|You are in: Entertainment|
Friday, 8 November, 2002, 00:03 GMT
Chamber of Secrets: Your views
The latest Harry Potter film, Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets, is set to be as big a hit as its predecessor.
Based on the second in JK Rowling's best-selling series, the film sees Daniel Radcliffe return as Harry Potter, Kenneth Branagh join the cast as new Hogwarts teacher Gilderoy Lockhart, and the late Richard Harris in his final screen role as Professor Dumbledore.
"It tells an altogether darker and funnier tale than the first box office-storming Potter movie," wrote BBC News Online's Helen Bushby.
But what do you think?
This debate is now closed. Please see below for a selection of your comments.
A great film, I thoroughly enjoyed it, Ken Branagh was a welcome addition to the cast. A few things were missing from the book like Weasley's fight with Lucious Malfoy but I was most disappointed not to see the de-gnoming of the Weasley garden!
I'm sorry, but anyone saying that the film is too long at two hours 20 minutes has obviously not read the book! Key points were once again missed out and if they had been included the film would have gone on for four hours! Still, it was excellent - Alan Rickman carrying on where he started off as a menacing Snape (which will hopefully be even more more so in the third film) and Richard Harris making a wonderful final appearance as Dumbledore. I can't wait til the next one.
Andy C, UK
Bringing such fantastic books to life was always going to be difficult, especially with the reliance on young actors to carry the plot. The crew should be congratulated for what they have achieved, not castigated because elements have had to be left out or altered. Chamber of Secrets is as enjoyable as the first - in some ways too fast paced as you don't get much sense of atmosphere but the excitement is kept up and two hours 20 minutes flew by. My son and I both enjoyed it and will almost certainly see it again (and wait for the DVD to repeat the pleasure at home).
Not read the books. Much preferred this one to the last - Branagh brilliant - but too long. How many kids will sit still for two hours 40 mins, I'll never know.
It is difficult to criticise a children's film, but the successful handling of the first film led to high expectations on my behalf. I have yet to see the film with a child, but from my point of view, the film lacked some of the key moments of the book which made it feel less focused and well-constructed than the original.
The special effects which at times seemed poor in the first film have been spruced up for the second. This extra eye candy will I'm sure excite children as will the magnificent Dobby the house elf. But at times the film felt rushed. It is also a near carbon copy of the original story. Columbus like Rowling, seems to be content with treading water. Despite this I am looking forward to Azkaban, possibly the best book in the series
I believe the Harry Potter series of books and movie are the best ever. I have already bought and read Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. I believe all the actors of the movies are really great too - especially Daniel Radcliff
I know that the film would have been about six hours long if they had included everything, but why, oh why did they, just as in the first movie, omit important plot points and/or have the wrong characters perform tasks they did not do in the book? Oh yes, I know why. To tack on an awful, slushy Hollywood ending. I am really dreading the films of books three (my favourite) and four (which may only turn out to be a good movie if the Lord Of The Rings team do it!)
Although some of the plot seemed very cliched on screen, and some of the major details of the story have been dropped I think it was quite excellent. I was in a cinema full of small children who lapped it up, I laughed and jumped with them and can't wait for the next instalment.
Excellent, first rate. Kenneth Branagh was first class.
The Chamber of Secrets is a slight improvement over the first movie. Daniel Radcliffe still seems uncomforatble in the role and the pacing/structure of the film is too similar to the Philosopher's Stone. At 2hrs 20mins, it's still too long and interest wanes as the threesome put together all the clues.
Kenneth Brannagh does an adequate job as Lockhart, though is underused. Snape barely registers. The effects are better, but the truncated Quidditch match was a non-event. Oddly, there was no dedication to Richard Harris. Here's hoping that Columbus' replacement can provide a different look for Azkaban and really bring the source material to life on the screen.
I haven't read any of the books yet, which is something my daughters constantly tell me to do - I can't make any comparisons, but having seen both films for pure nail-biting stuff, especially the Quidditch match, I think the second film has the edge, but still think both films are excellent.
