BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Harry Potter: Enter the Chamber of Secrets ((Spoilers))

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
suds
17:23 / 09.11.02
i think i'm the first to post on this film because either:
a) there's already another thread about it and i can't find it or
b) i saw it yesterday even though it's not on general release till next week.

anyway, what did you all think of it?
to me, "the chamber of secrets" is my worst harry potter book of the series, but i really liked the film a lot. the spiders were really really scary and i thought that harry and ron have really improved as actors.
snape was even sexier than the first film, and i especially liked it when he went to duel with lockhart. oh yeah!
lockhart wasn't half as annoying as he was in the book.
the weirdest thing about the film was the whomping willow. i didn't see it as all spiky and stuff. seeing ron and harry getting crushed in the car was really upsetting!
ok, so lets talk harry!
 
 
Warewullf
00:09 / 10.11.02
Just saw it tonight. Very good. Better than the first.
I confess that I only read the first book (the day before seeing the first film so I could compare) so i don't know how accurate it is but it is hugely enjoyable.

And the sound effects are damn scary!

Oh, and Arachnophobes: Avoid this film at all costs!!
 
 
Cat Chant
09:37 / 10.11.02
Haven't seen it yet. Please tell me how much Snape there is in it, as this is all I care about.

Is Kenneth Branagh any good? He appears to me to be woefully miscast.
 
 
Warewullf
10:51 / 10.11.02
Kenneth Brannah was actually very good. Daper and smarmy. A little bit of self-send-up, there.

And there was woefully little Snape in it. He's in a few key scenes but doesn't have much to do. Still good, though.
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
13:54 / 10.11.02
I'm off to see it in 2 hours and I'm ridiculously over excited. By the sounds of it I'm going to love it.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
20:28 / 10.11.02
I'm with Warewullf-- there was not enough Snapey goodness for the Rickman groupies. Although I did think of Deva during the whole magick wand faceoff...
 
 
Cat Chant
15:01 / 11.11.02
Oh, God, don't tell me there's even the vaguest Snape/Lockhart overtones, or I shall be lost - I've just read a terrifyingly plausible story with that pairing and I don't want to have to retro-visualize Kenneth Branagh.

You can't get any Snape/Rickman merchandise, either. They really are continuing to market this film to children, rather than the Pervy Ladies (TM) constituency, aren't they? (Desperate attempt to drag conversation back onto vaguely intellectual level) - what do you lot think about it being a "kids" film? Successful child/adult crossover? Lamentably regressive? Annoying in its copping out of "adult" themes due to the "kids" label?
 
 
suds
15:53 / 11.11.02
deva, snape is so sexy in this film, especially when he has a duel with lockhart. dude, it's worth the ticket price alone *swoon*. snape can give me detention any time!
 
 
that
16:10 / 11.11.02
Snape is the one and only reason I would see this (I liked the books, and I'm still nursing a huge crush on Alan Rickman's sexy Snape, but other than that, I found the last film pretty yawn-making)... but as it is, we have a new puppy (yay!), and I'm his primary caregiver... so, no Snape for me 'til it's out on video.
 
 
Tamayyurt
16:20 / 11.11.02
Deva- what do you lot think about it being a "kids" film? Successful child/adult crossover? Lamentably regressive? Annoying in its copping out of "adult" themes due to the "kids" label?

I think it's alright for now... but the kid that's playing Harry is quickly growing up. By the time they make the 3rd movie he'll be a teenager and I think the tone and themes of the movies should reflect that. I haven't read any of the books past the 2nd one (which was crap) so I can't tell you if that takes place at all in the books but in the movies it's going to have to because they won't be kids for long. Basically, I want Ron to die and I want Harry and Hermione to hook up. Ron's alright, but it'll fuck everyone up!
 
 
that
16:24 / 11.11.02
Ron? Ron, the only truly talented child actor in the whole thing, and you want him dead? The horror...
 
 
suds
15:14 / 12.11.02
impulsivelad, it's very obvious that ron and hermionie are falling in love and you are mean for wanting ron to die!
cholister, i am not just saying this, the second movie is so much more exciting than the first! i think it might be more fun (and scary) to see it on the big screen!
 
 
that
15:17 / 12.11.02
You're probably right...I'm still unlikely to get there, unless I wrap the puppy up and do the hairy baby thing I've been threatening everyone with for years...
 
