Slashdot Mirror
Review: Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets
Most of the cast is back again for the sophomore film. If you liked them before, you'll like them again, even if the boys voices have started changing and everyone is a little taller than they were last november.
The most substantial new character this time around is Gilderoy Lockhart played over the top and on the money by Kenneth Branagh. Alan Rickman's Severus Snape is practically a bit part here, but Richard Harris's Dumbledore gets a lot of scenes.
The general plot is as follows: Harry Returns to Hogwarts for his second year of wizarding school. He keeps getting signals and warnings that there will be trouble, but he ignores them and goes right on in anyway (Wouldn't you if you had his home life?). Anyway, at school students keep turning up petrified and the legend of the Chamber of Secrets revealed. Beyond that there's a little quidditch, rivalry with the other houses, and a mystery needing solving.
Generic, yes. But it's solidly produced and entertaining. Course I'm right in line for next year because I think the next 2 books are superior to the first 2.
As for the FX, I think they're a bit better than last time around. Especially during the Quidditch matches. The first films game sequences looked bad. Everything looked CG. This time around things are much more convincing. They also tackled Dobby the house elf and did him as a full CG character. The rendering on Dobby is just beautiful. Any still shot from his scenes would convince you that they just filmed a house elf right on set. And the fabric moves really well. Unfortunately the motion is all off. His weight feels wrong. His interaction with the set seems like he's a muppet. Hopefully they can nail him down before Goblet of Fire when there are many house elf scenes.
Anyway, I think this film is weaker than the first one, but I think that mostly this is because the book really doesn't add as much to the larger story. It's a solid movie and it stands well on its own feet, but knowing the bigger things yet to come gets me drooling for the next one. I'm hoping that handing the series off to someone besides Chris Columbus will give it a shot in the arm.
Harry found an old envelope, and inside it reads
FIRST POST!
I feel much better being a fan of JRR Tolkien.
Personally I thought the movie had a weak plot. The book was ok but the movie just wasnt up to it.
I'm not embarassed to admit that I'm 26 years old and a fan of Harry Potter.
That makes one of us.
He doesn't die when fighting voldermort!
Hmpf....CmdrTaco, don't be silly. The film is based on a bestseller book!
Good review though.
Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
ILM did the FX on this one. They broke the deal with the FX firm that did the first Harry Potter Movie.
Job well done ILM.
This one isn't as strong as the first movie. =( It was still good fun and better than most of the other movies out now.
Me sah Dobby, sah...
Wow, the resemblence was quite unsettling.
but if you haven't read the book, why do you care about the movie?
Because most people don't read.
Actually most people CAN'T read. Look anywhere for literacy stats, it is disgusting.
Some stats show that
High school graduates tend to have public school reading levels. Adults out of school are even worse.
I think this article does a great job of explaining why Harry Potter is a fraud.
Not to put too fine a point on it--the first movie was fun (and reminded me of my Oxford days, with good reason), but I was always uncomfortable with the messiah-like qualities given potter in the film. The article does a great job of expounding on them.
I almost fell asleep
I've never read the book, so maybe someone who has could explain this..
Why where the spiders always leaving in a row just after each attack. Why where they there in the first place?
Did I miss something?
So everyone has to read the books movies are based on? Dumbass. More like why go see the movie if you've already read the book.
Let me start by saying I think that Chamber of Secrets is probably the weakest of the 4 released Harry Potter books. [..]But besides revelations about Harry's connection to Voldemort, I just think the other books are stronger.
My thoughts exactly. Many people (including Chris Columbus) find it the best book though. Funny that.
Most of the cast is back again for the sophomore film. [..] even if the boys voices have started changing and everyone is a little taller than they were last november.
Yeah, it's not like that actually happens in real life...:P
[..]
As for the FX, I think they're a bit better than last time around. Especially during the Quidditch matches.
Thank god, that was my biggest regret about the first film.
[..] And the fabric moves really well. Unfortunately the motion is all off.
It moves but the motion if off? That's probably worse.
[..]I'm hoping that handing the series off to someone besides Chris Columbus will give it a shot in the arm.
Yeah, maybe Peter Jackson....he shure goes a long way to get something right. I think that's what's needed.
Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
Let's keep these comments as deep as: -the movie is quite entertaining -the CG was well-integrated with the live-action -it leaves a nice feeling in you when you leave Claiming that the movie is a fraud because the main character isn't as bad-ass as the movie makes him out to be is pointless really. Now, if you had claimed that the *author* was a fraud (albeit talented one) for stealing the character "Larry Potter" from a friend of hers (admittantly, she did create the whole storyline and only ripped the names) then your post might have some value.
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
I'm in my late forties and I love the Harry Potter series. But then I'm a pagan too, and when I see the "religious right" getting hugely bent out of shape over "Heathen Harry" I can actually see the world get just a little bit back into alignment again. Best of all I love the term "muggle." It describes my religious opponents so well! Some day I'm going to meet Jery Fallwell or Pat Robertson and I'll put on my Hagris accent and say, "And I suppose a great muggle like you is going to...."
--- WWSD? What Would Strider Do?
That book three was the best book.
I'm 47 and I am a Potter fan.
I'm kind of amazed at what a huge hero Harry is turning into. I mean, he's twelve and he's killed a Basalisk - Conan the Barbarian hasn't killed a Basalisk....
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Great comment. No, really. You bring great meaning to the term "Anonymous Coward."
My advice to you...is to start drinking heavily. - Bluto
... don't like Harry Potter.
I watched it on Friday, and (having never read the books) was surprised at how dark and spooky the film was. I'll have to investigate the books, but if the film is representative I would not let young children have much to do with Harry Potter.
Come on, I'd hardly call writing on the walls with blood, petrification, giant man-eating spiders, plants which kill with their screams, trees which try to whack people to death who come too close and the prejudice of some characters towards those not of "pure" blood Seasame Street material.
Of course, the fundamentalists are a bit over the top in their reaction to the Harry Potter phenonemon but they do have a point.
You know why I like LotR more than Harry Potter? The Harry Potter books are elitist. You're worthless unless you have innate magical ability - just look at how people without these abilities are ridiculed time and time again. LotR is about how even the most normal, average people can make a difference
J.K. Rowling strikes me as the worst sort of snob - someone who's suffered through what many other unfortunate people have experienced, but learned nothing except contempt for those who have not managed to escape their situation.
I really enjoyed 'The Chamber of Secrets.'
:) But I won't give away any more than that.
I had two big problems with the first Harry Potter movie. Firstly, there was no plot; it was all backstory and setup and wide-eyed kids being led on a field trip through Fantasyland, and then at the very end, Chris Columbus says 'oh yeah, there's a bad guy too' and provides a meager showdown. There wasn't nearly enough tension through the first movie to drive the plot. Secondly, in the first movie (and the first book, too) Harry doesn't really do anything, he just gets towed through the events by the plot and by the people around him. He doesn't really make any difficult decisions which define his character.
But the second movie hits the ground running. All the messy exposition is out of the way; the characters are already established, so Columbus can start doing things with them right away. And there are plenty of times when the secondary characters leave the limelight for a little while, giving Harry the chance to show what he's made of.
The computer graphics are really well done. The flying car is terrific. Dobby is rendered well. The only thing they've still got to work on is movement: Dobby shouldn't bob and weave like a Don Bluth character every time the camera's on him, and birds have short quick motions, not smooth fluid motions.
There's one scene with Dobby where he looks like he's trying really hard to be Episode II Yoda.
So this film was fun, and I hope the other four I'll be seeing in the next few weeks (Treasure Planet, Die Another Day, LotR: The Two Towers, ST: Nemesis) are as good. This is a great movie season.
P.S.: I was surprised there was no 'In Memory of Richard Harris' dedication anywhere to be seen.
P.P.S.: Stay 'til the end of the credits for another laugh.
Actually most people CAN'T read. Look anywhere for literacy stats, it is disgusting.
Really? You must be talking about Saudi Arabia. Or "developed" parts of Africa where literacy reaches a whopping 50%.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107947.html
Because around here in the USA, functional literacy is probably as high as it is going to go... considering that some people can't be trained to tie their shoes if they don't want to.
SO... please refrain from the literacy rate argument. There are whole load of opportunities to read in the USA or most other highly industrialized nations. So for those that can't read (or refuse to sit still long enough to learn), there is either a reading disorder, or there is an issue somewhere that doesn't accurately reflect on our efforts. Don' tblame the system. It isn't perfect, but many people won't read for a thousand reasons other than the reading programs.
Please tell me Natalie Portman is in this film!?
I'm still not sure if I'm going to bother spending money to see this Harry Potter film.
After the first few minutes of the first movie I just felt myself wanting to go read the book instead. I know that it's hard to remain true to the original material while also bringing something new to it, but this director couldn't get any closer to the source material without a restraining order. But then some of my favorite bits were cut out for time constraints.
Also, I always felt wary after finding out that the director's previous work included Home Alone.
Ah well. The books aren't that hard to read, people. They cost less than a movie admission and have much better effects if your imagination is halfway decent.
A planet where apes evolved from men? Long live the apes.
Just my opinion, nothing more.
I concur wholeheartedly, Chris Columbus shouldn't do the remaining Harry Potter movies, after all the first two were so disappointing, right? I say we should put Joel Schumacher in charge, after all think of what a stunning job he did when he took over the Batman series from that hack, Tim Burton. A blade-wielding hockey player army, brilliant! Nothing provides more of a shot-in-the-arm than removing a director from a project as soon as he's created two of the most popular films ever made. Send in the amateurs, I say!
Damn, Taco, you're going to be in line next year, when the next movie isn't until 2004? That's loyalty, folks.
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
I think that this sums it up quite nicely.
Oh damn, the link's not working
So, they butchered the first book, and now you're looking forward to the massacre this second movie will be? Changing Tolkein is heresy. Those movies should never have been made.
wasn't the movie, but last weeks South Park episode.
(Stan, Kyle, and Cartman dressed as lords of the rings characters see 4 kids dressed as Harry Potter characters)
Kyle: Hey what are you kids doing?
Kid: We are playing Harry Potter.
Cartman: Hah! FAGS!
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
LOL!!!! Sounds like Taco is obviously a kid that hasn't grown up. :-)
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I did not read any of the books (and have no plans too, they sound stupid). Though I did watch the first movie. I thought the movie itself was stupid too. Or, maybe a better word is mediocre. In other words, it wasn't a waste of time, though I wouldn't (actively) reccomend that anyone bother seeing it.
Though, I was looking at the characters in the movie. And I mean either the character, the actor, or both.
Harry Potter himself did a horrible job. I think he can't act very well. Reminds me of the craze over Home Alone. Also a stupid movie with a horrible main actor.
Hermione is the absolute best actress is the film. She does an excellent job of playing the character (I don't meant in reference to the book, just that she was very consistent). To use the MBTI, she's an INFJ, and does an unbelieveably well job of acting it out. I'm wondering about anyone agrees with that, what they think about her in the second movie.
The red-haired kid. He does a very good job of his character too. Right down to the goofy smile. He just didn't seem to stand out to me in the movie, but that was due to the parts given him. I was wondering if they gave him more in the second movie and if he acted well.
The big guy on the flying motorcycle. Nice job too. (ISTP).
The other characters didn't seem to have enough show time for me to care about their skills.
Overall, I'd like to know because the only reason I'd care to see the second movie would be to see (Myeres-Birggs/Keirsey) character types done well.
On a side note, I find it odd that all the main "good guys" are introverts (Harry, Hermione, the red-haired kid, and the big flying motorcycle guy) while all the "bad guys" are extraverts (uncle, slick-haired kid, and the main evil guy). I wonder if Rowling herself is an introvert who had unpleasant runins with entraverts, which would explain her obsession with them.
Have you read my journal today?
Ok, then, present it
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
That's too bad about Snape. He was absolutley perfect in the first film. I loved the scene where he introduces the students to his potions class. The uncut version from the special features of the dvd is even better!
but Richard Harris's Dumbledore gets a lot of scenes.
Ahh, but good news about Dumbledore! His is probably the most interesting character in the first book, but some of his best lines got truncated.
Honestly, I don't know what the series will do without Richard Harris (he died recently). David Heyman, the producer of Harry Potter has already admitted that Harris is "irreplaceable". He's not just giving a polite eulogy either. Harris was spot on as Dumbledore. In fact his calm, reasoned, lilting interpretation added to my appreciation of the old wizard.
Richard Harris will be sorely missed.
P.S. Not to dismiss Harris's other roles in a varied and interesting career, but I don't want to stray off topic.
If electricity is produced by electrons is morality produced by morons?
The "Impatient Parents" edition would be nice. I was dragged off to see "this is the film that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends," last night, and I'm still recovering from the boredom. Two hours and forty one minutes? PLUS 20 minutes of previes and commercials at the theater? How can a parent with young children POSSIBLY expect their kids to sit still during this? The film moved along at a SNAIL'S pace, with at least half of the scenes being irrelevant to the central plotline. I understand tha there was a lot of detail that will lead up to future films, but THREE HOURS? One can't even NAP during this movie because of the screaming children in the theater, the screaming children on the screen, or the screaming voice in the back of one's head telling you to run screaming to pretect your sanity.
Trim off an hour next time, guys.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
Even the "exciting" scenes such as the spider's lair or the climactic fight with the basilisk don't have quite the right energy. We're just never convinced that Harry even cares. He certainly never shows fear--just the same wide-eyed blank stare.
The biggest problem with the movie is not just that it's a sequel, but that it doesn't give us anything new. Perhaps that's an inherent problem with the series of books it's derived from--we're limited to the same setting and the same cast of characters. But contrast it to the Star Wars series, where each time we were able to see a new world, with new characters and a completely new adventure. The only new character in this film is the idiotic fraud, Gilderoy Lockhart, played with a gaming effort by Kenneth Branagh. But even Branagh's effort falls short--he's unable to convince us why anyone would have ever fallen for his schtick. Also unanswered is why such an incompetent fool would have been hired at Hogwarts at all.
The special effects were all very competently done, but there was nothing truly "special" about them. I agree with CmdrTaco's analysis of the handling of Dobby--he looks good until he starts to move. Unlike Jar-Jar, however, at least he is necessary to advance the plot of the film. The basilisk was big and scary, and the spiders were icky, but nothing made me gasp in amazement--there was no new rush like I felt with the battle on the ice planet in Empire, or even like the first time Harry used the invisibility cloak in Harry Potter I.
Apparently, I'm also one of the few people who don't fawn over the books themselves [I find Rowling's writing style overly bland and preachy. She certainly doesn't have the command of the language that Tolkein does {and I'm not a Tolkein fan either}], so maybe there's something in the film for fans. Judging from the rest of my family's take on the film [my wife and kids are all big fans], perhaps not. We all agreed that this movie was a big step down from the first film.
ScienceSeeker.org
I like the books, but I saw the first movie, didn't really like it. I stick to the books..
The movie was fairly faithful to the book but there were some ommisions that disappointed me. For one in the book, Nearly Headless Nick had a bigger role and takes Harry to his Death Day party(anniversery of his death) which would have been an awesome scene in the movie but was unfortunately left out. Herminne must not of had enough lines so they let her explain Mudblood instead of Weasley. I was also a little disappointed with Moaning Mertile who sounded like a 3 year old. But all in all it was a solid movie.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
This is even more scary stuff than Harry Potter. Check out.
Because I can't read but I love watching movies.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
I find it very amusing the way Hollywood tries to sneak around Rowling's very tight control of the characters. Neither Harry nor Ron (or any of the staff) are particularly good-looking, and so they're cast as such. But for any character where there's room to maneuver -- the quidditch captain Oliver Wood in the first film, and Tom Riddle in this one -- the actors cast are really good-looking. And to judge by the number of fan sites for these actors (Sean Biggerstaff and Christian Coulson, respectively) this sneaky approach to hooking in the adolescent female market is paying off.
Not that I'm complaining, of course. Coulson is well worth the £4.50 admission.
It would have been better at 1:40 not 2:40.
Also, you should stay through the credits for a fun little scene at the end.
The theaters or at least AMC are selling those every flavor jelly beans. They are horrible things and are every flavor, and taste just as they claim. Caution: the vomit with make you wanna puke.
From last nights SNL "Warner Brothers reported tuesday that an illegal copy of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was leaked on line before the movie premiers this weekend. In worse news, it seems a manuscript of the book has been available for the past 4 years."
I do have to agree with the reviewer. This movie/book is probably the weakest of the whole series. The movie to really look forward to is The Prisoner of Azkaban, book 3. It is my favorite book of the series so far and I think it starts to get to a nice level of darkness in the story. Additionally, Book 4 picks up on this darker aspect well, if not a slightly sillier story.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Columbus has already bowed out. Alfonso Cuaron has signed on to direct the third adaptation: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Filming will begin sometime in the spring so you won't see this on the screen until sometime in 2004 (Relief or disappointment? You decide.)
It's been rumoured that Christopher Lee will step into the late Richard Harris's shoes as Dumbledore in the third film, although he has emphatically denied this. I'd prefer Ian McKellan myself.
ancarett, historian and zombie gamer
The scene changes are schizophrenic. Aside from a single one-minute laugh scene for each class, there's no indication that Harry Potter is at a school whatosever! For the remainder of the movie he might as well have been in a boarding house. Furthermore, the time changes are handled very ineptly, as in where it's halloween and then pretty much suddenly changes to christmas. Surely the kid's been doing something in the mean time? A little bit of exposition showing that he and Ron have been poring over books or doing their studies would be appropriate, yet why wasn't it done?
The whole movie feels like that in order to cram the high points of the plot into the movie they made a few too many excisions--and tried to squeeze the remaining story elements into time segments too small and disparate. Another great example is quidditch. In the book Harry Potter has to practice quidditch--and House Griffindor also plays a lot more games than just one against Slytherin. This would have been great to see on film, yet no extra sequences were shown ... and more damningly not even any mentions of Harry's grueling practice sessions or the other games whatsoever!
And I'm not normally hard of hearing, mind, but am I the only one who's having trouble hearing Dumbledore?
