ROTTEN TOMATOES: Deconstructing Harry, Day 2: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Comments

Deconstructing Harry, Day 2: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

by Matt Atchity | July 09, 2009

Summary

I'm going to borrow the title of a 4 Non Blondes album for my summation of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: "Bigger, Better, Faster, More." The set pieces are larger, the chemistry between the actors has vastly improved, the film moves along much quicker than the first film, and it's simply a lot more fun to watch. I will say that this movie doesn't really stand on its own though. That's not really a knock against the film -- there are plenty of franchise installments that require knowledge gained from previous entries (The Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Back to the Future, etc). I'm just pointing out that this chapter, and others, can't stand alone the same way a James Bond movie does. Back to Article

(1-54 of 54 posts) | Reply

MikeCp76 writes:
on Jul 09 2009 05:30 PM

i love the Woody Allen reference in the "Deconstructing Harry" title, bravo;]

(Reply to this)

Alejandro P. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 05:46 PM

LOL I LOVE IT TOOO THOUHG IT HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH WOODY ALLEN'S MOVIE :)

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Jul 09 2009 05:58 PM

About as good as the first. Not as fresh. And again, it was released the same time as one of "The Lord of the Rings" films, making Potter seems flimsy. Nevertheless, this is solid entertainment, and the leads are slightly more cozy in their roles. Not enough Alan Rickman. 8/10.

(Reply to this)

Chris B. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 06:01 PM

well, all Woody Allen references aside, I thought the second movie wasn't as good as the first and is probably my least favorite Potter movie. It wasn't as memorable as all the other entries. that said, I still enjoyed the movie.

(Reply to this)

Nick P. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 06:39 PM

Chamber of Secrets was a dire disappointment for me - it was my favourite of the book series until Order Of The Phoenix came out, largely because Harry was able to shine through as a hero, against a truly murderous opponent, with comparatively little help. The next couple of books had much greater emotional resonance, but lacked the sheer heroism - and also a lot of the darkness (at least until the finale of Goblet Of Fire).

But along came Chris Columbus with his Home Alone hat on to do the feature film, and turned it into complete garbage which I can only assume was aimed at particularly easily-pleased toddlers. The only thing I liked about it was the rendering of the Basilisk, and it still stands out as one of my most loathed films of all time.

(Reply to this)

Lanca R. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 06:40 PM

This film is kinda the Temple of Doom of the series for me. I didn't like it as much when I first saw it and to this day it's probably the one I can most easily pass up when I see it on HBO, but when I look back on it in reviews like this I'm reminded of how many truly great moments are in this film. Best Quiditch sequences of any of the films thus far, Aragog and his kin, The Flying car, The Tom Riddle revelation and the wonderful addition of Lockhart and Malfoy Sr. who underline one of the great strengths of this series, the spot on brilliant casting of all roles. From top to bottom I would say these are bare none the best cast movies ever made. Even relatively minor roles like Mr and Mrs. Weasley at least in this film are fantastic. On the book front I also think there was a lot of great things in this book version that you didn't fully realize until later novels. OF course Tom Riddle, Ginny's crush on Harry, Gryffindor's sword, The introduction of Dobby who's absence from from subsequent films is one of the great regrets of these movie's for me.

(Reply to this)

Lanca R. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 06:48 PM

My previous dislike of Gambon of course on the casting issue which I didn't feel the need to mention since in this film we still had the divine Sir Richard. One thing I meant to mention in the other thread when someone mentioned the Jim Dale audio books which as much as I love the Stephen Frye British versions are vastly superior. People who've heard them will probably have noticed Dale's voices for a lot of the main characters, Snape, MacGonagal, Hagrid bare a remarkable resemblence to the actors who play them in the movies. I find it particularly telling that even after all this time Dale still uses Harris's whispier Dumbledore voice instead of Gambon. Just an interesting piccadillo I noticed.

(Reply to this)

ninja13 writes:
on Jul 09 2009 06:51 PM

I thought Chamber felt rushed and sloppy. Just skipping from scene to scene. It was forgettable and weak and not as good as the first.

(Reply to this)

MikeCp76 writes:
on Jul 09 2009 06:58 PM

ill agree though, out of all of them...the 2nds the worst for me, idk i cant explain why but it just is

(Reply to this)

Nick P. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 07:05 PM

Lanca - I've got to disagree on the casting. It's not so much the performances themselves, but the actors that're chosen - most of the adult characters are played by reasonably big names. The trouble is that instead of seeing that character on the screen, and being absorbed into that character, you just see the actor and think of him/her in terms of what else they've done. It spoils the immersion.
But with regard to the performances, I've never gotten the impression that the adult actors have been giving their all in these films - maybe it's just the way they've been directed. Or maybe I need to watch the films again; I've never seen any of them multiple times, and haven't seen the last two at all.

I also think they frequently miscast the roles, even disregarding the first part of this post. David Thewlis has none of the natural warmth that Lupin needed to convey, Jason Isaacs felt like a pantomime villain as Lucius Malfoy, Richard Griffith's Vernon Dursley comes off a lot like Uncle Phil from Fresh Prince, Alan Rickman is too damn likeable to be Severus Snape, and I commented in the last thread about the unsuitability of both Richard Harris and Michael Gambon as Dumbledore.
These are all natural shortcomings - other than Gambon, who just doesn't play it right - and should have occurred to the casting agents.

And it just isn't necessary. You don't need a cast full of prominent B-listers to sell the films. All they needed to do was cast a very well-known actor in a prominent role, then fill out the rest with unknowns - it would make for smaller paycheques and better films.
Personally I'd have loved to have seen Christopher Lee playing Dumbledore, which I suppose goes against what I said earlier about playing to natural strengths, but Lee has the raw charisma to own any part he's offered. He even produced a fantastic performance in a freaking new trilogy Star Wars film, for god's sake.

(Reply to this)

Nick P. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 07:10 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525078)
Oh, I'll just make one exception - Robbie Coltrane is absolutely brilliant as Hagrid and vastly enhances the character's loveability (I always felt he was a tad self-absorbed in the novels). He's one actor I really have always felt gave maximum effort to his role in this series, and it's greatly enhanced by his performance.

(Reply to this)

Lanca R. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 07:17 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525078)
I've gotta vehemently disagree. Maggie Smith is Professor McGonagal for me, Alan Rickman I honestly couldn't see another actor playing him and Robbie Coltrane is everything Hagrid. I never got the impression Lupin was suppoed to be particularly warm. I thought his disease made it so he kept people at a distance and his predominant quality was a tired, shabby sadness covering up a basically good person which I think Thewlis embodied in spades. I can sorta get behind what you were saying about Harris' Dumbledore, but you also have to keep in mind that the two movie's he was in Dumbledore was never called upon to be intimidating or slightly scary and remember in the books whenever Dumbledore flexed his power it came as shocking to the characters around him so I took that to mean he seemed rather ordinary and scholarly until he chose not to be sorta a mix between Gandalf and Indiana Jones without the need for a bullwhip :). I just don't think you could get the same performances with a lesser actor in any of the roles you mentioned and I may have misunderstood you, but I wouldn't consider any of them as B-listers talent wise, but then again I lived several years in England where Maggie Smith is as respected as any actress on the planet for her work in theater as well as on film and not to disagree with you on every point, but I can't see Lee playing a kindly old man. I would expect him at any moment to sprout fangs or draw a lightsabre and start hacking up house elves. He's just one of those people like Rickman who's born to play the villain.

(Reply to this)

THECOWBELLHASSPOKEN writes:
on Jul 09 2009 07:20 PM

i think chamber of secrets is much better than the first. the fx in the first one were bad, the cinematography was dull and daniels reaction to being a wizard was lame. he just gawked throughout his intro to the wizard world. he was much improved in the following films. the only thing i disliked about chamber of secrets was how the movie turned into "everyone loves hagrid" at the end. hardly anyone cared when he left, but when he came back it was a huge sapfest. my ranking of the movies:

azkaban: 10
goblet of fire: 9
chamber of secrets: 9
order of the pheonix : 8.5
Sorcerers stone: 7.5

im sure no one cares

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Jul 09 2009 07:25 PM

I thought Chambers was slightly better then Sorcerers Stone, but there both pretty good I think. The third film is the one that kicks it into the gear of greatness. I also picked up the fifth book today, I want to finish the series.

(Reply to this)

THECOWBELLHASSPOKEN writes:
on Jul 09 2009 07:32 PM

harris was perfect as the emtionally caring dumbledore, but gambons dumbledore has improved. he was pretty solid in the PoA, but he didnt realy have enough screen time to fully judge. but i hated him in goblet of fire, he was the biggest douchebag ever. he spent half the freakin movie shouting at students. in the book he didnt freakin shove harry into the wall when his name was in the goblet of fire. what the hell was that about? in ootp i thought he was better, way less rude (except for that scene were he screamed at everyone to do homework) and very good as the kind caring dumbledore near the end, and he is perfectly badass in the fight scenes. gambons performance seems much better in the clips from Half Blood Prince so far, so im very excited to see if he can pull it off.

and for the love of god i hope he doesnt scream at any students for no reason.

(Reply to this)

jacobugath writes:
on Jul 09 2009 07:34 PM

Thanks for the synopsis!! Couldn't have come up with that on our own... why not try to tell us something we didn't already know? I thought the main problems with this film were the choppy cutting and the terrible monster at the end (which looked nothing like a snake). Those were the MAIN problems. The film really had little imagination and struggled to do more than string several scenes together that came from the book. I think that was why Cuaron's movie was so loved, because he expanded the castle and school from a setting to a character and environment. If only he had actually been more than half true to the book....

(Reply to this)

jacobugath writes:
on Jul 09 2009 07:47 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525097)
My order of films:
OotP-best (and this isn't saying much, unfortunately because it's a very spotty film)
PoA- second (would be first if it weren't for DR's terrible performance as Harry here and the utter lack of continuity and a Quidditch Final)
SS- just edges out CoS because of the legless dinosaur and bad editing
COS- Branaugh rules
GOF- A TERRIBLE FILM. When I try to think of what I like about this film... still... nothing really comes to mind. Mad Eye was over the top, the three tasks were HORRIFIC, the editing was GAWFUL, Voldemort was subpar but better than any villain we've seen yet, I could go on and on about how bad this film was...

(Reply to this)

Nick P. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 07:52 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525085)
I meant B-listers purely in terms of how well known they are internationally, and audience draw. Even Alan Rickman is probably an unfamiliar name to the average American.
I should clarify - I didn't mean B-listers as a criticism, just to say they don't have the box office draw of, say... George Clooney or Hugh Grant. Or... Christopher Lee ;).
But I certainly wasn't referring to acting skill. Everyone we've mentioned is hugely talented and I wouldn't fault them one iota - in other films...

Going back to the natural suitability issue, I'll grant you Maggie Smith. It's been a long time since I watched any of these films and sadly she slipped my memory. But Alan Rickman? There's a difference between being a natural baddie and playing Snape. Rickman is by no stretch of the imagination an overgrown vulture, nor does he resemble someone consumed by neurosis, constantly battling to contain his thermonuclear temper. He's great for the smart, bitter and cynical side of Snape, but that's just scratching the surface of the character. Also, my mother is of the opinion that he's too handsome - make of that what you will...

With regard to Christopher Lee, just because he's played a villainous role in just about everything else doesn't mean you wouldn't eventually adjust if he'd been cast in an opposite role. Just think about it: would you have any trouble believing he's the most powerful wizard of the age? The man is closing in on 90 yet he still looks lean, energetic and powerful. He looks twenty years younger than he is. This is *precisely* what was needed for Dumbledore, and it's an astonishingly rare trait. And I'll repeat that I strongly believe he has the charisma and immense skill (sixty years of thesping experience!) to counter his reputation and fit the role. Also, I think he is now so very old that he has a bit of natural loveability that could potentially be tapped into.

And on the Dumbledore argument... he's always been portrayed in the books as energetic and comparatively youthful in demeanour. The surprise Harry feels when Dumbledore showcases his powers is akin to witnessing a loving father beating the crap out of a thief - it's a contrast of attitude rather than of energy.
Richard Harris was physically incapable of this type of performance - sadly the man had not the slightest hint of youthfulness, power or energy left in him.

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Jul 09 2009 07:56 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525084)
Hehe, it's amusing me *how much* I disagree with you about the casting, Nick P. Not a bad thing, to each their own and the like, just sayin' wow, I toootally disagree :P

As for CoS, I felt like it was a big improvement over the first. Sorcerer's Stone was excellent in setting up characters and the visual establishment of everything*, but CoS felt much more confident and comfortable.

Chamber is also, as of now, probably the best adaptation of the lot. SS was too literal, the rest have been a bit too haphazard in the editing room or in the screenplay. I gladly welcome back Kloves over Goldenberg though. I mean, Goldenberg was fine for *most* of Order, but holy crap was that last act awful, so awful I cheered when I heard Kloves would be finishing it out.

*sometimes I feel Columbus isn't given his proper due for SS. He and his team need big shiny medals for all the work they put into the locales and visual 'meat and potatoes'.

(Reply to this)

jacobugath writes:
on Jul 09 2009 08:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525113)
Ice Ghost, I agree that SS was a decent film. Columbus' fault was not making CoS better than the first. Have you ever watched the deleted scenes from the second film? THEY ARE THE BEST SCENES IN THE ENTIRE FILM. And they were cut.
They didn't improve the set, they didn't enhance life in the castle like Alfonso did. CoS felt TOO comfortable. No one besides the new characters gave great performances. CoS was very dull, very methodical, and very forgettable. Again, to beat the dead horse, the basilisk was NOSE-GRABBING STINKY.

(Reply to this)

greg b. writes:
on Jul 09 2009 08:47 PM

Well I'm doing my Potter marathon on Sunday....again. I've done it several times when a new movie was coming out. I really liked this movie, a lot more then the first....I hated the cheesy "he couldn't touch you because of the power of love" ending of the first...cliche. I thought the first three Potter movies were the most fun. The third movie being my favorite, while I thought the fourth was the worst. I always felt that the evil of the maze never matched it's hype. I always knew there was suppose to be more to the maze even before I read the book. That's what bothered me about GOF...the maze sequence was anti-climatic. I also never really believed the friction between Ron and Harry, it felt to forced and unbelievable. I loved the last movie, it was dark and the most mature of them all....my only complaint is that it sacrificed the charm of the first 3.

(Reply to this)

Massive3d writes:
on Jul 09 2009 09:03 PM

I miss Chris Columbus he brought a youthful fun to his directing.

(Reply to this)

tgibfo writes:
on Jul 09 2009 10:33 PM

I haven't read all of the comments here so I may be re-stating something.... but remember that these stories really did start out as kids books... the "reality" of the dangers of the forest and Quiddich and the goofiness that seems to drain as the stories progress was all intentional... there's a certain amount of forgiveness that these films need I think....

...and brilliant Bugs Bunny quote, M.

(Reply to this)

ffamilyguy writes:
on Jul 09 2009 11:46 PM

Azkaban was the best one so far!!

(Reply to this)

Tasha L. writes:
on Jul 10 2009 07:23 AM

It's hard for me to have a favourite of the films because I was disappointed with all of them. I am something of a purist in book/film adaptations and certain changes/omissions annoyed me. I would probably say my favourite is Azkaban because the actors were the perfect age to play the characters and the way the story was approached felt closer to the books than any of the others. I too felt Gambon's Dumbledore was too frenetic and angry. Harris's Dumbledore was much closer to the character from the books, with a twinkle in his eye and a kind word. He may no longer have had the power for the big scenes in later films, but he caught the essence of Dumbledore.

Unlike most people I really didn't like Prunella Scales' portrayal of Umbridge. I worked with a real life Umbridge (right down to the stubby fingers, falsely girlish voice, and overt schadenfreude) for 4-5 years until quite recently and Scales came off more desperate than menacing to my mind.

The only other casting that I *kind of* disagreed with was Snape who I thought might have been better portrayed by either Alan Cumming or Rowan Atkinson. I think Atkinson was overlooked because most people outside the UK only know him as Mr Bean, but he would have been great. And Alan Cumming has the perfect face and build for Snape, and he does glaring hatred and sarcasm really well.

(Reply to this)

AniMill writes:
on Jul 10 2009 09:35 AM

In reply to this comment (#2525089)
jokerboy... I know you'll like them, but do beware that the fifth book was to me the least enjoyable to read. I got really fed up with the teen-angst Potter went thru - there was still much to love and compel the completion of the book, I just got tired of his whiny-butt.

The last two books are the best and I hope serve as the foundations of the best films.

(Reply to this)

AniMill writes:
on Jul 10 2009 09:39 AM

As for this film - I agree that it too was only a mid-level "A" film. Its production value and cadence just hadn't found their stride yet. I did enjoy it as the first, but when placed against #'s 3~5 you really understand where truly great directors make their mark. The later films shine in quality and intensity bringing the whole Potter story up to first-class "A" films.

(Reply to this)

Craig M. writes:
on Jul 10 2009 10:39 AM

Chamber is far far better than Sorcerers Stone, in my opinion. Neither are great movies (well, none of the HP movies are great), but Chamber was just more entertaining. I wonder what the films would have been like if Columbus had continued to direct. I don't know if he was the right man for the job, but I wish they had just stuck with one director throughout the whole series. As is, the films feel completely disjointed and disconnected from one another. For example, GoF and OotP are completely different films.

(Reply to this)

Amalgamate writes:
on Jul 10 2009 11:00 AM

NickP-I think I speak for all of us when I say that you are simply too hard to please

Maybe go ask your mother what she thinks of your opinions-hee hee

(Reply to this)

dj Mark writes:
on Jul 10 2009 11:11 AM

Like Scorcerer's Stone, I found Chamber of Secrets to be way too long and slavish to a book I had yet to pick up. So, I still felt like an outsider, though I found more to like about the story this time around.

I also recall by being annoyed with Madam Pomfry's screaming baby plants. I thought Does EVERY Potter film need some noisy, silly, magical inventions to keep the little ones entertained?

Over all, though, I was again let down because I had hoped the series potential would grab me with the second offering.

(Reply to this)

padouke writes:
on Jul 10 2009 11:22 AM

In reply to this comment (#2525071)
I'll probably be in the minority by saying this, but the third Potter film was my least favorite. Obviously Cuaron is a very decorated and distinguished director with works like Children of Men and Y Tu Mama Tambien under his belt, and he does a very good job with Azkaban. But the dark, almost Pan's Labyrinth-y tone to it didn't click with me. Yes, this is where the series took a much bigger step into a mature direction, referencing the emotion and chemistry that Cuaron installed into Azkaban. But it just didn't feel... right. Not among Columbus' other additions. And looking back now on all five, Columbus, Newell, and Yates all captured a tone that seemed to mesh together and hide the disorganization and confusion with the Potter directors, but Cuaron's just stands out like a sore thumb. Goblet of Fire remains my favorite, followed then by Yate's "Order". Cuaron crafted a fine film, but it doesn't fit in with the others in my opinion, and in such a monumental series, nothing is more important than that.

(Reply to this)

KingSigy writes:
on Jul 10 2009 11:38 AM

I never really saw the film as fast moving. I mean, the pacing is definitely quicker, but the film is longer, so you start to feel it by the end. The actors still didn't really come together for me in this one, so I didn't find it better than the first. Nice work, though, Matt. Hopefully you end Prisoner of Azakaban as thrilling as I (and many others) did. I still think that one is the best of the movies.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 10 2009 12:08 PM

I definitely like this one more than SS, but I still feel that it's too polished. That's the one problem I've always had with the first two Potter films, everything seems too squeaky clean and polished to be real. Overall though it was nice that CoS had a bit of a darker feel than Columbus gave the first one, and he kept it moving at a faster pace, but because of the polished feel I never felt that anyone was ever in any danger.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 10 2009 12:42 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525097)
jacobugath: So are you complaining because you decided to read something you didn't like, because you didn't have to read it. By the way, have you ever seen a magical creature known as a Basilisk in real life before? I'm assuming the answer is no, so how do you know it isn't supposed to look like that? And have you seen a snake? The head of the Basilisk mimics that of some sea serpents, while the rest of him looked like a snake. If the depiction of the basilisk is one of the reasons you don't like this movie you should really come up with something new.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 10 2009 01:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525109)
Nick P.: I have to completely disagree with you on Christopher Lee, the problem with having him play Dumbledore comes from the audiences perception of Christopher Lee. He might be able to play the role right, but everyone in the audience won't see it like that because no matter what he does he's going to creep everyone out because he doesn't play the lovable mentor, he could do the, "You don't want to see me angry," side of Dumbledore, but I don't think he could do the lovable, easygoing, sometimes senile side of Dumbledore.

As for Rickman and Snape, I have to say that Rickman hits exactly what I got from the book. He's oily, anger always simmering below the surface, etc, that's what I expected from the role. I think everyone that's been cast matches what I expected when I read the book except for Gambon as Dumbledore.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 10 2009 01:07 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525164)
tgibfo: I don't think anyone said anything about the kiddie stuff in the film.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 10 2009 01:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525246)
Tasha L.: Who the hell is Prunella Scales?! Did you mean Imelda Staunton? Anyway, I have to say that I think she was perfect for the role, but to each their own. Anyway, you should try to avoid grading a movie based on it's source material, of course you're going to be disappointed if you do that, but it should be noted that JK Rowling as been there every step of the way helping to keep things as true as possible.

(Reply to this)

Reebee52 writes:
on Jul 10 2009 01:29 PM

Chamber of secrets was good, like the first, but not great. As somebody said, the deleted scenes were fantastic but were cut, and there were some plot changes I wasn't crazy about.

But what really got me was the ending. Worst ending of any movie ever.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 10 2009 01:31 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525310)
Craig M.: I don't think they should have let Columbus direct, I don't think he was good for the job at all. All of the films would have ended up too light and polished, and I don't know that he would have approached the darker material later on all that well. I actually like getting a different director on almost every movie (I'm really glad that they got Yates to finish up because I liked his feel to OotP as much as I loved the feel that Cuaron gave PoA), it's just interesting to see how a different director would interpret the material.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 10 2009 01:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525326)
padouke: You know I love the tone of GoF, but I hate how the characters were directed, mainly Barty Crouch, Barty Crouch Jr., and Dumbledore. It just felt that Newell didn't have that much of a grasp on the characters as he should have. He got the school, and the students dead on, but as far as the individual characters they just didn't fit right.

Also I didn't like how Newell overdramaticized things like the first two challenges. I'm not a purist when it comes to adaptations, but he could have stuck a little more to the book on the challenges and saved some screen time for other things, like the explanation that Rita Skeeter was an animagus and that's how she knew some things that no one knew (did they even mention in GoF that Hagrid and the Headmistress of Beauxbatons were both half giants?). Things like this make it my least favorite of the series.

(Reply to this)

Dave J. writes:
on Jul 10 2009 02:20 PM

I can never get into any of the Harry Potter films, I guess I'd appreciate them more had I read the books first.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 10 2009 03:18 PM

Just to address a pet peeve of mine that I forgot to mention in the first thread. I absolutely loathe the fact that they call the first book The Sorcerer's Stone in America. The moreso because of the reasoning behind it. They didn't think American's were smart enough to get the reference to the Philosopher's Stone which has a basis in myth. What the hell is a Sorcerer's Stone? OK, I've ranted.

DJ Mark, for my annoying corrective internet guy moment it was actually Professor Sprout who had the screaming Mandrake's. She was the herbologist. Madam Pomfrey is the magic doctor.

Snape, whoever said he didn't like Rickman because in the books Snape is described as a giant vulture which Rickman didn't resemble. Actually in the book Snape is described most often as a Giant Bat. Which Snape most definately does resemble. Particularly the scene in Order where it shows Snape returning to his lab or anytime he's required to move fast. Plus, I love the pauses Rickman ads to the character. I can't remember another actor who gets more out of a limited number of lines. Rickman is one of those rare actors who's equally watchable with a lot of lines or with none at all. He would have been a star even in the silent era.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 10 2009 04:20 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525383)
Dave J.: Why even bother coming on here and commenting if you don't have any intention of watching the films?

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 10 2009 04:28 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525383)
bigbrother: Yeah, the whole Sorcorer's Stone/ Philosopher's Stone thing bothered me too. I always felt like I got an inferior product because it wasn't what the author had initially intended. I actually wanted to pay extra money just to get it the way it was meant to be.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 10 2009 05:43 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525428)
My niece started reading the book the Alchemyst by Michael Scott because she thought Nicholas Flamel was invented by J.K. Rowling and that book was somehow connected to Harry Potter. She didn't realize Nicholas Flamel was a real person and that his house is still standing in Paris.

(Reply to this)

Iron Knight writes:
on Jul 10 2009 05:59 PM

I haven't really understand why a lot of people praise Cuaron's film. I really liked Chamber of Secrets, being the second I liked the most, probably because all the great performances from it, my favourites being Kenneth Branagh (who was probably the best), Robbie Coltrane (again after the first one), Jason Isaacs (great) and of course, Richard Harris, who did an awesome job as Dumbledore. I still miss him at this point of the series, though I don't know how he could have pulled off the action sequences of 5 and 6. I have never been able to truly see Gambon as Dumbledore, maybe because he makes him being kind of bad-tempered. My ratings overall:

1. Goblet of Fire - 4.5 ouut of 5
2. Chamber of Secrets - 4.5 out of 5
3. Half-Blood Prince - 4 out of 5
4. Philosopher's Stone - 4 out of 5
5. Prisoner of Azkaban - 3.5 out 5
6. Order of the Phoenix - 3 out of 5

Yes, I have seen Half-Blood Prince. A very good film, but I really disliked the end scenes.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 10 2009 06:52 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525453)
Bummer about the end scenes, what was wrong with them without revealing too much?

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 10 2009 06:58 PM

It seems like the end scenes of Half Blood Prince have really split a lot of people. In the reviews I've read it seems like the end scenes are what's splitting most critics even though the movie as a whole is getting some great reviews. I'm just glad to hear it's the most human of the series so far, that makes me glad that Yates is doing the final book, and I'm even happier to hear it's being split into two movies (I just hope that eventually they'll be released as one long movie).

(Reply to this)

Magic is Might writes:
on Jul 10 2009 07:54 PM

Big Brother the word on the street is that they changed the ending so that it was not as epic as it was in the book, the same event but just scaled down.

Now the real question is where do they split the final movie, i am having a hard time of thinking of a great place to split it without the first part being lacking in story and action.

(Reply to this)

Iron Knight writes:
on Jul 10 2009 08:29 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525498)
Hey, Magic is Might, I think they're spliting it just before the trio are captured and taken to Malfoy Mannor.

(Reply to this)

Magic is Might writes:
on Jul 10 2009 09:23 PM

That might work but then that still gives the first part way more story building and the second movie more action. I am seeing them having trouble splitting it. I think the best area for them to split it is the scene after, where they bury Dobby and come up with their new plan.

(Reply to this)

Movie-Buff-Brad writes:
on Jul 11 2009 11:22 AM

Seems like I'm in the minority, but Chamber of Secrets is far and away my favorite so far. It's the funniest, most entertaining, and the most memorable. PS is a little too cheesy for me, and the other three after CoS are pseudo dark and lifeless. Hopefully HBP is as good as it's being described as.

(Reply to this)

Dave J. writes:
on Jul 12 2009 08:41 PM

In reply to this comment (#2525423)
whiteymcwhite
I had seen the movies but I didn't really enjoyed them all that much. I'm just saying that I may have enjoyed them more if I had read the books which I have not.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links