Thursday, June 18, 2015

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002, PG)

The second movie in the Harry Potter series, like its predecessor, is a fine-looking, faithfully adapted, slightly bland film.  At 2 hours and 40 minutes, it’s the longest film in the franchise, and my attention definitely wanders in places.  At this point, the series still hasn’t quite found its feet, and its biggest strengths continue to be its engaging source material and homerun casting.

Harry’s second year at Hogwarts brings, what else – an evil plot that needs foiling!  Harry, Ron, and Hermione investigate the rash of mysterious attacks throughout the school, reportedly caused by a legendary monster under the thrall of the so-called “heir of Slytherin.”  Harry learns more about Lord Voldemort, learning more about himself in the process.  Plus, one of the biggest recurring social themes from the books, that of blood prejudice, is introduced.  It’s hinted at, barely, in The Sorcerer’s Stone, but bigotry in the wizarding world earns major focus here.  The heir of Slytherin’s prime targets are Muggle-born witches and wizards, children of non-magical parentage who are considered by some of the wizarding elite to be unworthy of learning magic.  Beyond the big plot stuff, however, there are also a number of smaller microagressions that bring this side of the wizarding community to the fore; Ron is outraged when the epithet “mudblood” is hurled at Muggle-born Hermione, and the entire Weasley family, especially patriarch Arthur, are thought to be “blood traitors” for their associations with Muggles and Muggle-borns.

Some overall pros and cons.  In the plus column, the film stars to expand our view of the wizarding world (the Weasleys’ house looks fantastic,) some of the humor is a delight, and the entire flying car sequence makes for a good time.  You can tell it’s starting to come together a little more as a series; this film feels more “settled” than the one that came before it.  On the downside, the length is very evident, it doesn’t yet have the personality of some of the later films, and Dobby is maybe a little too accurate (he’s super-annoying, is what I’m saying.)  Oh, and it really bugs me that devoted mother Molly Weasley barely reacts when her sons tell her that Harry’s aunt and uncle have been treating him like a prisoner (locked in his room, bars on his windows) and starving him.  And it’s not even like in A Series of Unfortunate Events, where it’s clear that the adults in the Baudelaires’ lives either don’t believe their accusations about Count Olaf or are too frightened/weak-willed/milquetoast/etc. to do anything about it; instead, it’s like no one cares all that much that Harry is being abused by his guardians.  Come on!

The kids’ acting is already improving.  Rupert Grint is terrific, Emma Watson feels more natural (she manages “uptight” without seeming as studied,) and Daniel Radcliffe is coming along well.  As for the adults, new additions Kenneth Branagh (hilariously cheesy as the pompous wizard celebrity Gilderoy Lockhart) and Jason Isaacs (cool and sinister as the awful wizard purist Lucius Malfoy – with a name like that, you just know he’s not a good guy) fire on all cylinders.

One last quibble – I suppose it’s technically accurate, given he’s current skill set, but Harry’s total ineptness at holding and wielding a sword lessens the Big Damn Hero factor of the climax.

Warnings

General scariness (including creepy creatures,) light swearing, a little grossness, and thematic elements.

No comments:

Post a Comment