I hope the second movie addresses my complaints with the first. I'm going to wait for the DVD.
Damn, talk about screwing that one up.
From last nights SNL "Warner Brothers reported tuesday that an illegal copy of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was leaked on line before the movie premiers this weekend. In worse news, it seems a manuscript of the movie has been available for the past 4 years."
I do have to agree with the reviewer. This movie/book is probably the weakest of the whole series. The movie to really look forward to is The Prisoner of Azkaban, book 3. It is my favorite book of the series so far and I think it starts to get to a nice level of darkness in the story. Additionally, Book 4 picks up on this darker aspect well, if not a slightly sillier story.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
but if you haven't read the book, why do you care about the movie?
:-) was better than the first. :-)
I just wanted to get a clue : why was ti so overhyped and so on.
Actually I love the ambiences, the story is quite entertaining and I think the 2nd one (I saw it in switzerland yesterday night : we were around midnight, 300 adults in a movie theater
I for sure will go and watch the following when it's out
But I still don't want to read the book...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I'm sorry, but I feel that I must express my indignation at the technical inaccuracies in the film:
Anyone with half a brain knows that a Basilisk is a lizard, not a snake
Assuming that a Basilisk was a snake, blinding it would not affect it nearly as much as they show in the film, snakes can sense body heat
If Mrs. Norris did only see the basilisk's reflection in the water, then why was she affected at all, as anyone with even a basic grasp of biology should know that cats have mirrored eyes in order for them to see in the dark, so she wouldn't have been looking it directly in the eye anyway
I'm sure that there are more of them, but I wasn't paying that much attention
Also, why Mrs. Norris? Is she married?
The first movie was riddled with errors.
Here are the mistakes that fans have picked out for Harry Potter II courtesey of Movie Mistakes:
When Harry and Ron are sitting in the hall doing work and Hermione comes up to them she swings her leg over and it is bare. Then 2 seconds later as she is sitting down she is wearing tights.
When Harry Potter and Tom Riddle are talking inside the Chamber of Secrets, notice the bridge of Harry's nose. There is a small piece of duck tape under the bridge of the glasses to hold them in place.
When Ron and Harry are escaping from the spiders in the flying car the passenger's side window that broke earlier hitting the willow tree is not broken, you can see Ron's reflection. A minute later you see that the window is broken again.
During the final moments in the Chamber, Harry overcomes Tom Riddle (Voldemort) when putting the Basilisk tooth through the diary. If you watch carefully, you will notice that Harry is keeping his right arm idle, as it has also been posioned by the tooth. He keeps striking the diary and finally closes it for one final attack on the cover. Right before he closes it, you see his left hand still poised in the air with the tooth, but as they cut to the closing of the book right away, they show Harry's left hand closing the book with no sign of the tooth. Now they cut back to Harry's face and his left arm is still up holding the tooth.
At the beginning of the scene near the end of the movie with Lucius Malfoy fuming at Dubledore in his office, Malfoy's hair is fanned back behind his shoulders. The lighting in the room illuminates the back of his neck, where you can see his real, short brown hair.
When Harry first meets Dobby, Dobby is bouncing on the bed. There is a bulletin board of some kind with a Gryffindor flag thing on it. A couple of minutes later, the flaggy thing is still there, but the board itself is gone.
In the second to last scene when Dumbledore is talking to Harry and Ron, Ron's hair is a bit roughed and has a big cowlick. In the next shot, the cowlick is gone and both Ron and Harry's hair is neat.
In the scene where Harry has the bones in his arm regrown, we see him move his hand just before he sees Dobby, although he later claims that his arm has not healed yet. He also never shows any pain in this scene, while Madame Pomfrey told him the regrowing process would be painful.
In the scene when Harry, Ron, and Hermoine find Mrs. Norris petrified, the rest of the school comes rushing to them. How does the rest of the school find out about the attack? They couldn't of heard the Bastilik because they don't speak parsel-tongue. Harry, Ron, and Hermoine were also the first ones to discover the attack.
When Harry goes through the second door to get into the heart of the Chamber where he sees Ginny, the door closes slowly behind him. Then somehow Fawkes manages to fly though a solid two foot thick wall with the hat, how does he do this?
When the girl's restroom is flooding, Harry and Ron are going there and in the hallway, the water is about an inch high. In the bathroom, there are drains and the water hardly comes up to 1/4 inch. This is easy to see when Harry picks up Riddle's diary.
When Ron and the Weasley twins come to pick up Harry from the Dursleys in the flying car, they fly over hundreds of houses. How is it then that we and Harry can hear the car when it is quite a distance away, but the people who live in the houses that the car flies over can't? The car isn't even invisible at the time.
When Harry first meets Dobby, Dobby is moving all about, yet Harry is just focused on one spot.
When Harry is looking at the journal, a bright light appears right in his face and eyes, yet his pupils don't shrink.
When Hermoine takes the Polyjuice Potion, she takes on characteristics of a cat. Note that she took it before Harry did, yet Harry's wore off first. The Polyjuice Potion lasts for 1 hour no matter what you take the form of.
After the basilisk is killed, and Harry talks to Dumbledore, the sword used is lying on the desk, covered in blood. Harry picks it up, and it's clean and shiny. Later, when it's back onthe desk, it's all messy again.
The basilisk shown in the movie must be at least sixty feet long and 5-10 feet across. It would NOT be able to fit through pipes of any kind.
When Lockhart falls down the hole into the Chamber of Secrets, we hear him hit the ground a second or two later. When Ron and Harry jump down, not only do they take longer to get down, they also slide down the pipe, rather than fall straight down.
In the Quidditch scene, Harry breaks his right arm, but as he sits up after he falls off his broom, he leans directly on it.
In the first film, we see that Susan Bones (the red haired girl) is sorted into Hufflepuff, however throughtout the Chamber of Secrets, Susan not only has her classes with the Griffyndors BUT is also wearing a Griffyndor tie
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
Serious response ... because I enjoy a good fantasy movie like anyone else but I have a huge backlog of books to read (I just consumed the Ender's quad in about 2 months of spare time reading) and I just don't see myself putting these books into the list.
The first movie by most accounts was pretty spot-on, so watching the movie in 2 hours saved me at least 2 hours for reading something else.
Plus, most of the books I do want to read will not be made into movies, and those that are maybe 5% will be good adaptations. If this series is getting those 5% adaptations, then it's that much more of a joy to watch.
I bought my wife the first 4 books in hardback for the holidays last year and while she loved the gift (and it was what she asked for), she hasn't had time to read them, either (though she reads less than I do).
I certainly don't see myself sitting at the airport with a large hardbound of Chamber of Secrets (and I'm not going to buy -2- copies of the book) ... I get enough ridicule for going to see the movie at the theater when I waited to see Episode 1 (which was a far worse movie) on DVD :)
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Side Note here: My favorite part of this movie?? Simple the Star Trek and LOTR previews, it's going to be a nice winter with some movies that deal with deep plot and character developement, but wait would that be because the age span for those movies starts at 13 not stops!!??
Back on to the Potter Flick. Basically you get some key values expressed here that adults don't understand. One acceptance of others even if they don't have as much money or if they aren't 'pure bloods'. Two, run away from home if your gaurdians are jerks. and Three, shoot first ask questions later.
I was a bit dissapointed to see 'Eight Legged Freaks' AGAIN. And lets face it the book/movie started to get into death even more so, with a young girl dying. And of course the whole snake thing. So if anything this is going to do wonders for the nightmare department.
Personally I'd stick with a matinee showing of this movie if you plan on taking children. And definantelly wouldn't hurt to talk with your kids afterwards to reassure that this is just a movie. And definantelly be prepared for a bathroom break, this thing is more than 2 hours long.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
when it comes to "elitism". OK, a few lowly hobbits gets to save the world; but have you looked at the human society? Humans are divided in different branchs of different purity, valiour ect. Not only is the inate superiority of Aragorn and his kind taken for granted all along, but I clearly remember at least one passage where Aragorn explicitly states that the humans groups can be divided in three... barbarians (the Southerners for exemple), more noble humans but still figthing for fighting's sake (such as the Rohans), and the true nobles races like his, who only fight to defend freedom ect. Worse, take the whole royality thing... In Tolkien's world, the Intendants of Gondor do not become, ever. Only the "true heir" whose ancestors left the kingdom ages ago is fit to do that. OTOH, in HP there is a very clear difference between having inate magical powers and being good, and it is perfectly possible to become a great wizard while coming from a muggle family. True, either you are gifted or you arent... but that's true of life as well in many domains. HP would only be "elitist" if it implied that being a muggle, or having muggle parents, is bad in itself. Not only is that never said, but the problem of racism is tackled head on, and is a central part of some of the books. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the LoTR. But some aspects of it are clearly elitist. And no, HP is not elitist, rather the contrary. Just my 0.02
What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
Wow, nice troll. And it's scoring 5, Insightful.
You do have a (weak) point, though, about Tolkien's characterization (although, *cough* I find it laughable that you'd suggest that Rowling does anything other than caricatures). I would argue that the richness of Tolkien's world is not in the characters but in their vast history, which is only barely hinted at in LOTR. Not to mention, Tolkien's work is fundamentally preoccupied with heavy theological issues, like good and evil, whereas the charactizations are of secondary importance.
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
He played the part well and say what you like about Rickman's Severus Snape being a bit part, the part of Mr. Nasty is played well enough by (David Bradley) Argus Filch and (Jason Isaacs) Lucius Malfoy, meanwhile Professor Flitwick looks like a bad rubber toy.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Well, who else here has not read a single Harry Potter book?
Hey CmdrTaco made google news! This appeared on Google News' front page:
/. article
----
Review: Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets
Slashdot - 55 minutes ago
----
And even that, they quoted text from you rather than the New York Times and the Toronto Star, which were just links under the glorious
I saw the movie premier night in a theater full of excited, costume adorned adults (and a few screaming kids I wanted to smack). Being a big fan of the books, I thought this time around that the movie adaptation of the book was inferior to the last movies adaptation. It seemed as though the whole first hour just sort of happened...all the events felt very unconnected to one another, and there could have been a much better flow between events. Also, unlike the first one, they changed the dialogue unneccessarily when the book's dialogue would have acctually been better (and stayed within time contraints). Moreover, I think it was poorly edited and could be vastly improved with a directors cut edition.
Either way, it would seem that they are very uncomfortable with the idea of making the movies last much over 2 hours, which will only be to their disadvantage come the 3rd and 4th movies.
-- From my Best Friend (Written to me over ICQ): "i was gonna go to a party...but i had to reinstall windows"
...but if you haven't read the book, why do you care about the movie?
If I can enjoy the gist of a good author's book in two or three hours, great!
What geek has time to read more than the latest door-stop-sized tech. book and, uh... Slashdot?
Anyway: if you liked the first movie, you'll like the second. If you didn't like the first movie at all, you'll feel the same about the second -- it's not qualitatively different.
The movie was actually fairly scary, and the action scenes were done quite well. If I was taking small children I would be a bit concerned. Considering that the third and fourth books were both darker and considerably more scary than the first two books, I'll be interested to see where the movies go. And if the Chamber of Secrets goes 2:40, is the Goblet of Fire going to be a six hour long epic? There will have to be more adaptation for the later books, and the director and script writer are going to have to put their own voices into those movies.
And if you haven't read the books, just read them before you see the movies. The books are easy and enjoyable reads, and there's so many copies about you should be able to borrow one easily.
The close-ups of the phoenix made it look like a prop from a 60's monster movie. Very disappointing considering ILM was involved.
Anyway, I think this film is weaker than the first one, but I think that mostly this is because the book really doesn't add as much to the larger story.
In this interview J K Rowling states that "Key things happen in book two. No one knows how important those things are... yet. There's a lot in there. And I know how difficult it was to get it all in there without drawing too much attention to the clues."
And let me be probably one of the few people that disliked it.
The personalities of the characters were different (Hermione isn't cool under pressure in the books, for instance; Dumbledore isn't just a nice grandfather type - he's actually quite amusing, making his character carry more weight when he occasionally DOES get serious), the quiddich match was ALL wrong (quiddich and flying are about freedom to Harry - do you ever get that feeling from the movie? Not really) and the sorting het didn't even sing. There's more than that, but I could come up with a list of things that I think fundamentally flaw the movie that's literally pages long. As my girlfriend said, it was like someone did a quick book report, and made it a movie.
I'm pretty amenable to Book-to-Movie conversions, but the movie was a pale shadow of the book. I LOVED LotR. I even liked Johnny Mnemonic. I'll probably never rent Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone again, let alone buy it, which is dissapointing to me.
I'll see the second one, but I've got the same expectations of it. I hope I'm wrong.
Stephen Notley (Bob the Angry Flower cartoonist) seems to think similarily to me, though. You can read his review of the second movie here.
You think too hard about simple entertainment.
Its just a story, a movie. Stop trying to look for deeper meanings. Only people who still live with their parents do that.
Kids, don't try driving your flying car at home.
You're just repressed
Normal kids don't have a problem with this stuff. You're reading your own fears and prejudices into someone else.
You're one step away from censorship "for the children".
Sickening.
Pitiful.
"Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. They tell children that dragons can be beaten"
Test your net with Netalyzr
DUCK DUCK DUCK DUCK!!!
I think they did a really good job with the car. When it was on the ground. When in the air, inertia seems not to apply. It should look more like it is driving on an (invisible) icy road in the sky.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
The movie studio was surprised the new Harry Potter movie showed up on the Internet only 2 days before the premiere because there had been a book about it available for 4 years.
My vote goes to Tim Burton. the books get increasingly dark as the series progresses... and if anyone can make a dark, bleak movie, it's Burton!
sure, it might be a little scary for the kids, but - j k rowling is always warning them that this is not a kids series. people die, their children are tormented by nightmares of their screams... this is not a cheerful series!
so - anyone who's read the third book - imagine how burton would show harry's dementor-driven hallucinations of his parents pleading with voldemort for their lives, begging him to leave the boy. i think it would be appropriately chilling.
The replies to the parent post seem to run mostly in the vein of "it's a fantasy flick, get over it". Given that the parent poster did say that the movie was fun and that misgivings about the movie were on the level of discomfort, I find most of the reply posts to be oddly over-reactive. If the parent had said that nobody should feel good about this movie, or that he was unable to enjoy fantasy movies anymore, then THAT might have warranted a "get over it" reponse.
:)
Suppose a child came up to you and confessed to feelings of inadequacy because of how dissimilar Harry P's life was to the child's. Some kids would be talking about the fact that they couldn't fly and turn invisible, and those kids would benefit from a talk about reality vs fantasy. But other kids would be talking about their inability to relate to the mindset and achievements of Harry... questions like: how does Harry know what to do all the time, or how can I be more popular like Harry? In these circumstances it would not be beneficial to lecture on the distinction between brooms and gravity. What's called for is an articulation of motivation, achievement, and what measures of worth should be applied to a person. Maybe the referred-to article went further than a broom-vs-gravity person would like, but to dismiss it altogether is to miss a real (like it or not) psychological dimension of the movie that has the potential to shape young minds. And if people at our age can't discuss it, even with a nod to having enjoyed the movie, then we're setting ourselves up to be empty handed when someone comes to us for advice.
Now I can't enjoy fantasy movies ever again.
.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
People who aren't fundamentalists really ought to check the series out--the writing is consistently excellent, the worlds well-imagined, the plot compelling. One might say that as the Potter books were written for kids, but are very enjoyable for adults, Pullman's books were written with an adult reader in mind, but are still very enjoyable for younger readers. The background of the series is more richly imagined than HP, and ethical problems are far more prominent and complex than in Harry's world.
And I haven't even mentioned the armored bears...
Anyone who made a claim like that must not have kept up with the news. The 'friend' made up the claim to try to cash in on JK's success. Go read the court transcripts, they're very informative.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Price of movie: Popcorn: $1.50
Expression on parents faces after the two-legged horse dies from an arrow with its eye hanging out and the elf maid "up front and in close": Priceless! (And the kids loved it.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I haven't read the book, but I went to see the movie the night it came out (I was interested in the spectacle of people dressing up, and was sadly disappointed that there weren't more people in costume) and what surprised me the most was the way that this one played with european folklore in a way that the first one did not. For one thing, Chamber of Secrets followed the structure of a fairy tale in a way that I didn't see in the first movie. It had the hero/object-saught axis and the helper/villain axis pretty clearly defined, which is not something that you see in a film very often, even a film that does pay homage to the fairy tale. Also, Dobby and the manner in which he can be freed comes straight out of a European legend involving a household spirit who is presented with a set of clothes in appreciation for all his work, and then takes the set of clothes and leaves. Historically, clothes were often the payment at the end of a servant's term of service, so it was interesting to see that reflected in the movie. I had a whole list of other explicit references to folklore, but now I forget. Anyway, for me (as a folklorist I suppose), that was the most interesting part of the movie.
By the way, this movie got me excited to read the books (and for the next movie) in a way that the first did not.
Adam
Chris Columbus says he wishes he could have included the Deathday scene in the film version of Chamber Of Secrets.
"It was one of my favourite scenes in the book. But we just felt we would push it in terms of structure".
I'm not going to quote the whole thing. Getting votes by proxy is just kind of embarrassing, and I won't want to be a copyright terrorist.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
As for the effects, the Quidditch chase scene was overlong, I thought, too much time spent racing between the girders. The phoenix was terrible, the small spiders leaving the castle looked like they were made out of plastic, and, worst of all, Dobby (a great character in the book) just didn't seem right.
Fun, but not fabulous.
The extended DVD of LotR, on the other hand, is great.
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
Actually, Wal-Mart sells the "Duck Brand" ducT tape. Which means that 90% of consumers now believe it's actually supposed to be called "DucK Tape", just like all tissue is Kleenex and all carbonated tooth rot serum is Coke.
Just another of the many reasons to protest Wal-Mart, if you're so inclined.
What does this have to do with Harry Potter? Oops. Better not use my +1 this time around.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Was I the only person who thought that the scene with Malfoy in the Quidditch match was like the Death Star trench scene in Star Wars?
I kept on expecting Dobby's voice to break in, saying "Harry Potter must use the Force, sir!"
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
This AC said just what I was going to say.
His family is ridiculed, but not because they are Muggles, it's because of the way they behave - they themselves ridiclue "freaks" and those they don't understand, and are portrayed like the buffoons they are. If they were kind, Harry wouldn't have a problem with them.
The characters in the books who hate "ordinary people" are the villains. It shouldn't take much to see that!
There will probably be spoilers, but if you haven't read the book, why do you care about the movie?
Son, are you on drugs? Most blockbusters have an audience of millions, and they're often based on books that have sold in the thousands, or even hundreds. People can care about movies without having read the books. This is trivially true.
*Cough*Idiot*Cough*
It's Mandrake Root that kills with it's scream, not Nightshade.
Minor error, but your point is still valid. Children's stories ARE violent, and have terrifying things in them. You can't just have a story about generic "flat" villians all the time and have it become popular. Sometimes things go bad, and having such things in children's books is not necessarily a bad thing. Show children that evil DOES exist, but that it can be conquered by ordinary people. I would say that is the real message of the Harry Potter books/movies.
Erioll
I have not read the books.
Perhaps that helps with understanding a few things.
What do the spiders have to do with the movie?
I felt that is the whole sequence with the spiders had been removed, there would have been
no change to the story. They were just there for the SFX.
What was up with the car? It was never cleared up. No motive, etc.
How about the water? Why does it keep showing up?
There is no real correlation made. My best guess is the ghost in the bathroom. It is never connected to that though except in one scene where it is actually in the bathroom. The other scenes don't appear to be anywhere near the bathroom.
The attacks seem a bit contrived. Contrived in the lethality. Wouldn't you expect more from something like that thing? Why are they not finished off?
Since I have not read the books, it appears that a lot of things were not connected in the movie. I had the feeling a lot of things were just thrown in to fill out the story's length without adding any good connective tissue.
Mee'sa Dobby? I guess he will be explained in the sequel, which I will probably need to see to resolve a few loose ends.
DOn't get me wrong. I did like the movie. Just...
Once we left and looked at the clock, I realized that is was a really long and disjointed movie.
My favorite part? The whomping willow.
- Stacey
You cared much for Dune, if you thought HP has Messiah-like qualities...
<p>Beyond that the story has several classical elements and Rowling is a *big* fan of <i>Deus ex Machina</i>.</p>
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
There will probably be spoilers, but if you haven't read the book, why do you care about the movie?
Simple, I don't feel like reading the book.
If Harry Potter falls under that heading then so do Grimm's Fairy Tales, Anderson's Fairy Tales, the Tales of a Thousand Nights and One Night, and a fair chunk of the Bible (both testaments).
But then, I don't exactly expect to convince your kind using logic.
I'm just way too tired to think coherently enough to rationalize out why I shouldn't be telling you this.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
no, the polyjuice potion lasts 1 hour no matter WHOs form you take. it was mentioned in the movie (and in the book) that the polyjuice potion was designed so that you can take the form of another human ONLY, not an animal or plant or whatever.
Hermione suffered some side effects because she used cat hair (w/c she she thought was human hair).
It always bothers me when a movie gets a review that it is not true to life, or the actors would not feel that way in real life, etc.
When watching a movie, my main purpose is to be entertained. If I want to learn something about life, I will go to real people, not some fabricated actors in a scripted universe.
Not to say that movies can't be educating about social and other issues, but I think their best tool is entertainment.
With that goal in mind, HP2 did a great job.
"Sed Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?" -Juvenal
The close-ups of the phoenix made it look like a prop from a 60's monster movie.
A Phoenix? In a monster movie with a name like "Mozilla"?
This sounds familiar...
Will I retire or break 10K?
here: http://www.zilch321.org/article.php?story=20021115 090551692
unfortunatly, people seem to explain away what I said, by "its a kids fantasy movie!" Thats not really an excuse, thatbecause it is for children there is no reason not ignore pacing elements of a movie!
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
*raises hand*
I just wanted to read the comments to see how many people called Taco a pussy....
In all events, it's nice that HP has little kids and certain 20-somethings reading books!
;-), "Lord" Valdemort the pretender. It is symbolic that chess was so central to the first movie.
Yeah, Star Wars tends towards monarchistic themes ("Princess Leia" isn't just because she's prissy) with a vague nod toward representative democracy in the vile (IMHO) prequels. But then monarchies are the stuff of romantic legend, and Star Wars is very romantic. Luke is the lost knight, etc.
Star Trek always *acted* like it was a meritocracy (kind of like America) but I had to wonder. Rarely did we get to see a washout, and while we were assured everyone was the best of the best they didn't seem to work at it very much -- too many adventures to take. Yet they were always innovating things in the field that "had never been done before" even by the weenies back at the labs.
Also, did you ever notice how everybody in the power circles knew each other, even though they were flung across the galaxy? It seemed very buddy-buddy. Don't tell me there wasn't an elitist component, and that Starfleet ran in families without the effects of influence.
Well, uh, back to Harry Potter -- what happened to all the wizard-wannabes "not good enough" for Hogwarts or its sister schools? Do you really want a bunch of magic school dropouts hanging out and causing trouble? Rowling should lok at this more in a later novel -- "Sorcery and its Discontents." At least in HP, unlike SW or ST, you really do see people STUDYING!
HP has monarchistic themes, too. Dumbledore seems very much like the King, McGonagal the window-dressing Queen (I think Dumbledore is gay
How does Christianity fare in these three epics? Poorly. No wonder the fundies are holding bookburnings. (Really, the religions ought to be strong enough not to worry what isn't said about them in these fables. It's just for fun.)
First it's a book written for and aimed at children and it resonates with themes that are important for children. It's incredibly creative so the milieu is as important as the characters. In that way it's much like LOTR or Dune which are also novels of Milieu.
It's the classic English boarding-school story (why on earth parents would send their children away to be raised by a peer group is a mystery to me) with magic tossed in to give Harry something to discover.
As a parent of grown children, all of whom have read the novels, I find much to like. If my kids had been of reading-to age we'd have read all of them. (One summer I read aloud the entire Lord of the Rings to them - a great hit)
I find the parent figures of Dumbledore and Minerva quite appealing - they give the kids quite a room to grow and quite a bit of compassion - providing an adult view for Harry when he has to understand the consequences of the horrendous events he has been involved with.
I liked this second film much better than the first. It didn't seem as long as its running time.
The following is based on my reading of all the books which qualifies me as well as anyone else to describe what Harry is and is not. It also is written with the assumption that the article linked is not merely a joke of some sort.
"Simple: He's a glory hog who unfairly receives credit for the accomplishments of others and who skates through school by taking advantage of his inherited wealth and his establishment connections"
As anyone who has read the books knows Harry has always been uncomfortable with his fame. He also happens to be very sympathetic to Ron's and others financial situations and hardly worships money. If there is one thing that is central to the entire series and that Harry learns is the value of friendship and how wrong excluding and judging others is. He never asked to be favored by Dumbledore, but he also happens to not have a father since his was Murdered. You'll excuse him from wanting to form a tighter relationship with the one adult figure in his life that he knows truly looks out for him.
I love how the author also sides steps the 12 years of mental abuse and terrible living quarters Harry had endured. The fact that he isn't an Arsonist or Molester is a credit to him.
Harry while being full of natural talent is NOT a showoff. He also would risk his life for another without hesitation and actually does so in the books. How are these qualities not worth emulating?
"Harry Potter is a fraud, and the cult that has risen around him is based on a lie. Potter's claim to fame, his central accomplishment in life, is surviving a curse placed on him as an infant by the evil wizard Voldemort. "
Umm, every story has to has a beginning. To harp on that one point is to ignore future meetings where he actually does do battle with Voldemort and many others standing on his own two feet not knowing if any assistance is forthcoming. That is real courage.
"But thanks to the revisionist histories of J.K. Rowling, Lily's son is remembered as the world's savior."
Why? Its Harry who goes on to save the world over and over in future books, just like any hero in a series does. Assisted or not Harry is the one who is the driving force behind seeking out and fighting new threats as they come up. Its obvious to anyone with even basic reading comprehension he'd rather hang out with his friends and play Quiddtich then fight evil. He never asked to be hero.
"Being a wizard is something innate, something you are born to, not something you can achieve. As a result, Harry lives an effortless life. "
More of the same. I don't know what books this person has been reading, but Harry's life is hardly "effortless". Any Privilage granted to Harry later in life doesn't take the place of action, and Harry's actions speak for thmeselves. What's with this person's need to find a mortal flaw with Harry? Fantasy is called Fantasy for a reason. Is he supposed to die or something? Is someone here too jaded or jealous or something?
Lastly, I just don't get adults complaining or criticizing Harry Potter. This particular book series does something that not many others have. 1) it gets kids to read, which is incredibly important. 2) it give adults a series which while aimed at children, respects the adults who will be reading it. 3) it forms common ground between adults and children which when competing with MTV and the Internet isn't so easy anymore.
I'm sorry but people who criticize Harry Potter are looking way too much into it. These are the same people who look back into classic children's works and want to find sexual innuendo.
Sorry wackos, but Harry Potter has done way too much good to be brought down by people like you.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Fantasy usually has a "chosen" element to it, since not all people can actualize that special power. This doesn't necessarily make it religious, although those who believe fantasy has religious content (fundamentalist Christians for example), tend to take fantasy as religion or a threat to their beliefs. This is why they like to burn Harry Potter books and rail against Dungeons and Dragons. It's probably also why New Zealanders pissed so many people off when they put down "Jedi" as their religion.
Star Trek absolutely denies that fantasy element, telling us that there are no miracles or magic, only undiscovered laws of science. It would be a bleak universe if they hadn't solved every social problem and social ill through their messiah, science. Lots of Star Trek plots present us fantasy as a challenge to be solved with science. The devil is really an alien with transporter powers, etc.
--gary
Even though even though I responded as if the article were a serious essay and not a joke, keep in mind there are people actually feel that way. Even more crazy are the people who condemn the witchcraft in the Harry Potter series. Talk about deranged.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Ned: And Harry Potter and all his wizard friends
went STRAIGHT to hell for practicing witchcraft!
Todd: Yay!
I couldn't have been the only person to notice that the monkey in McDougals's class was playing with itself on camera. I'm sprised that they didn't black that bit out during editing.
::Currently planning to NOT destroy all humankind::
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Gandalf could kick harry potter's candy ass clear into the next time zone...
Assuming, of course, he got the chance, and Gimli doesn't just lop the annoying little prat's head right off beforehand.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
It is exactly for this reason that you probably liked *cough* *cough* Star Wars when you were small -- Luke Skywalker is exactly the same character and plays to the same wants and desires.
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
That's not quite right. This is one of the stronger books, with an excellnet plot line (that is plausible) and lots of small details introduced that are quite important.
The WEAKEST book, not by virtue of its overall potential, but by virtue of Rwolings indiscretions, was book 4. She herself has admitted writing it too fast and fudging plotlines. Moody was being impersonated the whole year??? (nope - he was supposed to be replaced later in the book; at least that way we could enjoy knowing that cool character was really him) And, of course, there is the whole "who cam out of th e wasnd first" thing.
Yeah, well, you should be embarrassed to admit that.
Grow up.
What's wrong with duct tape on glasses? It works great! :)
Centralization breaks the internet.
And I thought it was better than the first one. It was darker and had more action and was hence much cooler IMHO. There were even a couple of times when it scared me out of my seat. (I'm 20 by the way.) I haven't read any of the books but when I got back after seeing the second movie I went and got all four on audio tape. I've already listened to the third book and I think its going to make a much better movie than this one did, and I can't wait till it comes out. The only thing that bugged me was the fact that I couldn't shake the feeling that Gilderoy Lockhart was a rip off the Great Saya Man from Dragonball Z (Videl's dad). All in all, a great film, even better than the first.
We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
The first movie was entertaining because we got to see Harry Potter and Hogwarts on the big screen. The story itself was nothing special. Harry didn't know much if any magic, they beat a troll by dumb luck, and nabbed the Sorcerrer Stone from Voldemort by Dumbledore's clever charm on the mirror. The first movie, like the first book, was designed to introduce the main characters and display some of the fantastic world of the magical. The Sorcerrer Stone was telegraphed from the moment Hagrid told Harry he probably shouldn't tell anyone at Hogwarts about the small package in the you-know-where vault.
The second movie, by contrast, was able to gloss over nearly all the character introductions and get to a storyline which was much more mysterious and suspensful (at least in the book) than anything the first movie/book could muster. Granted the location doesn't change, but it's hard for me to believe we've explored all the rooms and grounds of Hogwarts in the first movie!
While I do not think the second book or movie is as good as the stories to come, I think it has a much more interesting story than the first film. Unfortunately, due to time constraints (don't want to keep those kids immobile for more than 2h45m), there was a lot of material left out of the second movie that was in the second book. Particularly the fear and suspicion surrounding Harry after he speaks Parseltongue to the snake during the duel, and a fair amount of hilarity from Ron's broken wand that just didn't make it to the final film. While reading the second book, it almost made you doubt whether or not Harry was the heir of Slytherin, but that was not brought out in the movie much at all.
Perhaps part of the reason people think the first movie is so much better is because more of the book was able to be shown in the film. Even though parts did get cut out (like the entire Norbert story and the whole reason why it was important that Neville stood up to Harry, Ron, and Hermione), the book was shorter and more easily compressed without losing substance. I think one of the downfalls of every book after the first (getting worse as you progress) is that there is more book and more story to fit into the same amount of space.
I'm looking forward to the next movie, but I'm afraid it may get hacked up even more than this one did simply to keep the film under 3 hours long.
Cheers!
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
...but if you haven't read the book, why do you care about the movie?
You mean like Jurassic Park?
Or Dances With Wolves?
Or The Exorcist?
Or The Great Gatsby?
Or Forrest Gump?
Or The Silence of the Lambs?
Or Gone With the Wind?
Or The Shining?
Or Shogun?
I could go on here...
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
I read a few of the posts.. and I saw how stupid some of them were.. judging the Harry Potter books with the movie and stuff like that. It is not only a childrens movie. I'm 19 yet I have read the book (I don't have time to read them all) ;) and the first movie.. I will be going to see the second movie when it is released over here.. well for my sisters birthday.. but I am not TOO ashamed to go and watch it. I thought the first movie was really n33t and something new. Not all movies need ot have blood and violence (alot) in them.
On another note, I really really can't wait for LOTR The 2 towers.. I've been waiting very impatiently for the second movie since I watched the first one. This is really the best movie I've ever seen.. But this is a bit off topic ;) I just hope the second Harry Potter movie won't dissapoint me too much.
Let me preface this by saying that I did quite enjoy both the HP movies, and the books for each.
However, something that always bothered me about the HP stories is the seemingly complete lack of responsibility by any of the adults.
The most glaring was the Malfoy-Potter duel in the Chambe of Secrets. If I were a teacher, and had told two students to use magic to "disarm only" and one sent a poisonous snake after the other - no matter how well the other could talk to it - that student would be expelled and probably face criminal charges. I mean, come on, he (at least partially) tried to kill someone!
Or with the quidditch match - Harry is chased after by a modified bludger that is obviously trying to seriously hurt him, and the adults don't do a damn thing! I mean, Hermione says that she can't zap it because she might hit Harry - but certainly someone like Dumbledore could? But none of the adults do anything!
I mean, it's not sending the best message to children - it's something akin to "You're on your own, and don't rely on the adults to help you." Grrr.
(Although I was pretty upset with the "deus ex machinae" endings of the first two. Harry's going to face certain death with - right in the nick of time, the car drives up. Or the phoenix flies in with the hat. Or his mom sacrifices herself, or or or...ugh.)
Heh. After rereading that, I realize it sounds pretty bad - but I swear I did like the movies. I just had some serious reservation about them...
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
I can't wait for these to come out:
Harry Potter and the Affectionate Sailor
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Bone
Harry Potter and the Brown Accident
Harry Potter and the Small Dark Hole
Harry Potter and the Misplaced Gerbil
Yeah, I know, groan...
she wet herself 10 minutes into the movie and was hiding behind my back
Nelson: "Ha-haa.."
These books and movies were produced for KIDS! Of course the plot is gonna be a little weak. Of course adults aren't going to enjoy them as much. They were written for KIDS.
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
People love to characterize something as "meaningful" or "not meaningful".
Entertainment doesn't _need_ to be meaningful, and I'm sure neiter the author nor the people involved in the movie are at all concerned with idiotic, pointy-headed wannabe philosophers criticizing the lack of earth-shattering meaning present in the Harry Potter series.
In fact, the worst kind of chimp is the kind that sees where the mainstream goes, and veers off course just for the sake of veering off course. i.e. comments which can be paraphrased as "if you like this, you must like Britney Spears and N'Sync".
In short, your point is missing. This is entertainment, not gospel. Get a grip on reality and stop looking to children't books and Hollywood for meaning in your life.
Isn't that the whole point of why it's so succesfull amongst the over 26's. In everyones adolescent fantasy, we all want to be rich, a jock and have lots of admirers. Sure its a "Hollywood" , but so what.
P.S. I am more than 2x 26 years. so I enjoyed it twice as much.
Semper ubi sub ubi
... but if you haven't read the book, why do you care about the movie?
Because I'm a cinephile. *smacks you on top of the head* That was a silly thing to say...
- I am made of meat.
I saw it and it was very long, something like 3 hours. Wasn't bad though but i thought it could have been done better. Was slightly better than the last. The denoument dragged on of course and wasn't that great.
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
That's also why she was in the hospital ward for 2 more days after the transformation, or so they say...
Thanks for the link but what do you think he means by we would push it in terms of structure?
I suspect it would be a very expensive scene to shoot with all the ghosts but then again the movie was long enough. Too bad as John Cleese is fantastic and I'd like to see more of him.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
I'm looking forward to the next movie, "Harry Potter and the Mystery of the Training Bra".
Yes, shamelessly ripped from Mr. Cranky.
besides, making Saruman into Dumbledore is like making Mr. Smith into Elrond. Oh, they did that didn't they?
Elrond needs sunglasses.
catgirls and fairies
It has Tom! 2nd and 3rd are the best.
catgirls and fairies
What the hell is a quality adult? Quit making such self-aggrandizing statements and try to read the Harry Potter books before bashing them.
... you were just an Anonymous troll, I missed that. Oops!
Oh wait
DrPascal: Not the language, the mathematician.
Honestly, the best thing about this movie was that they didn't try to do the whole set of scenes. They did the ones that (at least I) would like to see on the big screen, and left out all the in-between stuff. This movie was REALLY for readers of the books, because honestly, without having read the book beforehand, this would have been a bunch of disjointed shorts that made very little sense.
I liked it better than the first one. They tried to do everything, and failed to capture the magic. This one, they tried to do a few things right, and they did. of course (and I hate to say it) the end of the movie was pure cheese. A sequence of students clapping for hagrid? Most of them are scared of him, and the rest could fscking care less.
That's all I have to say.
As for John Cleese, he might be busy writing that alternate Superman comic "True Brit". What, you didn't know? Oh, that's right, my submission didn't make it in. I'll take pity, here's the link. :^)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
This one kept me awake from 2:00am on, this morning... OK -- the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets is IN/BEHIND a sink in the girls' privy, with a small serpent inscribed on one of the faucets, right...? The Chamber was built by Salazar Slytherin about 1,000 years ago, right...? Well, jeepers, there was NO "indoor plumbing" until about 125 years ago, and certainly NOT 1,000 years ago...!!!
YOu are so wrong, you have no idea. THe first movie left out so may details and tidbits that seem unimportant when you first read it but as you reach the third and fourth installments you see the huge buildup that started way back in teh first book. Some of the same type of details were left out in the second movie. Well no need to worry about storytellers, things like the cat lady that Harry is usually left with when his Aunt and Uncle go away. THe fact she is merely mentioned in the first book then expanded upon in the third book. And the only reason for that is to introduce the ieda fo a secret keeper.
Trust that what you think you followed in the first is your apparent mental glue that fill in the gaps that everyone else saw were apparent.
P.S. They even took out the dragon. I hope they release a later DVD with what they took out.
-"I'm one of those Mac people that will break a bottle on the bar and hold it to your throat for bad-mouthing my system"
Well, you see, wizards had probably already developed indoor plumbing, (not to mention the fact that many civilizations had rough equivilents a few thousand years ago), and plus the original entrance to the chamber was something else that became turned into a bathroom later on. :-/
Huh? I'm sorry but that's just stuuuupid. First of all, there a whole ton of stuff in Tolkien about individuals overcoming their racial dispositions (Hobbits are sedentary; humans are greedy; dwarves hate elves, elves trust only elves, etc.)
Whatever. You could be forgiven for not realizing this if you didn't read the books.
What shocks me is that HARRY BUTTHOLE POTTER is somehow superior in this regard. I find it shocking exactly because this "determinism by birth" is my single biggest problem with Harry Potter. Basically, Harry Potter, on his own merits, is a below-average student that breaks whatever rules he pleases, and gets away with it, and everybody still wants to kiss his ass... why... because of his PARENTS. Just because he has some fancy-ass parents, Harry Potter is some sort of living legend. He did nothing to deserve this honor. Hermione, for example, is a much more talented and diligent student, but why does nobody bow befor her? Because she doesn't have the right parents. And all the while, the movies encourage us to think that this is all OK. That we should think that the sun sets in Harry Potter's ass. Why? What the fuck did he ever do on his own merits?
I can tell you, if I were at a school and one of my fellow students was automatically the pet of the whole faculty (especially the dictatorial director), and it was all because of who his parents were... well, I would kick his ass every single day and take his lunch money. Especially if I saw that I was a much better student while nobody noticed and kept talking about how "golden child" is like some fucking baby Jesus. Well, fuck that. I mean, some of us might even remember kids who were treated this way by your schoolteachers. Their glasses were "mysteriously" broken at least once a week. Because even children understand what justice demands! Well, except in Hogwarts, apparently. That really pissed me off. I wanted to like Harry Potter, but I found myself only feeling this burning sense of injustice about how he doesn't get his comeuppance. So I wanted to punch him, maybe give him a swift kick in the balls, just so he maintains his perspective amid all the "so this is The Famous Mr. Potter" swooning.
Alas, this is only in my fantasy, so consider this post to be my first work of Harry-Potter-Related Fan Fiction.
There will probably be spoilers, but if you haven't read the book, why do you care about the movie?
Wha? Wait, so since I haven't had the interest spend a day or two with a childrens' novel, somehow it's unreasonable for me to expect there to not have the movie spoiled by your review? Is it somehow illegitimate for someone who hasn't read the book to see the movie, or even *gasp* have an opinion. How many of us have actually cared to sit down and read Black Hawk Down, We Were Soldiers Once and Young, The Shining (yuk), Heart of Darkness, Jaws, etc etc etc. I could go on and on, but there are many many great movies that can stand on their own independent of the book that they were based on...
and taste for sugar. Remember, more of the world has read these books. The movie was shot in england. Is Columbus [the director, not the sailor] english as well?
Any more trimming would have had fans calling for his blood. Again.
Yay me!
Hermione is a normal (bright) kid. Ron Weasley is a normal kid. Harry Potter is "The Famous Harry Potter" who has, on his own merits, accomplished 100X less than Brittney Spears. If Harry Potter is a normal kid, I'm fucking Jesus Christ.
What I hate about Harry Potter is exactly the fact that he deserves nothing more than what the normal kid receives, but he gets the special treatment fit for some sort of boy-emperor. In fact, the parallels between Harry Potter and The Last Emperor go deep. Well, fuck that. Nobody will be my hero just because of their birth and inheritance. They just don't deserve it.
so basicly you're teeter-tottering between internal and external loci of control...either the kids should not be on their own, or they should not rely on exterior help? Maybe I don't get it. BTW where's the Deus Ex Machinae ending in the first movie?
Check out my sysadmin blog!
Imaging a beowulf cluster of Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings movies.
ln -s
If you watch a movie based on a book before you've read the book, then the book will fill in details and often provide an alternate plot or story.
If you watch a movie based on a book after you've read the book, then the movie will often bastardize the book and ruin the whole story for you from that point forward.
So I rarely read books if I know there is a movie -- I only read them (like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter) after the fact in order to fill in details.
You damn well should be.
...but not until then.
The most excellent R-rated parody book, "Barry Trotter and the Unauthorized Parody," has a couple of real good slams on quidditch, mostly based on the scoring rules and the fact that catching the snitch is the only thing that matters.
In the 4th book (the good one, IMHO) is a game which brings home the fact that while catching the snitch 1) ends the game, and 2) gets you 150-odd points, that only matters if you're less than 150-odd points behind the other team. You can still get the thing and lose.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Unlike:
- Elves (and Elrond half-elven), who are born magical, and are immortal unless killed
- Dwarves, who are born magical and massively outlive humans
- Strider, who's a born king with "better" blood (and likely to long outlive any normal human)
- Gandalf, who's a sort of demi-god despite appearing human
- Treebeard, who's a walking talking tree, who can smash stone with a grasp-and-pull, and who lives almost as long as elves
- And the hobbits, who are about as ordinary as any character gets - although Frodo and Bilbo are semi-special, elite elf-friend ring-bearer mithril-wearing hobbits.
Not elitist? Hmm.
Disclaimer: I don't necessarily even *dislike* elitism.
For those who didn't know Richard Harris (Dumbledore) died a few weeks earlier. And now Daniel Radcliff has grown a whole foot, he might actually be too tall for the rest of the films anyway.
I'm sure some fast editing and CG will solve it (Gladiator & Oliver Reed)
I actualy had one of those antiwitchcraft / jesus freaks passing out flyers to people in line at the local theatre. [they also were wearing anti harry potter/witchfraft t-shirts ]
Anybody else notice how much he looks like Keith Richards? Swear to God, hang a tele around the guy's neck and make him sing "Happy".
YooHoo/2U2
I disagree with CmdrTaco. The 2nd book was better than the first. As far as the movie goes though, I don't yet. (My wife and I are going to see it tomorrow on her day off since she had to work all weekend.)
The 1st book was pretty good, but lacked the "darker" side of the Harry Potter story line that starts rolling out in the 2nd book. I can't wait for the 4th movie to see how good of a job they do bringing out the sinister side of the story line.
Harry Potter doesn't quite match up to the wickedness of the Dark Elf Trilogy, the drow are some Evil mo-fo's, but was entertaining none-the-less.
It seemed to me a lot more like the pod race in TPM. The sound those Nimbus 2001s made was too much like a pod, and the floating bleachers were distinctly similar.
/.
Oh, and it was much longer than its relevant use in the plot, despite all the prettyness.
Well ok, so Anakin's arm didn't turn into jelly. At least not yet.
Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled
Right. I was in a castle in Burgundy a few years back that was built in the 1100's, and I SAW what their "bathrooms" looked like, and it did NOT include anything that Moaning Myrtle might live in, and DEFINITELY did NOT involve SINKS... Fine, then how come THEY still don't have electricity, telephones, etc.??? Owls are nice, but they're slow, and I do NOT think that wizards were likely to beat us Muggles to the concept of indoor plumbing, either. BUT, there's a SINK FAUCET that's a THOUSAND years old??? Also hard to imagine that the Chamber was ONLY opened ONCE since ol' Salazar, in (ca.) 1949, but yet 'someone' managed to build a "brand-new" (ca. 1910)sink into the opening, without realizing what they were doing...?????
The only problem with your argument is that aside from the original Star Wars and Empire Strikes back, all of the Star Wars movies have been bad, awful movies.
The thing that saves Harry Potter is the books are fun.
Star Wars takes itself for fricking seriously that it comes across as the wet dream of 13 year old boys.
Whoops!
"Erm, yeah, except the situation is more complex since the tape was originally called 'duck tape' during WW2, and only later in civilian use became 'duct tape'."
OOOh, can I play "lets make up facts" as well?
Indians started in North American but travelled in sailing vessels to discover what later became the Indian subcontinent.
Women can get pregnant if a man ejaculates in a swimming pool. (what a great fact).
Your turn to make up a fact!
>
That's exactly the message that is being sent, and I don't have a problem with that. I have read essays on fairy tales that point out that the original purpose of folk tales were to teach a lesson - especially that the world is a dangerous place. The woods are full of things that will eat you, you can get lost and not find your way out, the new stepmother may not mean well for you. Those lessons have been removed from the original stories (read: Disney) and regurgitated as mindless pap purely for entertainment.
Parents today worry about how to warn kids that the world is a dangerous place (stay away from strangers that try to lure you into cars, etc.) and sometimes an adult won't be there to bail you out. Perhaps the idea of the story used as a teaching tool wasn't such a bad idea. In that light, Harry Potter is just going back to its original fairy tale roots.
"A book is a loaded gun in the house next door." - Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Dreamers, shapers, singers, makers... Elric, the Techno-Mage
Looks like the cigar poster had mod points. Only thing is, the cigar did fly out the window, most of the posters are whiney bitches with too much time on their hands, and the origional poster is a jerk for giving away the end of the movie. So the only flamebait in this thread would be when I say the moderator loves the cock. He's insatiable!
This was the central theme in the training of Ender in Ender's Game. Numerous times he was in mortal danger, and adults could have helped him, but they let him fend for himself so that when there really wasn't anyone to help him, he wouldn't be expecting it. Seems to me Harry Potter:Ender::Voldemort:Wooly Ants makes sense.
He was talking about how the blood of Numenor was all but spent...
I kept hearing "Agent Smith" there.
"Do you know what I realized Morpheus^H^H^H^Gandalf? Humans are a disease! They've spent the blood of Numenor. And now we, the Elves, are the cure...."
"Dait! Dammit! Which movie am I doing again?"
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
hahaha!!!!
If harry potters world is all about being pagan etc etc etc and have all the christian fanatics panties in a twist, why are there christmas trees everywhere, every book talks about christmas morning and getting presents, feasts revolving around it etc.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
Hey... since we're gonna play Comicbook-guy...
Actually. No. Harry Potter isn't some great and powerful wizard. But he is famous. Famous for a single act: surviving a direct attack by the most powerful evil wizard in history. And in surviving, Harry ended Voldemort's short reign of terror... and perhapse even Voldemort himself in some manner. AND Harry did this all as an infant. As Snape likes to point out - this doesn't make Harry an instant great and powerful wizard. But it would be no suprise if the wizard community sees this as a portant for Harry's future success.
So if Harry is destined to become so great and powerful, what about those friends saving his ass? It is simply one of Harry's abilities. Great people are rarely great on their own. They often bring out the best qualities in people around them. They are leaders. They inspire others to perform at their best towards a common goal. Harry performs admirable feats on his own, but he would be nowhere without friends. And he doesn't get those friends through self-gratuitious behavior like Lockhart or back-stabbling like Malfoy.
Ick. I hope his novels are better than this.
:)
Brin's analysis is scattershot and unfocused. Rather than follow through on thematic issues, he skips from plot fault to fault, sniping like a sophomore at Lucas and his critics alike.
Just my 2.
To me quality adult is REALLY good pr0n.
Wait, quality adult doesn't really exist does it.
"Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
Stouffer has a resounding failure with a book which has been described as 'worse than "Eye of Argon"' and 'reads like a reject from a publishers slush pile'.
Rowling and Stouffer certainly weren't friends and the character of Larry Potter was proven in court to have nothing to do with Rowling's creation.
dave "now I think we also need a '-2: put *down* the crack pipe' moderation choice"
Oh, you're all fucking manboys
A quality adult is someone who actually adds something to society. For your information, you are not a quality adult. You are a piece of shit with nothing going for you. I would guess that you are probably a muslim.
just the same wide-eyed blank stare.
This is what ruined the first movie for me, the simple fact that the poor kid they cast for the starring role of a blockbuster mega-$$$ can't act. This wouldn't be so bad if the director could direct, and tell the poor kid what to do (not what to 'think' or 'feel', but what to do), but apparently the kid is left to his own devices, which is the blank stare we get in every scene he's in, while the other kids act circles around him.
They could fix this by changing the script to say he's autistic or something...
**>>BELCH
He killed a Basalisk... after something else blinded it. For all intents and purposes, he killed a big blind snake - a challenge, because it was a really big blind snake and snakes have pretty good senses - but it was still just a big blind snake.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Yes! Not only did it look like Star Wars, it *sounded* like Star Wars! I'm getting to the point where I don't want to see a John Williams-scored movie. I won't hear anything new, different, and potentially interesting....even though he plagarized (and even outright stole a phrase from) Holst's The Planets for Star Wars back in the day, the music stuck with you. Oh well...enough ranting for now. I just wish the guy would come up with some more original themes and ideas.
What do you expect from a Dark Ages-era castle?
The Romans, on the other hand, did have fully functioning indoor plumbing.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Yes! Not only did it look like Star Wars, it *sounded* like Star Wars!
Yes, indeed! Several times I heard what I thought was the Darth Vader theme from Star Wars, and had to check to see if I was in the right movie. I suppose that the "The Boy Who Lived" idea from "HP & the Philosopher's Stone" fits in ver nicely with "A New Hope".
And Prof Sprout is just Yoda in disguise, no I come to think of it. The basilisk was the monster in the cave in "Return of the Jedi", Hagrid = Chewbacca.
It all fits in!!!
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
is it that young? i thought it was:
old enough to bleed/ old enough to breed
maybe that's something else, then?
thinking of a little r kelly action there, perhaps?
Counterexamples...
Gollum/Smeagol: Born a "good" Hobbit, becomes Gollum - not necessarily evil, but not necessarily good either.
Saruman: A "good" wizard, becomes an "evil" ally of Sauron.
Isildur: A "good" king of men, who is overcome with greed upon possessing the One Ring (does that make him "evil")
Other moral ambiguities...
Elves are generally considered "good" guys, as are Dwarves. But, they typically hate each other. Does their hate make them no longer good?
Gimli and Legolas first typify this hatred between elves and dwarves, but they grow to respect each other. And, Gimli's opinion of Elves changes dramatically upon meeting Galadriel.
So, the moral position of the characters are not set in stone - they do change. Sometimes they change for the better, sometimes for the worse.
While you have a point - there are never any cases of a repentant Orc (that I know of), for instance - I think it's a bit much to state that none of characters change. In fact, that seems to be one of the main themes of the novels - the corrupting power of the One Ring upon all who touch it.
I disagree.
I would rather read the book first. That way you get the complete author's version of the events, in the way they were INTENDED.
The movie, even if the author of the book is an advisor on the set, will almost always become an INTERPRETATION of the book.
The Harry Potter series is probably one of the very best book->movie conversions I've seen. (Gah, I'm typing like it's a shell script) Granted, my preferred genre of book doesn't lend itself towards good movie fare (scifi/fantasy) for the most part, but with the exception of LOTR I can't think of ANY that have crossed that boundary quite as well.
I watched the Princess Bride before I even knew there was a book. After reading the book, I watched the movie again, and it came alive. I knew backstory, and details that the movie couldn't even begin to relate were abundant. I *should* have re-read the Chamber of Secrets in the week before the movie came out.
GIR: I'm going to sing the Doom song now. Doom doom doom doom doom doom de-doom doom doom doom doom doom doom...
And cars don't fly either. So what??? It's a children's story (primarily) and meant to be entertaining. No need to nitpick.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
From what I have seen out of the owls thus far, they seem to be almost as speedy as e-mail, and they can carry packages as well! I haven't seen anything today that can beat that kind of service without charging a very hefty price.
Also, wizards do not use electricity and other stuff particularly because they have no real use for them. However, even wizards poop, and I guess conjuring away feces was just too much of a bother not to use conventional plumbing. After all, wizards do live in muggle-like homes and often wear muggle clothing, correct? They don't have to differ in every aspect.
This is a very funny argument, by the way. XD I hope you're not taking it seriously, because I'm not either.
This is one of two posts made by someone else after my account got hacked. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".