The trio's acting abilities have greatly improved, Branagh and the adults were of course excellent. Altogether a better story, better acting, better effects, better storytelling - better film!
Having just seen the latest Harry Potter offering, I can honestly say that although it was far better than the first one, the magic seems to have not been really captured once again. The film seems hollow as if something is missing. The script and acting are better but still at times cheesey. The film is longer and darker in some respects but as previously said the whole atmosphere and feeling created by JK Rowling seems to have been lost in the transition from book to screen.
My family thoroughly enjoyed it. Better directed and better acted. Captured the spirit of the book far better than the first effort.
Roll on number three!
This film is defiently better than the first one, even though it was more scary. It's a shame Richard Harris died, because hes very good at being Dumblore.
It is fantastic. Daniel Radcliffe has improved by leaps and bounds and Rupert/Emma's acting is much better. I am not a fan normally of Kenneth Brannagh - but I have to say he was perfect as Gilderoy (PS stay to the very end of the credits for the extra footage in Diagon Alley).
Same goes for Jason Isaacs as Draco's dad - deliciously nasty. Fast-moving and fun, my only note would be it felt a bit rushed at the beginning losing a lot of the Weasley house sequence from the book. The kids don't look too old and should be fine for Book three (my personal favourite). One last thing - Arachnophobics beware this is a long sequence - the big spider looks a bit fake but some of the smaller ones are far too realistic. Sit back and enjoy the magic.
Thoroughly enjoyed watching the COS today. Glad they decided to cut out the tedious Deathday Party and resisted the temptation to re-introduce things from the first film, as JK Rowling does in the books. Acting top notch as ever, great casting, it's already getting hard to imagine other people playing their parts.
Robert Hardy as Cornelius Fudge is another welcome addition. We all had these characters pictured in our own minds before the films came out, and he is no exception when I say it's exactly how I imagined him! Great Christmas flick, Harry Potter is becoming part of Christmas, like Only Fools and Horses and the Queen's speech. Go see it!
Isaacs stole the show for me as the delecatable Lucius Malfoy. His portrayal of Draco's father is flawless, and he oozes evil. All in all, Chamber is an excellent movie, and true to the novel in every way. The direction, effects and performances from some of the UK's finest make this an incredibly exciting two and a bit hours.
Oh, and of course who could forget Dobby the House Elf and his obsession with banging his head off anything close to hand. A complete joy.
I was once again impressed with the cinematography.
however I was also let down once more by poor acting by majority of the cast. One exception was Kenneth Branagh. His overly camp performance as Lockhart was most enjoyable.
For the second time, Steve Kloves has delieved a terrible script leaving Chris Columbus, who is at best an alright director, nothing much to work with. most of the lines and scenes are so poorly writen that it is no wonder that the actors look wooden.
This film does nothing to improve on the first, and once again they have managed to absolutely muller a definitive classic novel. there was so many important things that were cut out of the films to make way for scenes that quite frankly did not have to be there, all in all this film was a huge let down.
Chamber of Secrets is definitely better than Philosopher's Stone. The hype will be there anyway because of the popularity of the books so it is a tall order for the film-makers to live up to expectations. So far they've done it, but not for all I'm sure. Go see Chamber of Secrets, it's an excellent movie!
Thoroughly enjoyed the film - funny and, at times, scary but very well acted and the special effects are excellent. Harry outshines Ron and Hermione this time round - well done.
Wonderful, super. My son really enjoyed himself again. No it has not been over-hyped. Which was the better film? Could'nt choose,they just fitted togeather nicely, although it was very sad seeing the great Richard Harris for the last time.
I saw the film last night and can say without doubt that this was the best film I've seen in recent years. The young actors, particularly the main three, have come on in leaps and bounds with their acting ability. Saddened by the death of Richard Harris of course but what a film to go out with. I loved it, not sure if it's suitable for under 12s though as some scenes were quite disturbing, even for me and I'm nearly 30!
