts out of the fire that HAGRID HIMSELF threw them in, than you really should look at the movie without rose-colored glasses on.
That's not a quibble.
That's not a 'gripe'.
That's an insanely stupid scene, with HUGE story problems created because of BAD direction combined with BAD writing.
(to wit:
** Hagrid basically mudered the kids by sending them there.
** Army of flesh-eating spiders in close proximity to kid's retreat.
** Car being omniscient.
** Bad looking big spider.
** Why is Hagrid friends to an army of Evil spiders? (eating schoolboys qualifies as a sign that they are Evil, in my book, how bout yours?)
Michael - you mentioned the bad acting of the boy Malfoy.
I was confused at the end of the movie - Harry calls the older Slitherin "Malfoy" - I'm sure of that.
But when I heard it, I could have sworn I remembered them calling the younger blonde boy Slitherin "Malfoy"?
I already mentioned that I liked the racism/classism angle - lots of good grist for drama there.
Here are some other problems with the story, not with the execution (for the most part):
1) Why would Harry even think about going back to those horrible people during the summer? They showed him being systematically abused, and then send him back home at the end of each movie??!
It makes no sense - here's a world where everyone reveres Harry like a celebrity (he's even got fans), yet he has to go back to Abusive-Muggle-Land in the off-season?
Not damn likely - He'd stay at the school, or with the Weasely's
2) Why did Dobby go WAY out of his way to 'protect' Harry?
At that point in the story, Harry wasn't in any more damnger than anyone else at the school, right?
As far as Dobby knew, his master was going to give the Weasely girl Riddle's diary and have her open the Chamber of Screts.
How does that endanger Harry more than any other student?
He SHOULD have been warning the Weasely girl.
3) The afore-mentioned flying car in front of the train scene.
4) It was jarring to have the Tree they smashed into be such a menace.
Why would they allow these things on the schoolgrounds if they would kill the kids that go there?
5) Why is so much story happening in the girl's bathroom?
6) Why did ALL the students spontaneously show up in the hallway right after the first attack? Some internal Trouble-Alert in the school?
7) The Powers That Be never knew that TomRiddle (their own student) grew up to be Voldemort?
8) They never thought to look at the big piece of paper crumpled up in Hermione's hand?!
9) Something smacked me as wrong about "I am Lord Voldemort" being created from his Muggle name, and I can't put my finger on it.
10) Harry and Ron were uncharacteristically aggressive with Lockhart. They actually pushed a grown adult male BACK? Then pushed him down the open well that they didn't know what the bottom was?
Further, WHY would Lockhart have been frightened in any way by being 'guarded' by Ron Weasely and his broken wand pointing at him?
11) The Chamber of Secrets scene:
a) I didn't like Harry dropping his wand while looking on the girl - too stupid, and he'd be unlikely to drop the only thing that makes him different from a normal little kid.
b) Speaking of just being a Muggle, it was quite insulting to the viewer (IMO) to have the entire film's drama resolved because a little kid kills the Basilisk. There is NO WAY a normal kid could kill this monster that frightened generations of powerful mages.
They never should have had the drama resolved by relying on Harry's physical skills.
It would be like Luke defeating the Emperor by taking out a book and studying him to death - it doesn't fit, and Luke's schtick is not being good at reading.
c) The Phoenix conveniently showing up and blinding the Basilisk.
Another example of Deus-ex-Machina in the story.
d) The Pheonix's tears (?!) healing Harry from certain death - another deus ex machina.
12) This whole concept of Voldemort creating a diary which "contains his 16 year old self" is problematic.
If he can create a diary that could take over any kid and make him live again, than he effectively can never be destroyed.
BTW: HOW did the girl get taken over by the power of Voldemort, yet somehow escape the power to throw the book away so Harry could find it?
Now some of these might be explained by info from the books, and Id be happy to hear from anyone who has read them and can 'correct', or explain any of them.
reapersaurus
Explorer
BTW: almost all the above are all surface problems - no over-analyzing going on, they are all things that come to mind the instant they are shown on the screen, so you can't just wave your hand and say "It doesn't have to be perfect" , or "You're looking too far into it."
They are problems with the movie.
If anyone can refute the observations from then movie, I'd be happy to be mistaken.
They are problems with the movie.
If anyone can refute the observations from then movie, I'd be happy to be mistaken.
Klaus
First Post
Reapersaurus -> I quite agree with what you said. At times I was looking at the movie and thinking to myself "isn't this going anywhere?".
Not wanting to get into the ages old Tim Hunter/Harry Potter debate, why doesn't Harry, the most famous wizard-boy in the world, EVER solve anything by magic? He barely even cast spells in either movie!
And Lockhart, who managed to wipe the memory of some very powerful wizards (powerful enough that their deeds earned him fame), was unable to do so with two boys who have been wizards for little over a year, one of them with an obviously broken wand?
Not wanting to get into the ages old Tim Hunter/Harry Potter debate, why doesn't Harry, the most famous wizard-boy in the world, EVER solve anything by magic? He barely even cast spells in either movie!
And Lockhart, who managed to wipe the memory of some very powerful wizards (powerful enough that their deeds earned him fame), was unable to do so with two boys who have been wizards for little over a year, one of them with an obviously broken wand?
Moe Ronalds
First Post
^ he couldn't wipe their memories because he used Ron's wand, so it backfired. Unless I'm cracked...