 
Saveloy
15:25 / 12.11.02
Warewulf:

"Oh, and Arachnophobes: Avoid this film at all costs!!"

*Gulp* I'll be all right as long as there are no close ups of spiders' faces. Are there any close ups of spiders' faces?
 
 
Warewullf
20:54 / 12.11.02
I don't want to ruin it for you, but yes.

Yes there is.
 
 
Chubby P
10:57 / 14.11.02
And if you don't like snakes theres a couple of them as well!

A very good film, and pretty scary stuff. Heres a review I emailed to my friends about it:

This film was superior to the first film in many ways but I think
that was helped by the story having a bit more structure. Kids will
love it. Some great Quidditch scenes that were reminisent of the
trench assault on the Death Star in Star Wars. Some very dark and
scary moments and if you don't like spiders then you're in for a
scary treat! The two things that stood out the most was Kevin
Branaugh as Lockheart (who was brilliant at playing a character who
loved himself!) and the house elf Dobby (who was seriously fucked
up!).

This film gets a Chubby P rating of:
Worth seeing at the cinema and could be watched again and again!
 
 
deja_vroom
11:26 / 14.11.02
Spider faces? You mean, like this?


Sorry. Sorry. Off now. Sorry.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:47 / 14.11.02
[totally off topic, sorry]

Odilon Redon kicks arse...
 
 
Cat Chant
16:01 / 16.11.02
I have just seen some photos of Lucius Malfoy on the net.

Why did no-one tell me about this? Hmmmm? And does he interact with Snape at any point?

I'm going to see for myself tomorrow, so you can all get the benefit of what I project will be my rage (I can't bear the whole house-elf thing), arousal (Snape! Malfoy! McGonagall!), meretricious overexcitement (shiny things!), and despair (why is no-one making a film of fucking Charmed Life or some of the decades-long tradition of decent, interesting, challenging, politically responsible kids' fantasy?).
 
 
Tamayyurt
16:02 / 16.11.02
Just saw this and I take it back... I love Ron!

I know that Voldermort has to be the villain in every book/movie but I think this particular incarnation was pretty cool. I love the idea that he hid his 16-year-old essence in a book. It touched upon a bunch of ideas I'm into: metafiction, hypersigils, time travel. Very nice.

questions! questions! questions!

Are they planning on putting out a movie every year? Is there a director attracted yet? Fans of the third book, how do you think it would translate into film? What's it about (roughly)? Now I can't wait!

I was right about one thing... they're growing up and I think the films are getting better because of it.
 
 
Hieronymus
20:14 / 16.11.02
Chris Columbus seemed to indicate in an interview with Charlie Rose that he honestly doesn't have it in him to direct a third one. So he's handed the director's reins to someone else. But yeah, they'll keep pumping them out until J.K. either runs out of books or the public stop going to them.
 
 
krakaboom
21:28 / 16.11.02
there will not be a HARRY POTTER film next year. warner brothers also distributes THE MATRIX films, and the third one in that series will come out next november. the studio does not want to compete against its own franchise. no new potter until 2004. it will be directed by alfonso cuaron. who's most recent film was YU TU MAMA TAMBIEN. he also directed the children's film A LITTLE PRINCESS.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
09:37 / 21.11.02
OK, I saw this last night. Far too long, and they spent so long building up to the climax that everyone in the cinema was chortling merrily along as Fawkes dropped his healing tears. By the time Hagrid appeared I was banging my head on the floor shouting 'I can't take any more!'...

Don't understand how they did such a good job with the petrification and so on, and then stuffed it up utterly in the Chamber itself. Perhaps it's just because Daniel Radcliffe couldn't convey the fact that he was dying adequately, but I thought it wasn't scary enough. God knows how they're going to handle 'Azkaban'...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:18 / 21.11.02
I thought it had some nice set pieces. The children didn't have to moon around looking awestruck all the time. It was entertainig, and a better film than the first, but still not actually much cop.

Pros:

Snape. Not enough of him, by any means, but he looks and sounds great. Running up the corridor a particularly nice shot, and the twitchy, intermittent hand movements are inspired. The closes twe have to Avon.


Lockhart: Not nearly smarmy or nasty enough, and the denouement is far too rushed and has no emotional impact whatsoever. Also, there is nothing much to contrast with Harry and Ron's suspicion of him - Hermione fancying him is almost totally written out. But Brannagh si nicely self-parodic.

Lucius Malfoy: *Lovely* Jason Isaacs! More of this, please, although no Malfoy/Snape fun, I'm afraid, Deva.

The spiders: Nicely played - Ron is brilliant in this part.

The Weasleys: Just very good, unselfish group acting.

Cons:

The script. Fucking awful. Maybe half a dozen good lines in two and a half hours or so. Generally, forgettable and did little but explain the plot or describe the current action.

The ending: Truly dire. One, because it makes no sense whatsoever (why did Potter and Weasley behave in such an utterly fuckwitted way? Just to resolve a subplot?), and two, because it is lame, lame, lame. The only real danger seems to be that Harry will be brained by a falling Deus ex Machina. There's no sense of threat. Partly, perhaps, because Daniel Radcliffe is not a great actor, and also because the other character in the finale has barely been developed, as ze was in the book (epicene pronoun to avoid spoiling).

The sex: There isn't any. Which is to say, Hermione's pash on Lockhart and Ginnie's pash on Harry are given precisely one second each - adoring gaze from Hermione and frightened scamper from Ginnie, and that's it. Interesting to see into what this collection of the most sexless adolescents in the world does under the new Y Tu Mama Tambien

More fucking quidditch: The presence of Sexy Boy Wood is not enough. The quidditch match was better, and shorter, but too samey. (Plus, Quidditch makes no sense whatsoever, but never mind that - does Potter catch the golden fucking snitch every single cocking book?)

Dobby the fucking house elf: The jar jar of Hogwarts, both in terms of irritating CGI character and bug-eyed comedy negro. Not looking forward to the future, if Deva's precis elsewhere is anything to go by.

And, finally, honorable mention for Draco Malfoy, being portrayed by perhaops the worst actor I have ever seen. In among all the hamming but talented Engouish character actors, he looks like he's wandered in from a Fairuza Balk "Worst Witch" movie. Can't act, can't emote except by shouting, can't enunciate. Quite astonishingly poor.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
04:38 / 24.11.02
I saw this today, it was the first time I'd ever been exposed to Harry Potter in anything other than a magazine article. I thought it was cute and charming - it was fun for the most part, I only felt confused a few times, and most of the main characters were pretty likeable. I like Hermione the best, by far. I guess she's like the Jean Grey of the Harry Potter world. Snape was pretty damn cool too. I couldn't quite get the point of Lockhart, though he was good for some decent laughs. The Quiddich stuff left me pretty cold, but it wasn't in the film too much. I found Ron Weasley to be fairly annoying, but I understand his purpose, to be the C-3P0 of the Harry Potter stories.

I would say that the thing that bothered me the most was the repeated usage of deux ex machinas to get out of rough situations. Too much convenience, especially when the magical car comes to save Ron and Harry from the spiders. That just barely made any sense. I guess I can forgive this sort of thing, cos it's a kid's movie and it's the kind of thing a kid would put in a story. "And suddenly...!", you know?

I liked it, way more than I was expecting. I'm looking foward to catching up with the previous movie, and seeing the next films whenever they come out. I've got little to no interest in reading the books; I don't feel as though I'd be missing too much by just watching the films, especially considering the fact that some of you seem convinced that this movie is superior to the book version.

So again: Hermione rules, and so does Snape. Harry's not so bad himself.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:47 / 03.12.02
some of you seem convinced that this movie is superior to the book version.

Bump, bump, bumpety, bump. I've just been to see this film and it is certainly not superior to the book. It's massively superior to the first film but in no way comparable to the book despite the fact that Chamber of Secrets is by far the worst of the series.

I really enjoyed watching this, the whomping willow was great and very scary but the end was definitely too tame and you didn't get to see the Weasley's again - very irritating. The end of this book is the best thing about it.

What did it do for me? It gave me high hopes... if this film could be so significantly better than the first then maybe, just maybe, by the time they get to the fourth (so my favourite book) it might make a good film. I have severe doubts about it because the themes get pretty advanced and I doubt anyone will have the guts to express in the film what Rowling expresses in the book. A storm's a brewin' fer Harry Potter but that storm be much bigger in writin'.
 
 
Chubby P
10:25 / 04.12.02
I don't think they could do the end of the fourth book (as described in the book) and still get a kids rating. I remember it being pretty grusome, lots of blood and very very scary! Thats the best thing about JK Rowling. She assumes kids are more mature than adults regard them as (which they always are!) and doesn't "write down" to them.
 
 
Cat Chant
11:32 / 04.12.02
no Malfoy/Snape fun, I'm afraid, Deva.

Nonsense! Though I'll admit the slashy fun was somewhat obscured by the unaccountable directorial decision, when Snape and Malfoy were sat next to each other (possibly with their legs touching), to film some children playing some sport or other on broomsticks instead of focussing on the main action of the scene. Odd.

On the plus side, however, we were treated to Malfoy perving over Harry's scar, which has to be one of the most genuinely fucked-up moments in "children's" cinema since Labyrinth. And let us not forget that the whole plot of the film climaxes with Harry Potter being lured into the toilets by a very pretty older boy with a giant snake.

I can barely talk civilly about J K Rowling so I'm just going to say that if you want a children's writer who genuinely handles emotions, large-scale battles of good and evil, and child-adult relationships in a realistic, scary and satisfying way without plot cheats, emotional mystification and telling lies about the way the world works, I can only recommend that you go and read everything Diana Wynne Jones has ever written.

The Potter books actually work for me better as films, as it happens. Not just because of Rickman, though I'll admit that helps (a lot) but partly, I think - contra Haus - because Daniel Radcliffe gives Harry an actual personality. Either that or just because seeing Harry embodied creates more of a character-effect than the rather incoherent bundle of reactions and plot devices that is Harry in the books. I was badly stuck on writing Harry till I saw this movie, and then I finally "got" him for the first time: he's desperate to be liked, terrified of being put back in the cupboard, and clinging to Dumbledore's interpretations of what happens to him because - between living with the Dursleys in the hols & then, in term time, being caught up in the grudge match between Voldemort and his dead father - he is never granted any real autonomy. An alienated, profoundly damaged boy, constantly being simultaneously given too much responsibility and denied any control over his circumstances by the adults around him. It breaks my heart. And also causes me to read "Harry" for "Henry" throughout Dennis Cooper's novel Frisk:

"Wild." Harry knew it. His thoughts, feelings, etc, were the creations of people around him. Men particularly.

but that might just be me.
 
 
The Natural Way
14:42 / 04.12.02
Labyrynth is WONDERFULLY pervy, isn't it?

Flux: I can't be arsed to read the entire thread and root them out, but who on Earth thinks the movies are better than the books?!? They're just wrong, you know.... I'm not suggesting you read them, mind - they're hardly earth-shattering (tho' they are HUGELY compulsive) and I'm convinced they're not yr bag, baby.
 
 
grant
16:37 / 04.12.02
How could you read Harry as anything *other* than damaged goods? His only motivation is rejoining his dead father - it's the only thing he ever tries to do.