My word, that was fantastic! Though again the children's acting was comparatively poor, the stunning visuals and great acting from the adult characters more than made up for it. The film was exciting, edge-of-your-seat stuff in places, and really got the audience involved. At between 19 and 17 years old, my friends and I were the oldest non-parents at the showing, but we now feel fully justified in our devotion to all things Harry Potter
Now all we have to do is wait for the next book. Oh, we were all really sad at the end knowing we wouldn't see old Dumbledore again quite the same ( RIP Richard Harris, and what a wonderful performance he put in.)
Ravi H, UK
It's definitely better than the first film because it actually felt like a movie rather than a barrel-ride through the book. One medium-sized quibble might be that after we left the Burrow I could almost believe that Ron was the only Weasley at Hogwarts, because we hardly saw anything of his brothers or sister. I think the plot suffers a little because of this. But the film did make me laugh (for the right reasons), right up to the very, very end.
Chamber of Secrets is a much better film than the first and has a much more satifying ending. However anyone looking for something different to Philosopher's Stone will be sorely disappointed.
The Chamber of Secrets is fab. Better than the first film, but that is inevitable as the Philosopher's Stone is really setting the scene for the rest of the series. Kenneth Brannagh was superb and turned what was an irritating character in the book into the comic linch pin of the whole film.
The film's very good, though a little too long. Chamber of Secrets is the weakest of the books, so Chris Columbus didn't have the best material to work with. Azkaban is the best book by far; well worth waiting for THAT film!
I saw it last weekend with my two kids and two of their friends, and we all had a blast. It was very poignant to see Richard Harris again, but his performance as Dumbledore is a fitting epitaph. We'll definitely be seeing it again, and buying it on DVD when it comes out. Highly recommended for all ages!
Ian Cooper, UK
Chris Columbus takes us on another roller coaster ride with the Chamber of Secrets. My two children loved it and can't wait for the DVD release.Who was the woman standing on Platform 9 3/4 when Harry and Ron failed to get on board the Hogwarts Express? It looked like...no, it couldn't have been... the author herself: J K Rowling!
I thought that the new film was fantastic. It was the kind of film you could sit and say,"run that again". Must go and see it, if for nothing else, then to see how much they have all grown - bless!
I loved it, Kenneth Branagh was absolutely superb. My 5-year-old cried with fear at the intro of the Bascilus. Who wouldn't? My 8-year-old found the whole thing a bit scary. I, as a 42 yr old, am stunned at how closely they can stick to a book and loved the story. At times the pace was slow was but I came away feeling exhilarated and not disappointed at the adaptation from the book. Well done.
The film was stunning and Daniel Radcliffe is a great actor. All the actors know their characters well which makes it such a memoreable film.
Mighty fine. Though I thought the Whomping Willow and Basilisk scenes would have been very scary for little children, it seemed that the kids at the preview I attended didn't think so. It's also very long, not that I minded.
Brilliant! Got a bit cheesy at end and don't remember thinking that when I read the book, but other than that an amazing film to watch! Agree with an earlier comment of not sure if suitable for under 12s as some parts reminded me of films I've seen that were certified 18s! Had kids in front getting very scared at later stages of film - parents approach with caution!
I thought the film was fantastic and I loved every minute of it. Although it was sad to see Richard Harris for the last time he will be greatly missed, I hope that they're able to keep the rest of the cast the same for the remaining films.
Effects super, cast great, a right treat for both my daughter and myself. As good as the 1st!
Like the first film, I feel this adequate film will get away with it because most viewers will have read the book and can fill in the characterisation and plot that are missing. The developing relationship between Harry, Snape, Dumbledore, Draco etc is lost as we are hastily rushed from snapshot plot item A to snapshot plot item B and shovel fed the new characters.
If they are struggling to fit this book into a reasonable timeframe for a film then the later books will really suffer. I hear that Book 5 is rumoured to be 2 chapters longer than the volumous Book 4. At least its nice to know that Ms Rowling is not compromising her books for the sake of the films...but hey, who isn't going to go to all of them anyway?
It is an improvement on the first film in every way. Of the 3 lead kids, Rupert Grint out acts the others and once again has the funnier lines. Daniel Radcliffe seems a bit wooden still giving the impression he is just reading out the lines rather than acting them. The special effects are brilliantly done with the spider scenes being very frightening, well for an arachnaphobe like me they were!
My only gripe is with the ending which is too much of a Hollywood schmultz-fest and seemed highly unnecessary to me. It had me cringing more than the spiders! But all in all, a great movie and highly recommended.
Having just seen the second film with my niece and nephews, I want to know where I can buy this second version of the book; because the film bears no resemblance to the original published work.
Who on earth was the casting director? Hopefully he/she won't be picked or number three! Watching Kenneth Branagh poorly portray his character, I wondered why on earth they had chosen a midget to play a character that's about 6' 4" tall in the book and stunning looking. Also, Robert Hardy as Cornelius Fudge!!
Planet Earth calling Chris Columbus; glad you've handed your resignation in!
Keith Sickelmore, UK
What a truly excellent film this was! Lucius Malfoy was just fantastic, as was the acting by them all! I loved it, and shall see it again and again. JK Rowling has created something very special and all the actors and actresses have done the books tremendous justice. I shall miss Richard Harris enormously, but still look forward to the 3rd film (my favourite of the 4 books).
I saw the movie on Saturday night and it blew me away. It is much more humerous than the first film and equally as gripping. How people can complain about it is just beyond me - for me it was perfect.
Although we came out of the film feeling great and thinking it was magical, the film falls flat on its face by one key thing - Daniel Radcliffe. Now I know he is young, and not an experienced actor, and I'm sure he is told most of what to do by the director- but can't you just put a little emotion in please Danny? Throughout the critical scenes, the tenseness and the fright, Danny stands there and acts shallower than Schwazenegger ever did! Now I know they can't get another Harry- just somebody please tell him to put a bit of life into it! And finally - when you pick up a sword, pick it up by the HILT- please!
Great Great Great!
And if you are willing to sit through all the credits there's a little extra bit at the end.....
Beloved Dumbledore, so sad to say good-bye to Richard Harris. The youngsters are all learning at the best acting school in the world. Loved the book, loved the film. Now after Robert Hardy as Fudge, who is the casting director going to treat us to?
Too long. The main thread of the film was too disjointed so you never got the feeling of excitement or the thrill of a roller coaster type ride - more a spluttering Ford Anglia type ride. This was a sequel in the best traditions of sequels - inferior.
I think that both of the Harry Potter films are good. My favourite bit in the second was Dobby with his squeaking and jumping.
The Chamber of Secrets is a better film in that the story hangs together better and effects are better. As a fan who's read all the books, I appreciate that not all the details can be retained in the film. However, why cut out some more the more important/funny parts from the book just so that we can have a really slushy ending?? Totally unnecessary. To me, that ruined the atmosphere of the book and film.
And as for the film being too long for children to sit through - there were hundreds of children at the showing I attended - and they all sat enthralled the whole time. The film really is that magic!
Superb special-effects, brilliant cast though a tad too long. Quidditch was more robust than ever and duelling scene was eye-catching. Branagh was excellent with his narcisstic antics. In short, a much improved film than its predecessor provided one does not compare it with the book!
I didn't think the second film was as good as the first. It just didn't have an edge to it like the first one did. Also the main action and ending were a bit disjointed. However, the lead trio have greatly improved. Emma Watson was particularly good.
I went and saw the film on Saturday with my mum and thought it weas really well done. It was a lot better than the first film and the effects were spectacular. Kenneth Branaugh's acting as Lockhart was superb and brought a lighthearted edge to a more darker story. Well worth the money. Roll on the third film!
I LOVE HARRY POTTER!
The movie was awesome! It was funny and scary! I read the second book and I know that they left out some parts but the movie was still good! I just hate it when people complain too much about so many parts they left out! Just watch and enjoy the movie! Don't worry too much about "oh this part was left out and that's not supposed to happen!" Just enjoy it!
Rupert Grint, Daniel Radcliffe, and Emma Watson (especially her)have improved very much, in that their acting doesn't seem as forced. Moaning Murtle terrified me; I like her in the movie better than I do in my own imagination.
Overall, the second film was better than the first because time wasn't wasted on introduction, allowing more room for plot. And I just have to add that I love how it already began to show the TRUE relationship between Ron and Hermione (in the last scene).
At 42 years of age, I've never read a single Potter book. I was disappointed with the first Harry Potter film for being too childish mainly.
The second, however, was great - more mature for the likings of the child in my heart. Can't wait for the third instalment - it might finally set me free to want to explore the book!
Alright, so I'm a huge Harry Potter fan so of course I'm just going to like it more then people who aren't, but I still loved it. Sure they left out and changed some parts, but that was to be expected. We all knew it couldn't follow the books exactly and I'm ok with that. The visual effects were 1000 times better then the first, and while the child actors still aren't as good as some of the adults (to also be expected), they seem to have a bit more confidence in their roles. Personally, anyone who's complaining about it is just damn nitpicky, let's see THEM make the movie! I'm already booking tickets to see it again on Sunday.
Thomas, Belgian in USA
I'm not a Harry Potter fan, so I wasn't expecting the greatest film ever. Neither was I expecting the most boring, turgid nonsense I have ever seen. Which is what I got. It was excessive in every sense - that is, excessively long, excessively dreadful, wooden-top acting and excessively tedious. If this is your idea of entertainment, then good luck to you.
Excellent, exciting, spellbinding - need I say more?
I wish Zoe Wanamaker would have been back, missed her, only thing I can say negative.
I saw the film at the first showing in small-town Missouri yesterday and it was magic. Pure magic! You can't blame the film for not being the book, folks: the film stands alone as brilliant in its own right. And for those of you who are unfortunate enough to have read the book before you see the movie, I would advise using Lockhart's spell first to erase all memory of the book from your mind so you'll enjoy the movie as much as I did!
GO AND SEE HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS!!! I don't care what people say about this being a film for kids - this was one cool movie for all ages. And the critics have loved it! A sequel that critics actually liked!
It followed the book really well and went so quickly (it's almost 3 hours long). It's funny, sad, dark & mysterious and in certain parts a bit scary (I jumped a mile high in certain parts). The special effects were really good too without being over the top, Kenneth Branagh is hilarious as Gilderoy Lockhart and it was actually pretty neat to see how the kid actors have all grown up so much since the first film.
Much better then the first movie. People are saying not to bring small children (under 7), some scenes are scary. But I feel it meets the book all the way. Good acting by all the characters and finely introduced the nurse into the story
Kenneth Branagh was superb as Lockhart, the role could have been written for him, and the younger actors are already beginning to grow into their roles.
It is just such a shame to see a good book ruined by Hollywood, and yet another example of sequels failing to live up to the standards set in the first film. Let's just hope that Azkaban can bring some of the magic (and original plot) back to the series!
I agree with the comments about the film being brilliant, if not a little scary, but in reply to the earlier comments:
Sean Bean/Sirrius? No!!
Ken Branagh was great as Gilderoy just because he isn't stunning and gorgeous, but was much funnier as Gilderoy thinking he was.
It is better than the first by far. The special effects were great and so was the dialogue. Daniel Radcliffe still seems uncomfortable and has only made a mild improvement, which is a disappointment because he seems such a nice boy in the interviews and shows no signs of arrogance. I do hope he gets his act together in future films.
Having read some of the previous contributions here, I wonder what the detractors were looking for - the perfect film? I thought the overall effect was fantastic, and did justice to the core storyline. As with any film of a book, things were left out due to time constraints, and it is still quite a long movie, but to be honest the only time I noticed the length was when I checked my watch afterwards. I was captivated by the film all the way through, as was my daughter. All the actors contributed well, with highlights from Branagh who was perfect as Gilderoy.
Also a poignantly fitting final performance from Richard Harris. My only real worry is in how they will deal with Goblet of Fire which is a much longer book, but I'm still looking forward to the next installments.
I think that the Harry Potter films are a shame to the well written books. I can't leave out some brilliant performances by Robbie Coltrane and Richard Harris. I will not see any other of the films.
Saw it at Peterborough Broadway last Sat. Loved every minute of it, very small children were very obviously terrified of some parts. Me? I think it's too good for children.
The film was a bit shallow - all except the last 20 minutes which were like a bath full of gorgonzola - cheesy all over.
The healthiest and most welcome escape from reality I've enjoyed in ages.
As an unbiassed film-goer and not a reader of the books, my opinion is that the second film was rather dull and added nothing that had not already been excercised in the first film. Also, halfway through I found myself clock watching. Far too long and with little new content.
Things seems to be slightly more stylish and less cardboard cut-out than Philosopher's Stone. It's much more like a film than the first, which was more like a poor TV adaptation. The script is still clumsy in parts, and it's still 10 minutes too long, but things are improving.
Chamber Of Secrets was much better than Philosopher's Stone - but then it couldn't really be any worse could it? The first film was a terrible effort, and were it not for the tremendous acting ability of the adults involved it would have been a complete waste of time.
This time round, the acting is better, the script is better and although effects don't "make" a film they are very important in the fantasy genre - thank God that this time the effects were good, especially Dobby and the Basilisk.
While it is certainly true that the books of both films were better than the film adaptations I am now looking forward to the Prisoner Of Azkaban, having been encouraged by the amazing turnaround from Philosopher's Stone that is "Harry Potter and The Chamber Of Secrets."
I must also say that I am one of the few dissenting voices with regards to Kenneth Brannagh's Lockhart. Sure, he was OK ... but am I the only person who pictured RICK MAYALL as Lockhart?! He would have been perfect and was the person who I had in mind as I read it.
All the child actors have definitely improved ... those who doubt should pay particular attention to the scenes where Harry meets Lucius. I think he definitely kept his end up and did not sound as uncomfortable as he did in the first film.
My summary, they did the best they could!
Excellent film! My wife and I took our children to see one of the previews and we all enjoyed every minute. The characters have developed nicely, and the settings look superb. Excellent acting all round and brilliant effects. Looking forward to number 3.
I loved it! You can't beat reading the books and so what that there were flaws, this film had me totally involved in the magic. Brannagh was hilarious, the other adult characters are excellent and perfect for their roles, Harry and co were much better and Dobby was just adorable. Can't wait for Azkaban and what about Richard E Grant as Sirius Black?
I saw it yesterday and I think it is better than the first one. The actors seems more mature and the story becomes definitely darker! The special effects are quite good too.
A joy - a complete joy! Yes, alright Alan Rickman was a bit underused, but Kenneth Branagh was fantastic, a perfect piece of casting. Dan Radcliffe was far more settled in the role, Emma Watson is brilliant again,and Rupert Grint still has all the best lines. Okay so we missed the Deathday Party and Percy snogging, but I don't think it subtracted from the film at all. Looking forward to HP3 (my favourite) - who's up for Lupin? And when's HP5 going to be available to read?!! Fans need to know! C'mon JKR - sort it!!
My daughter and I were lucky to get in to the first day of the previews, and are already planning our return trip!
A rollercoaster of emotions, comedy and the necessary scare to make me jump from my chair.
As hardened Potter fans, it would have been difficult to disappoint us, and you have to expect that the film won't reflect fully the book, but even so - a great film, better than the first (which needed to establish the characters) and I can't wait for Azkaban.
Even Dobby was a delight!
Why do we feel the need to continually prove our in-depth knowledge of the books to criticise the Harry Potter films? No other films have to be subjected to such scrutiny. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. Chamber of Secrets is a brilliant film.
THe harry ptter books are written with a shallow amount of input and imagination. The film's interpretation of the text is diabolical. Everything from the scenery to the acting is wrong. I regret ever seeing the film and ruining my own image of Hogwarts. In general films degrade imagination and ruin books. The only excecption I can name is Lord of the Rings.
Not as good as the first film. It tries to be too serious when let's face it, Harry Potter is better as a joke.
Downloaded it a few days ago off of the Internet and now I feel no urge to see it in the theatres.
Although not a great fan of Harry Potter, after seeing the first movie, I would say the second one would be just as good as the first one. James Bond will have some stiff competition on Monday!
Sadly I did fall asleep half way through the Potter film but still think it's good! Enjoy it.
Despite the presence of Branagh - superb in a role I found immensely irritating in the book - and much better FX (though those were variable, possibly as a result of the number of effects houses used) this was very much the mixture as before. Indeed, it almost seemed as if Chris Columbus wasn't entirely satisfied with Philospher's Stone and had tried to remake it, forcing the new plot into the same mould.
The Riddle/Ginny plot should have been given more foreground, at the expense of the Quidditch match, if necessary, as this is hardly essential to the plot. Too much was made of the Dobby plot and this unbalanced the film and upset the pacing.
Fun, of course. The kids will probably love it, but I did go hoping for more than "same again", even if better executed.
This film is excellent, even better than the first one (which I saw 3 times at the cinema). The effects are astounding, attention to the smallest visual detail superb and with the ever darker storyline I look forward to the third!
I'm really surprised that people are still giving poor Daniel Radcliffe such a hard time about his acting, I thought he was superb in this, much better than Draco, (who seems unable to speak properly in some scenes) and Ron, (that face pulling is really starting to annoy me). As for the film, much darker than I expected but great all the same, much better than the first one. I didn't go in expecting to see a masterpiece and it does have its flaws, (what film doesn't?), but all-in-all it was smashing entertainment, so well done all cast and crew and WELL DONE DAN RADCLIFFE.
What a lot of drivel some people spout off about a film!
We (the family) thought it was excellent and followed the book as well as any film could be expected to do. Some of the above reviewers have forgotten that the books are for children and so is the film - that adults enjoy it is merely a bonus!
I thought the Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets movie was the best movie ever. It was so awesome because there were a lot more funny scenes. It was also awesome because it was more dramatic. I really liked it when Draco tickles the Mandrake, that was funny, and when Vernon fell out of the window, that was classic. I say, J.K. Rowling, Chris Columbus, and all the stars did an awesome job. Lastly, to the soon-to- be-director, you have a lot to live up to! Keep up the good work everyone!
A wonderful movie! I took my kids to see it, and though I can say that I didn't enjoy it as much as they did, I certainly felt the magic of this one. Fear, comedy, and drama are added to the cauldron, yielding an entertaining film for all ages!
Was saddened by the fact the that Richard Harris has passed on. My oldest son Zachary (7-years) loved Albus. We are all looking forward to the next film. Though we will miss seeing Richard Harris. We watched The Sorcerer's Stone every night, they just can't get enough of Harry! I can't wait till The Chamber of Secrets is out on video. Zachary is already talking about The Prisoner of Azkaban. To be honest I can't wait either!!!
Not being a big fan of the books - too much "Jennings goes to Narnia" for my liking - I've nevertheless ended up taking my son to see the films and have enjoyed both immensely. I don't have a problem with the development of the acting of the leads; give them time, they're only young after all.
As for the established actors, I too was disappointed by the under-use of Alan Rickman and even Maggie Smith - but as for Kenneth Branagh, I couldn't watch him without thinking that his portrayal of Lockhart was lifted wholesale from Rik Mayall as Lord Flasheart in Blackadder - just as well that most of the target audience of this film is too young to remember that!!
Hmm. It was OK. I still don't think Daniel Radcliffe can act. And Ginny's part was tenuous in the extreme. Never did we see her tortured by her loneliness, needing someone to talk to. And Snape was so overacted. 3 out of 5, no more.
Top Entertainment stories now:
Links to more Entertainment stories are at the foot of the page.
|E-mail this story to a friend|
Links to more Entertainment stories
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> | To BBC World Service>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy