New Harry Potter movie just like the first — OK

Written by George Partington
Published November 14, 2002

It was okay. It wasn't bad, just nothing special.

That's how I characterized Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets to a friend of mine who works as journalist covering films and therefore had passes to give me for an advanced screening.

I went into the film with mixed feelings. I love the books, but suspect filmed versions will only discourage new generations of readers, or failing that, it will usurp their imaginations as they watch the films prior to reading the tales.

And, not to be a total curmudgeon, but to see Harry Potter take his place in a culture of stupidly expensive, over-hyped products - as a movie, DVD, action figure, lego set, stuffed doll, fast-food tie-in, etc. — is a bit dispiriting.

But then again, I enjoyed the elaborate detail of the first film, as well as the opportunity to experience J.K. Rowling's fantasy world and its compelling fictions in another medium. Such is modern life and its guilty pleasures.

Not that I would characterize the books as guilty pleasures. They are rich in humor, drama, and imagination. As millions of readers attest, there is no need to pigeonhole them into a category such as "children's literature"; they are simply excellent fiction.

The first film drew me in as a good film should. The opening was full of anticipation of Harry's escape from his hellish life - the letters from Hogwarts increasing in number until the air in the Dursley's living room was thick with them, the retreat to an island to get away from the assault, and the entrance of Hagrid, realized beautifully by Robbie Coltrane. Then, as the tension was released, there was the majestic unfolding of Harry's new world - Diagon Alley, train platform 9&3/4, the train ride with new friends, and finally, Hogwarts.

But with that film, as with the new one, I left the theater less than satisfied. Our three heroes, as in the books, were likable, and I was behind them, but by the end of both 2&1/2+ hour films I was mostly exhausted and reminded, more than anything else, of Rowling's brilliance, her way with a fantasy world that feels grounded yet fanciful, and above all, humorous. The Whomping Willow in Chamber of Secrets is a perfect example. It's grounded (obviously), it's fanciful (a tree that whomps anyone who gets too close), and it's humorous (the name alone).

page 1 | 2
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
New Harry Potter movie just like the first — OK
Published: November 14, 2002
Type:
Section: Video
Filed Under: Video: Adventure, Video: Classics, Video: Drama, Video: Suspense and Mystery
Writer: George Partington
George Partington's BC Writer page
George Partington's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by George Partington
Video: Adventure
Video: Classics
Video: Drama
Video: Suspense and Mystery
All Video Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — November 16, 2002 @ 06:32AM — Bat Boy [URL]

Reading your post its obvious you went into the film expecting the book, and that you enjoy books more than movies. I have to disagre with you on sevral levels. This movie is not like the first, it has more of a movie feel, opposed to the sorcerers stone which felt like a movie desperately trying to be a book. and if things seemed too cartoonish for you what did you enjoy about the wizard world?

#2 — November 18, 2002 @ 15:02PM — George Partington [URL]

Guess I gave the wrong impression. I merely meant that the books were great and the films are not. This doesn't mean a literal translation, because that's what we get, very literal. My point was such rote adhering to the books makes for movies that are uninspired. I want the feel of the books and the feeling in the books, which is what is great about them. The characters have heart, you really feel for them even as they are part of a total fantasy world. I watched the first film (most of it) again the other night and was struck by how much better it is than the second. It's a film *about* Harry Potter, his story, and his friends. It has quiet moments that allow you to see things through his eyes (and it's a sad story), and to feel for him. The actor did a fine job in the first. The second film is nothing but a series of standard action/thriller moments and has very little feel for what should be a menacing presence of evil (Voldemort). Plus, we should have gotten to see the Mandrakes again.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/1830)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments