Somehow, it's all worth it -- the standing in line days ahead of time for tickets, the embarrassing looks from movie-goers a decade younger than you and even the awkward conversations in the popcorn line about favorite passages from the book (don't even ask me why these happened, but they did). From the moment that Dobby (a house-elf) shows up in the first scene to throw a cake on the bulbous head of his uncle's client, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is full-blown movie-going pleasure.
Now almost five years after its 1998 book release, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is almost nothing more than a memory in the book world of bestsellers and holiday picks. And this is only made worse by the fact that series author J. K. Rowling hasn't released any books at all in almost three years. Even huge Harry Potter fans have a difficult time remembering what was exactly the plot line of the novel, much less its intricacies. At least those of us over the age of 12, anyway.
Fortunately, the film brings everything flooding back like the overflowing toilets in Moaning Myrtle's haunted bathroom.
Now in their second year at Hogwarts' School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) are faced with a new series of problems surrounding the opening of the school's Chamber of Secrets.
Supposedly created eons ago by Salazar Slytherin, one of the school's four founders, as a means of ridding the school of mudbloods (those holding magic powers but born of Muggle, non-magic, parents), the Chamber has been opened once again.
Notes are haphazardly scrawled on the stone walls in blood. Students, a cat and even a ghost end up petrified and motionless, able to be restored only by a difficult potion. And Moaning Myrtle, the ghost of the girl's bathroom, finds a book without words. This is Hogwarts, and anything is possible.
Harry, of course, becomes the possessor of the seemingly empty book, which turns out to be the diary of Tom Riddle, a student at Hogwarts over 50 years ago. And the diary has the capacity, without words, to take Harry back in time to see the previous opening of the Chamber.
So the secrets begin. Who is Tom Riddle and why is he connected to Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), Harry's friend and gatekeeper of Hogwarts? What is Moaning Myrtle's connection to the events surrounding Hogwarts? And can sly, conniving Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) have anything to do with the goal of wiping out the mudbloods after he called Hermione just that?
These secrets are of course nothing compared to those housed in the Chamber itself, but that's the beauty of the movie's plot line. Every additional question, pondering and subtle clue is just a puzzle piece -- the answer's provided at the end, obviously, but half the fun is in trying to guess it yourself. (I mean, come on, if you're older than 20 and watching "Harry Potter," at least try and make it intellectual)
Watson, Radcliffe and Grint (now 12, 13 and 14 respectively) gain quite a bit of ground as both wizards and actors in this one. Even better than they were in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," as undiscovered child actors, these three come into their own as emotional characters. Somehow there's even a little sexual tension between Watson and Grint, boding well for the five movies still to come.
And once again, Chris Columbus does an admirable job as director. Granted, it can't possibly be that difficult to work with a movie that would be a hit even if done entirely with a stick-figure cast, but Columbus still continually works to up the ante. Together with John Seale as director of photography, Columbus creates a visually stunning film.
Staircases continue to move by their own whim, inhabited by ghosts insistent on removing their heads and paintings that talk. Stars fill the "night-sky" ceiling of the central dining hall. A freak Quidditch game sends Harry and Draco on a computer-animated rout through and even under the field. While not necessarily cutting-edge or experimental when it comes to the visual imagery, the film is, at the very least, highly capable of presenting odd (can we say magical?) images as realistic.
The one real flaw in the movie, as was said with "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," is simply its blatantly close adaptation of Rowling's book.
Of course, Rowling is known for literally standing on the set and watching the filming. And there are thousands of expectant kids waiting to see every favorite scene transferred to the big screen.
But those aren't really excuses. Any film adaptation of a book gains more power and just plain oomph when it takes a more literal reading and goes with emotion over exactness. It's the old adage once again -- heart over head.
All of it pushed aside -- flaws in preciseness, long queues of ticket-buyers and even those bizarre concession line conversations -- this is a powerful movie and one that works for all ages. In fact, "Harry Potter" might even work better if you haven't already read the books. To be a true wizard, find the nearest Nimbus 2001 and make your way to a packed theater.
Read More
The best albums of 2014
By Noah Zeidman | December 4, 2014Across genres, it has been a pretty great year in music.
Top 10 movies of 2014
December 4, 2014This has been an excellent year for film, offering everything from gripping blockbusters to innovative personal films.
Iggy Azalea is “Reclassified”
December 4, 2014It has become common practice among music artists to repackage their albums in an effort to simultaneously boost single sales and dish out new content by slightly renaming the album or slapping “Deluxe” onto the title.
