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.
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.
Indeed, part of the reason the series is so successful is that Harry is just a regular boy. If he were really something special, then he would be much harder to relate to.
Being an ordinary kid who finds himself in extraordinary circumstances makes his story much more compelling. Children can relate to Harry and even imagine that they too might be Wizards and Witches.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
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
This is silly. Period. Would you say that "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" is not appropriate children's fare? When I was growing up, that was the scariest movie I saw as a child (in re-release). It dealt with similar problems. What about Cinderella? After all, Cinderella deals with the effective slavery of the main character.
Indeed, we can look to the fundamentalists own book to see that they're slavering hypocrites, because there are parts of the Bible which are "unsuitable for children" because they are so violent.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but if I remember correctly, the "blood" for writing on the walls came *from* the walls (the words formed automatically). Does this differ from the Biblical Writing on the Wall in any way that really matters? Petrification is well-covered in Greek mythology (and is considered age-appropriate for the target market of this film). The deadliness of Nightshade (the plant of which you refer) is a well-known medieval legend.
But the biggest problem I have with what you've posted is the suggestion that Harry Potter's handling of the prejudice against Muggles and "mudbloods" is bad. Sesame Street deals with very similar topics (note the introduction of the Muppet with AIDS in South Africa and the firestorm of controversy there), but what Sesame Street doesn't do is *confront* the reality of prejudice; it *displays* tolerance instead. It tries to short-circuit the cycle of prejudice by influencing children early on (much to the horror of fundies of any stripe). Harry Potter, on the other hand, has acknowledged that prejudice is real and is confronting it head-on by making it so that the bad guys (those of Slytherin) are both generally unsavoury characters and are the ones who demonstrate such prejudices.
Bah.
-austin
Ni bhionn an rath achx mar a mbionn an smacht (There is no Luck without Discipline)
A retired bishop says Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings have revealed a need for spiritual experience.
The Right Reverend Jim Thompson says the films show how much fantasies about "another dimension" appeal to the general public.
The former Church of England Bishop of Bath and Wells says people are in search of spiritual experience and vision.
"Part of this perhaps is the re-creation of what has been lost to so many modern minds, namely the eternal dimension central to most religions, especially the Christian faith," he said.
The Bishop was speaking at the presentation ceremony for the Sandford St Martin Trust Awards for excellence in religious broadcasting.
He says he believes broadcasting has an increasingly important role as young people shun organised religion, finding the Church unsatisfactory as a way of "exploring the spirit."
Bishop Thompson's remarks about Harry Potter come after the ecumenical body, Churches Together in Britain and Ireland, urged churches to use Harry Potter a means of spreading the Christian message.
The children's bestsellers have been attacked by evangelicals in the past as glamorising the occult.
Of course, he is retired, and doesn't have to worry about being banished to Bishop of Lossiemouth for saying what he thinks. As for the Fallwells and Robertsons, they were born (again) bent of shape. The problem is when they try to bend the world to fit...
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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
This is an unfair criticism, in my opinion.
We just watched the first movie again last night in preparation for seeing the second movie with my 11 year old today. I'm reminded of quite a bit that Harry does in this story.
Harry makes decisions and acts on them that risks what he could reasonably consider to be grounds for expulsion from Hogwarts in several places. Remember that expulsion from Hogwarts would put him back under the stairs on Privet Lane.
For example:
Recall also that it was Harry's decision to go protect the Sorcerer's Stone, which he had been warned would risk death.
I'm not a big Harry Potter fan, that would be my 11 year old daughter in my family. If I had to order them, I wouldn't place the first book as my favorite. I would agree that Harry shows less initiative in the first book when compared to the later books, but this actually makes sense considering his suddenly learning about his heritage and falling into the fantastic world of Hogwarts. That would overwhelm any 11 year old, don't you think?
If Harry had shown any more initiative, it would have strained credibility. Granted, this is Fantasy, but you still have to construct a world that can be rationalized.
"Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. They tell children that dragons can be beaten"
Test your net with Netalyzr
Wow, precisely what I wanted to say! The linked MSN article says that Potter is great only because of what others have done, yet it ignores that Potter himself is constantly embarrassed by his fame. It may be less clear in the movies, but I thought it was clear in the books that he doesn't think he deserves his fame.
...is a grave, mistaken assumption to have.
Not to mention - the series isn't finished yet. He's still a boy learning about life, who just recently learned (4th book, I believe) of his mother's sacrifice for him, and we have no idea what accomplishments or sacrifices he might choose to make in the final book.
Until the series is over, people shouldn't really be criticising Rowling for social statements made through the Potter series - as of now, I regard it as incomplete. It's as if I were to say:
Part 1: Rich people are better than poor people...
Part 2:
If you only hear part 1, and know that Part 2 exists, you shouldn't judge my views based only on Part 1...
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.
The problem with Tolkein's work is that what you are born is what you are. Elves are good, orcs are bad, and so forth. Given that axiom, it's difficult to have really meaningful character development. Say you're a hero, born or heroes, you do heroic things, and that's they (Aragorn, for example). Further, the moral problem is that, given that orcs have no choice about what they are, they haven't made any moral decision to act as they do. If you have to kill one in self defence, that's OK, but killing them because of what they are is ethically very dubious. That's the logic that has justified slavery and genocide throughout history. Of course Tolkien was a product of his time, but that doesn't excuse his work from a more modern appraisal.
Rowling's message is different. What you are born matters, but not as much as what you choose to do with it. Characters have to make choices, and the outcomes are often ambigious, reflecting the complexity of the scenarios in which they find themselves. And they can develop as characters, because they aren't locked into predestined fates like Tolkein's characters are.
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.)
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
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.
However, I take major issue with you over the suggestion that there are heavy theological issues in LOTR. The view of good and evil there is so simply black and white that even a Southern Baptist hellfire preacher might take pause. All the baddies start bad, proceed badly, and end bad. Everyone else plays a fixed part. This is the nature of epic and tragedy (in Greek tragedies, it is often the character's lack of flexibility or development that brings on the inevitable dreadful events.) Just to make the vestige of a point, consider Terry Pratchett's world which is now if anything as big and complex as LOTR. Compare Aragorn to Captain Carrot. Compare Gandalf and Saruman to the faculty of Unseen University, especially the development of characters like Ponder Stibbons. I am sure that by now Pratchett readers will see what I am on about. Now explain to me why Pratchett can handle characters who develop, interact, and furthermore develop as a result of that interaction (just as with heavyweight novelists like Anthony Powell ) in a complex imagined world, while Tolkien can't. I suspect the answer is because JRRT never really lived in the real world but was an Oxford academic steeped in Nordic myth. This qualified him to write an epic within that tradition, but it was not actually his tradition.
Of course Rowling does caricatures, she is writing books for children and there has to be simplification to get the point over. But they are caricatures of people we recognise, instead of abstract cardboard sheets labelled "Wisdom","Kingliness","Nasty piece of work","Evil bastard no redeeming features". In Rowling's world the good guys turn out to have had badly behaved pasts, the bad guys may not be beyond redemption, and some characters are morally confused.
My point, however, was intended to be serious. LOTR can be made into an epic film because the characters are 2-D. For the same reason, I suggest, you can make a good Old Testament biblical epic but you can't really make an epic out of the New Testament. As soon as characters start to get complex, you cannot have an epic. Books are different, because the timescales on which you read them are such that they can range from epic to up close and personal, whether it be Doctor Zhivago or (still my favorite) Moby-Dick.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
In the HP universe, magic is a technology. Nowhere is there an indication of forces or powers or gods that cannot be thoroughly understood and dealt with. There are good people, bad people, and people you're not too sure about, but they're people, using tools.
Rowling plays with classic symbols of the supernatural, yes. But she doesn't invest them with supernatural meanings. She takes away the mysticism and makes it mundane.
Christianity depends on the illusion that there's a big, scary otherworld out there that you can't find out much about, but you should worry about. Rowling will have none of that. In the wizard world, unexplained supernatural events are problems to be solved. Everybody in the wizarding world understands this. They may disagree on goals or methods, but there's absolutely no "there are some things man is not meant to understand" posturing by anybody.
Nor is there "faith". Wizarding requires skill and inborn talent, but you don't have to "believe". It works whether you believe or not. That, of course, is the fundamental difference between science and mysticism.
For fundamentalists, this is unsettling. It knocks the props out from under the stage set of religion. That drives fundamentalists nuts.
"I read them, and was consistantly dissapointed by the triumph of carictature over character."
In a lot of instances, you're right. But three big ones stand out proving you wrong:
1) Hagrid. A large, clumsy, not-so-bright oaf. But he's also one of Harry's dearest friends and, while not attractive on the outside, has a heart of gold.
2) Severus Snape. I can't think of any character in the series who is described in less flattering terms, except maybe Voldemort himself. Snape is constantly suspected by Harry and Company of being Evil Incarnate, but, while he strayed in his youth, he's now a stand-up guy. He just doesn't like Harry because of history between himself and Harry's father (actually, the author of the MSN article parrots a lot of Snape's complaints, now that I think about it). In the latest book, he's sent off on a mission by Dumbledore that is strongly hinted as being a suicide mission, and he does it bravely.
3) Draco Malfoy. This guy is the epitome of what the MSN author describes as a pampered and privileged jock. Malfoy is described as being very physically attractive, but is nothing more than a spoiled brat. In fact, he and Harry's cousin would get along famously, if Malfoy weren't such a racist pig about non-wizards.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Of course, the only reason Frodo got to be the ring bearer in the first place was because he was the favorite relative of a rather unusual and famous (rich too!) hobbit who also just happens to give him a magic sword and mithril mail. Also doesn't hurt that he has a wizard/demi-god at his back to get the ball rolling either.
It could also be argued that the only reason a hobbit makes a good ring bearer is because, in general, they are a simple and contented folk whose biggest cultural conundrum is which pipe to bring to the latest social gathering. Look at Gollum. He gets it and the best the ring can cajole him into doing is living in a cave for a looong time.
Face it, Frodo is a hero because he's got the support and when it finally comes down to crunch time he does the heroic thing just like Harry Potter. Saying that one is more deserving of the title than the other is sophistry plain and simple.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie