HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS
Rating: 2/5 stars
REVIEW BY JOHN ULMER (Copyright, 2004)
"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is an ultra-long, boring
mess of a movie. Of course, like all movies of its kind, it has a huge
cult following. Living in the UK, it's even more popular than in the
States, where I first experienced its major influence. The books by
J.K. Rowling made "children read again." So the next logical course of
action is inevitably to make a huge-budget movie adaptation and
therefore eliminate all advancements made in literature. What's that?
Kids are starting to read again? Then why don't we make a
two-and-a-half-hour-long movie, in seven parts, that will negate this
and cause them to start watching TV again?
The first "Harry Potter" movie (subtitled "And the Sorcerer's Stone,"
or "The Philosopher's Stone" if you live in Britain) was OK, but
rather predictable, not to mention utterly silly and far too long. I
give kudos to Rowling for managing to totally rip off Roald Dahl's
unique style of storytelling without crediting him at all. I'll even
thank her for managing to make a book that pretends to take place in
reality, yet abandons all reasonable concepts of life (such as...how
in the world do you get a job as an honor graduate of Wizard School?).
Heck, I'll even smile at the thought that she's managed to turn the
image of sorcerers, witches, and such evil, into a pleasant little
happy-go-lucky book that thins the line between Good and Bad.
Christian fundamentalist groups originally held anti-Harry Potter
ceremonies after the initial novel and film's release a few years ago.
The media acted as if they were crazy. Okay, maybe they went a little
overboard. But it's not like Rowling is treading on quaint, cheerful
material here. The main character, Harry Potter, goes to a school
named Hogwarts (get it?), where children learn the arts of Witchcraft
and Wizardry. They recite little lines of evil dialogue that make
spells happen. This is treated all rather calmly and gentile...but of
course what Rowling (who used to dabble in a bit of black magic
herself, and was on the verge of suicide before the idea for Harry
Potter "popped into" her head) is doing is quite clear: She's blurring
the lines of decency. One baby step at a time.
It sounds silly, doesn't it? Maybe. But regardless, "Harry Potter"
itself is a tremendously boring movie. It's devoid of any imagination.
"Labyrinth," which it seems to borrow its style from, is far superior
and far more unique.
The movie is about a poor sap that is knocked down in real life (maybe
because he wears the most dorky gl***** in the world?) and therefore
takes comfort in knowing that he is the last savior of mankind. What a
minute...that sounds like "The Matrix"...actually this is about
something totally different, but I've lost my train of thought.
Watching this movie will do that to you.
Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), now in his second year at Hogwarts,
is faced with the reality that recent student paralysis may be
attributed to a dark lord who killed his parents and gave him a
lightning bolt scar across his forehead (which mysteriously disappears
between shots). Soon Harry finds out that his life is in danger and he
may be...well...in danger! No duh.
Okay, this might have made a rather good 90-minute movie. "Harry
Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is about 150 minutes long. I saw it
in the theater when it was released two years ago and almost fell
asleep. I thought I was the only one until one of my friends ****ged my
and said, "This is the most boring movie I've ever seen."
Interestingly enough, all the individuals who seemed to enjoy the
movie in the theater were little kids all hyper on sugar-packed
Coca-Cola, running around the theater screaming, "Harry Potter!" Of
course no one ran around the theater but I started imagining how funny
it would be if...
Where was I?
The movie was directed by Christopher Columbus, who sailed to America
in 1492. Of course in 1942 "Casablanca" was released, which didn't
star Columbus, or any of his relatives. Which reminds me: It's a much
better movie; go see it instead of this. And of course I'm not talking
about *the* Christopher Columbus, but rather Chris Columbus, who is
the writer of "Gremlins" and who directed the John Hughes-scripted
"Home Alone." Columbus was very good during the '80s and early '90s,
but it seems he's lost his sense of utter imagination that he used to
have.
"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" might have made a good
90-minute kiddie movie. As a 2.5-hour movie, it's almost unbearable.
Let's hope the new installment - which is rumored to be more "adult"
if that is at all possible - is better. I'd rather be thrown into a
gas chamber than have to see this "Chamber" again. I'd even rather
watch "The Chamber" with Chris O'Donnell. Am I rambling?
- John Ulmer
http://www.wiredonmovies.com
e-mail: johnulmer2003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you're writing with hate mail regarding my HARRY POTTER review
(I'm sure I'll receive lots) keep in mind that I will not respond to
childish taunts. I get enough of that crap through IMDb.
==========
X-RAMR-ID: 37882
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 1285557
X-RT-TitleID: 1116751
X-RT-SourceID: 1382
X-RT-AuthorID: 6769
X-RT-RatingText: 2/5
|