If you think about it, the only magic that is ever described at length is some form of living-memory technology - Riddle's diary, the Mirror of Erised, the magic map, and in the fourth book, Dumbledore's bowl and Voldemort's wand. It's all about maintaining an identity untouched by time, beyond death.
Hell, the only new characters of note in the second book/movie are Moaning Myrtle (a ghost) and Lockhart (a memory-charm specialist). Not to mention the annoying photographer, Creevey - and bear in mind that old photographs *live* in the wizarding world.
 
 
Cat Chant
09:50 / 05.12.02
Grant - wow! Thanks!

You're right that I can't read Harry as anything other than damaged goods: I can't read him in the books, full stop, he doesn't make sense to me. My own feeling is that the three different genres that Rowling is trying to take on (plotty apocalyptic battle-of-good-and-evil; school story; emotional-realism/coming-of-age story) require three different aspects of Harry - Reluctant Hero Harry, Plucky Harry Hero Of The Fifth, and Quite Seriously Fucked In the Head Harry - which makes him incoherent to me. That's even before we get into the way many of the other characters are aspects of Harry that are being disavowed and denigrated: Hermione is his intelligence, which has to be exteriorized (and feminized, and humiliated) because being clever is a bit suspect, dontchaknow (vide also Snape, who is both Semitized and feminized in a particularly British tradition of mistrusting the intellectual); Neville Longbottom is his helplessness and his orphaned state, singled out for particularly vicious repeated humiliation; Lockhart is his fame; Snape and/or Draco are his Inner Slytherin (cf Sorting Hat).

Which doesn't actually leave many characteristics for Harry himself, since JKR seems to have to exteriorize and punish all his traits via abjected shadow characters.

I love this stuff about the memory technology (though I think you're reaching a bit with Creevey: I think he's from one of the other two genres and doesn't make so much sense in terms of the Deathwish Harry strand).
 
 
Cat Chant
09:54 / 05.12.02
Ooh - sorry - Haus, in re both your comments on the script and Draco's acting - I have to say that one of my favourite ham-handed this isn't a real school, is it? moments in the movie was Draco calling Harry "Scarhead."

I mean, please. The kid talks to snakes, his parents are dead, he's being pursued avidly by both Creevey & Lockhard, and on and on: can't Draco come up with anything better than Scarhead?!?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:59 / 05.12.02
"Welcome to Hogwarts. It may produce more psychotically megalomaniacal evil wizards than most, but at least none of the pupils says 'fuck'..."
 
 
grant
14:34 / 06.12.02
I never thought of Snape as being Semitized before... is there something Faginish about his relationship with the Slytherin boys? Could be, could be.

I'll agree that Harry is fragmented (just as his glimpses of his father are fragmented, or the aspects of Voldemort he comes across). I never quite did it across genre lines, though - just followed the narrative across the first doubling (Muggle/orphan Harry = wizard/hero Harry) and let it spiral out from there.

Although, yeah, the most interesting tension in the *film* is the Sorting Hat's (scary fucking prepuce that it is) ambiguity about the house that Harry is best suited for. One of the stumbles in the film, though, is bringing home that feeling in the second book that Harry is indeed the Heir of Slytherin, that everyone in school starts treating him like The Bad Guy... and he doesn't know they're not right. He contains multitudes.

Hermione's definitely at her most troubling in this one, too, I think. Vastly prefer her as a character later, (third book) Sherlock Holmesian dope fiend (because clever people *experiment*) and (fourth book) when she gets her secret boyfriend and Ron starts in with his "he should've been mine" business.

I think in some ways they're parts of Harry, but in other ways, I think they're the only things keeping his personality together. His only other friends are shapeshifters and a hairy, bestial half-giant... and Dumbledore, who's frighteningly absent much of the time. Not all there. Any of them, not all there - except sissy-boy Ron and brainy-butch Hermione.
 
 
Jack Fear
14:42 / 06.12.02
I never thought of Snape as being Semitized before...

Really? The adjective "hook-nosed" in his initial description was like a red fucking flag to me. Just give him earlocks and a prayer shawl, why don'cha?
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply