Mike's Review: I'm a converted Harry Potter fanboy. Prior to working at an Elementary school, I had no interest in the books whatsoever. I think my brain was making some form of association with Beatrix Potter, who I was never into as a kid. When I took the job, I read the books so I'd understand why every kid in the school was ravenously devouring them, thereby endowing J.K. Rowling with the honor of single-handedly raising the literacy rate in much the same way Roald Dahl once did. I read the first one in a day and half. The rest were raced through in much the same way.
Being a fan of the books, I was worried the movies might not live up to their hype. I wasn't disappointed by 2001's "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," but was concerned that the 2nd film might suffer the same fate as many sequels in franchise films. I was glad to have my concerns put to rest when "Chamber of Secrets" was released last November.
In one word, I would describe the Harry Potter films as 'enchanting,' and not simply because of the magical context. It's because they are created with wide-eyed wonder for people who are growing up, or who never did. The witch-burners of the 21st century nay-say the magic of these films, but what do Bernie Bott's Every Flavor Beans have to the devil, pray tell? This is a world any child, and many adults would love to live in. If for no other reason than to sample a vomit-flavored jellybean.
"Chamber of Secrets" takes this enchantment to a Grimm's Brothers level, bringing more shadows to the world of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Any scholar of children's literature will tell you that the best children's stories are not only whimsical and playful, but are also scary. This is why the Care Bears will never be anything more than a pastel marketing scheme of the 1980's, while "Where the Wild Things Are" is a classic. Kids like creepy things. I think it's an important phase of childhood to have the living daylights scared out of you, and survive it. The children I've met whose parents sheltered them from visions such as the Basilisk of "Chamber of Secrets" grow up as tentative, retreating individuals. Stories are the way we first experience the great things in life.
This is the beauty of the Harry Potter series; as children, we may have suspected that one of our teachers was out to kill us, or that monsters lurked in the furnace room. In Harry Potter, those things are not mere suspicions, but truths. I love Dumbledore likely all the more because I once had a benevolent principal who was grey haired and smoked a pipe. His office smelled like Borkum Riff, and it was not a terrible place to be sent, even when you were in trouble.
I digress. This was supposed to be a movie review.
Chamber of Secrets surpasses it's predecessor in almost all areas; the special effects are cleaner and easier on the eyes. The Quidditch match of the first film was more a series of blurs than the one we are treated to in Chamber. The young actors have all matured, not only in the octave dropping voices of Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint, but in the way they handle their scenes. New characters further expand the world we were introduced to in "Philosopher's Stone." Dobby the House-Elf is second only to Gollum as a fully realized CGI character, and Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy is more frightening than the spiders of the Forbidden Forest.
The casting of the Harry Potter films is flawless, the shining point of the second film being Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart. My wife asks me to skip scenes he's in when we're watching the DVD, which is a testament that Branagh was on the money for overall smarminess.
I cannot recommend these films enough, and to those of you who disagree...well, I guess you have no interest in flying cars, Whomping Willows, Owls that deliver mail or what amounts to Rugby played on broomsticks. You likely enjoy only films that are "realistic." I get enough realism 24-7, and find Hogwarts a great place to retreat to. As for you realism buffs, I suggest you try a vomit flavored jelly bean.
|