|
 |
|
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
****
Cinema Releases - November 15, 2002
Rated on a 4-star scale. Certificate PG. USA/UK.
161 minutes. Directed by Chris Columbus. Written by Steve Kloves; from the
novel by J.K. Rowling. Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint,
Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Kenneth Branagh, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman,
Warwick Davis, Sean Biggerstaff, Shirley Henderson, Miriam
Margolyes.
Here we are again, in the world where hundreds
of candles levitate at different levels above the dining room tables, spellbound
owls drift in with the mail, potions are concocted to study the battle against
dark arts, ghosts nonchalantly drift through corridors to greet the living,
the roots of plants have faces and voices, and the tears of a phoenix can
be vital. How many movies of recent years have made us feel the presence
of magic as thoroughly as the Harry Potter pictures?
Watching the second film about J.K. Rowling's
boy-wizard from Surrey, I began to notice potential plot holes. Why is it
that the characters can travel using pixie dust in one scene, and yet also
need flying cars? If there are portals, why do they need to get trains? If
they can fly on broomsticks and suspend all sorts of objects in air with
the chant of "Wingardium leviosa!", why do their key moments feature so much
creeping and running?
One answer, I think, is that there are limitations
to each mode of magical transportation. There are rules, a certain science,
in the crannies of this universe, which we do not yet know or perhaps will
never fully comprehend, unless we literally transcend our own reality to
go for a look around the library of the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and
Wizardry.
Then there is the artistic reason, which is that
Rowling and screenwriter Steve Kloves are setting up ritual, familiarising
us with the options of their miraculous kingdom, so that we'll know where
we stand in later adventures, when everyone is zooming around through all
sorts of strange methods without explanation.
Perhaps I am thinking up justifications for
inconsistencies, but if so, it's because I have been convinced and bowled
over by the intricate creation of a new world. Whether "Harry Potter" will
live in the memory of future generations is something we cannot predict,
but for now it seems that Hogwarts can invade the mind like Tatooine, the
Yellow Brick Road, Hill House and Bedford Falls. Goblins and talking pictures
and history abound; there is such a vast collection of hidden rooms that
every turn offers the possibility for new secret joys and
dangers.
The story in "Harry Potter and the Chamber
of Secrets" involves plucky 12-year old Harry (Daniel Radcliffe),
along with buddies Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), trying
to discover just what the Chamber of Secrets is, and who opened it, and why.
Ominously large, red graffiti on the boarding school walls informs us that
it has been discovered and disturbed, and that some kind of evil heir is
about to benefit from its powers. Students are being found frozen in the
hallways; noises are heard in the pipes and the air; the Hogwarts collection
of snakes is starting to act funny.
The script may follow a familiar path of dilemma,
investigation and heroic solution, but it is nonetheless true storytelling,
unfolding in unexpected ways, because Rowling and Kloves can always manage
to pull quirky discoveries from their sleeves. Consider the whisperings offered
by the living picture frames, and the collections of original characters
that emerge in each entry of this saga. Now we meet such folks as Moaning
Myrtle (Shirley Henderson), the flinty-voiced apparition who complains her
way through haunting the girls' lavatory; Dobby (voice of Toby Jones), the
timid little elf that offers warnings and overreactions while hobbling around
in rags; and Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh), the vain and cowardly professor
who likes to brag about his best-sellers and Most Charming Smile
awards.
I can pay "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"
one of the best compliments of all; I stopped thinking about how good it
all was, and started doing nothing but reacting to it -- feeling a part of
its grand locations, thinking urgently as the protagonists struggled, feeling
at the mercy of its inventiveness and gasping at its visual delights. Sure,
the books are bestsellers, but this stuff works better on screen than page,
because it's not just cute, it's alive.
Chris Columbus, the director, has been accused
of being nothing but a stagehand by critics like Mark Kermode, who said the
first film "felt like the placing of a sacred text in a pair of boringly
safe hands". That's easy to say when a director has the responsibility of
putting together movies based largely on effect, but I think that when a
filmmaker creates truly inspiring action sequences, he must be considered
an artist as well as a craftsman. "Chamber of Secrets" surpasses "Philosopher's
Stone" in its darkness and scope, and it includes dazzling set-pieces, such
as a Quidditch match whose chases go off the arena and under the benches,
a cave full of gigantic spiders that move with intelligence and personality
as well as predatory instinct, and a race through intricate tunnels involving
Harry and a serpent carrying the soul of his sworn enemy.
Think about the thousands of special effects in
these scenes -- those in the forefront and those we simply absorb -- and
ask yourself how Columbus managed to make moments true to the characters
and story while playing with adventurous, unpredictable camera movements
and having to plan for frame elements that weren't present while shooting.
The achievement is astonishing.
The director again commands great theatrical energy
from his cast and locations. As in the first film, the performances from
the children, and adults such as John Cleese, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane
and the late Richard Harris, push gestures and lines right to the edge. The
spaces of Hogwarts are thriving with colour, movement and detail. None of
this is ever realistic, but the exaggeration is a helluva lot of fun, simply
because it's enthusiastic.
Enthusiastic. Right. So much family entertainment
short-changes us, offering shoddy special effects, unimaginative formula
stories or personalities that seem contrived or just plain annoying. How
easily do the filmmakers of "Tom's Midnight Garden", "Snow Dogs" and "See
Spot Run" sleep at night? Cynics and snooty "Lord of the Rings" devotees
be silent: "Harry Potter" not only convinces us that wonders are possible,
but incorporates too many of them to count.
COPYRIGHT©
2002 Ian Waldron-Mantgani
2002 Reviews
(alphabetical)
2002 Reviews (by star
rating)
Archive of all cinema reviews
(alphabetical)
Review Archive
Index
UK
Critic main page
|
|
![[Image]](http://www.ukcritic.com/posbanr2.gif)