*** (out of ****)
Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Kenneth Branagh, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, John Cleese, Shirley Henderson, Warwick Davis, Fiona Shaw, Jason Isaacs, and Julian Glover.
Directed by Chris Columbus & written by Steve Kloves, from the novel by J.K. Rowling
2002 PG
REVIEW BY THE F&SN CRITIC’S DAMN WIFE, WITH HELP FROM HER ARROGANT HUSBAND
The lasting appeal of “Harry Potter” will be its pattern of expanding depth from book to book; each time through we have a new adventure, new villains (possibly), and new magic. But what has probably created “hordes of slobbering fans” as The Critic would call them is author J.K. Rowling’s decision to not play out her characters all in one book and not answer all the questions. We end each adventure partly satisfied, but partly eager for the next installment. Minor references become significant facts later on, so everything is important, a quality which a literature professor of mine once called “responsible writing.” Rowling remembers the details she has written before, and there is a larger purpose in her method. This technique is popular among science-fiction and fantasy series (Lord of the Rings, for instance). It is not Rowling’s invention, but she has skillfully and cleverly introduced this technique to a new generation in easier prose and more condensed stories. (Contrast this with the Nancy Drew books: after you read one, you’ll never learn anything else of significance about the characters, you’ll only have the latest application of the formula. This of course didn’t prevent me from reading most of them when I was ten, sometimes three in a day.)
Monsieur Critic, like a lot of people, thinks that nine-out-of-ten stories that take more than one book to tell aren’t worth reading, or aren’t what he thinks of as a good time. He’s not opposed to sequels, in which characters are brought back after a circle has been closed and a point has been made, to open a new circle and make another point, and there’s always that one-out-of-ten exception, like “The Godfather” and “The Godfather Part II” being one story spread over two films. But on the whole he doesn’t go for a set of characters in one adventure after another, unless their last name is Simpson.
While films adapted from novels should be rated on their own merit and not viewed through the lens of the book from whence they came, my experience of “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” is affected by my having read the book by J.K. Rowling. I know more about things that are glossed over, left out, or only briefly explained because of the time constraints of the film; I know the “full story” and my experience of the film is possibly richer than that of someone who is not aware of the details it had to leave out.
Fans of the books will notice that the following episodes are among those that have been left out or shrunken: the arrogant yet incompetent Professor Gilderoy Lockheart’s (played by Shakespeare-extraordinaire Kenneth Branagh) attempted schooling of Harry in the ways of fame; an interesting but not crucial subplot involving Nearly Headless Nick (Monty Python John Cleese); details about how Ron Weasley’s brothers relate to Ron and Harry; and the characters of Ginny Weasley and Colin Creevy lack the depth they have in the book. These absences are not necessarily to the film’s discredit, but highlight the differences between the media of film and literature.
As expected, the second installment of Harry Potter, following last year’s highly successful “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone,” is cheerful, energetic, and colorful. This is a fabulous film to look at, with lots and lots of special effects, including a swarm of mischievous fairies, and a sequence with giant spiders that made my skin crawl. Dobby the house elf looked just like he should, and moved and whined and simpered and beat himself as realistically as a house elf could. The monster from the Chamber is a little disappointing, and not as evil and scary as it was built-up to be. I also have a bone to pick about the monster’s name and design, which might be as much a complaint to J.K. Rowling as to the CG designer, and which I shan’t vent here because I don’t want to give anything away. (In the unlikely event that someone’s dying to know what my criticism is, he or she may email me via The Critic.) The labyrinthine school of Hogwarts has a limitless supply of fascinating rooms and Gothic excess, and I’d watch the film again just so I could look more at the corners. Every painting on every wall moves and talks to those who walk past.