Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

[Azred]

<font color = lightgreen>I know I am jumping the gun on The Trickster and reviewing this movie first; perhaps he'll forgive me someday.... [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img]

Positives
This movie definitely has something the first Harry Potter compeltely lacked--suspense. In keeping with the general tone of the movie, many of the scenes were indeed darker. Also, the plot was (fortunately) more mature than in the first movie; since we didn't have to be introduced to all the major characters and locations more time could be spent on story development and enhancing the characters we already know.
I was glad to see Ron get some more depth, including a family and a house.
You won't have to sit through another entire match of Quidditch; yes, that is a positive.
The special effects are more polished, creating a much more realistic visualizations.
I could use a car like the Weasly's....

Negatives
I know that the actors are probably 13 at the oldest, but their drama coaches need to work on portraying certain emotions such as determination.
Ron needs to grow out of being the straight man/sidekick, but that is up to Ms. Rowling.
For fans of Hermoine, a small non-spoilerish warning: her character doesn't have a very large role in this picture. Although we get glimpses of her life beyond the walls of Hogwarts, that is about all we get to glimpse.
Those who are squeamish at the slightest little thing should probably not eat that hot dog at the first of the movie.
Finally, someone needs to tell the students at Hogwarts that magic is not something to be used lightly...but that, also, is up to Ms. Rowling.
To Lucius Malfoy: let me give you the name of a good hair stylist.... [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img]

Oh, and a word to all those who refuse to allow their children to read or see anything to do with Harry Potter: get a grip on reality! [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

All things considered, I give this one an 8 out of 10. A wonderful way to spend nearly 3 hours! [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img] </font>

[Triconan]

I'm seeing it on Thanksgiving. But I liked the quidditch matches, they made me nice and dizzy .

[Larry_OHF]

<font color=skyblue>I copied this from CNN, telling about it's sucess at the box office. I tell you, if the theaters would not have been sold out Saturday...I would have had two ticket sales to add to that total, as well as the dozens of people that were standing in line with me that had to go home when we were told that the entier day was sold out at 11:30am.</font>

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets," the second movie based on UK author J.K. Rowling's best-selling books about a boy wizard, grossed an estimated $87.7 million in its first three days of release across North America, Warner Bros. Pictures said Sunday. The film ranks as the third best opening of all time, behind the May 2002 release "Spider-Man" ($114.8 million) and Potter's 2001 predecessor, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" ($90.3 million). The first Harry Potter film, known as "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" outside the United States and some Asian territories, went on to gross more than $900 million worldwide, ranking No. 2 on the all-time list behind "Titanic." Exit polling and reviews were stronger for "Chamber of Secrets" than for its predecessor, said Dan Fellman, president of domestic distribution at Warner Bros. These indicated the movie could have more staying power at theaters, he said. Warner Bros., a unit of CNN.com's parent company AOL Time Warner Inc, is in pre-production on a third film, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," which is scheduled for release in 2004. Mexican filmmaker Alfonso Cuaron is directing the new movie, stepping in for Chris Columbus, who directed the first two and will take a producer's role on the third. Harry Potter is played by 13-year-old English schoolboy Daniel Radcliffe. The film's adult stars include Kenneth Branagh, Alan Rickman, Dame Maggie Smith and the late Richard Harris. Last weekend's box office champ, the Eminem drama "8 Mile," slipped to No. 2 with $21.3 million, taking its 10-day total to $86.4 million. It was distributed by Universal Pictures, a unit of Vivendi Universal SA.

[SirTristram]

Hate.... It!!

[Gammit]

Ech. I give it 6.5 out of 10. The special effects were great and all, but I would trade ALL of them in for a little, just an iota, of character development. In the first movie, I really rooted and felt for Harry and the gang... this time around, eh, whatever. Quite a shame, really, since all of the things they added (fx) will do nothing to enhance the story in the long run, whereas concentration on the characters would give mounds of help to the seriers. I'm not saying that the charactes were ignored (I liked the increased focus on Ron), but even the little development that was there was about 1/30 of what was written. Granted, this book was the least of my favorites, but I still really enjoyed it. My verdict: save your money and make sure you see it during the day.

[Timber Loftis]

Liked it. Decent, fun movie that did not skimp on the special effects at all. If you're wanting depth of character, I can't imagine expecting too terribly much more for children's books. No, I haven't read them. I'm just saying take this movie for what it is, and enjoy the really cool effects.

[The Trickster]

No hard feelings Azred!

Harry Potter is something that I will go and see, but in no great hurry. I found the first one to be full of imagination and magic, but very much directed at children. The preview of the sequel looks even more so.

There are some other movies I'll be reviewing first.

<font color="#ff6666">As a non-book Harry Potter movie seeer (as in I have not read any of them) I watched the movie the other day and thought it was entertaining. I liked it. [img]smile.gif[/img] Not much of a critical review, but I didn't go to this movie to critique it, I just wanted to be entertained [img]smile.gif[/img] and I was [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Edit: Do these two old guys remind you of Siskel and Ebert?</font>

[ 11-19-2002, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Thoran]

It gets 8 enthusiastic thumbs up from my whole family... my wife thinks Sorcerers Stone is better, I think CoS is better... the kids thought they were both darn good.

Since the characters and setting were introduced in the first film, this one could and did spend more time telling a story. The plot was still intended for a young audience, but it was also entertaining for myself and my wife.

Jen also indicated that she thought Lucius Malfoy looked "yummy"... lol.

Originally posted by Thoran: Jen also indicated that she thought Lucius Malfoy looked "yummy"... lol.

<font color="#ff6666">My new GF said exactly the same thing [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>