Overall a better film than its predecessor, 'Chamber of Secrets' suffers the same way by trying too hard

Rating: 6/10 (24 July 2009)

Watching the 'Harry Potter' film series over again after all these years, in the lead-up to the new installment, I am once again struck by what excellent cinema these stories ought to have made. Movie history is littered with incredible movies made from less-than-stellar source material - 'The Godfather', 'Jaws', 'Psycho', 'The Silence of the Lambs' - none would be considered better than low-brow bestsellers, but the movies that were based on them have become unqualified classics. Maybe because a lot of pulp novels were influenced by cinema, and thus, while short on literary quality, serve quite well as screenplays. Or maybe it's because there is no real pressure on the filmmakers to be true to the source material - changing and 'improving' 'The Godfather' would hardly cause the kind of outrage that mangling Salman Rushdie would.
You see what I'm getting at. I don't think J.K. Rowling is a great author, and I don't think she writes great books. I first started reading the Potter books in 2000, as an 8-year-old; and, while I enjoyed them heaps, I wasn't in awe of them, having already read Tolkien and been awed by him instead. But I always thought that the fantastical world of Harry Potter, with its weird creatures and solid, archetypal characters, could be a roaring success on the screen after the manner of Star Wars. And while I didn't know it at the time, in retrospect, I can see why Chris Columbus started off directing the Potter movies - the choice fits with my vision of the series' film fortunes.
Except they didn't do it right. Or, rather, they tried to do it too well. The Columbus Potter movies are lamed by a crippling fear of ostracizing Potter aficionados or offending parental sensibilities - they don't dare depict anything other than the most vanilla view of Harry's world. Therefore, for all that the special effects are dazzling, the actors convincing, the story well told, a certain sense of wonder evoked, the lack of panache and palpable self-consciousness of the movies keep them from being a modern Star Wars. They are, to put it bluntly, a bit flat. Which is a real pity, because 'Chamber of Secrets' is the last Potter book with a relatively simple plot that translates easily to screen.
The movie takes its time in relating Harry's experiences during his second year at Hogwarts (unlike the first film, however, 'Chamber' doesn't give the viewer much sense of the passage of time; you'd have to read the book to know that the climax takes place at the end of the year), with Quidditch and an underdeveloped house-elf subplot having space to stretch a bit. If 'Chamber' had been directed by Alfonso Cuaron it could have been a magnificent film, as the simplicity of the story that allows Columbus to include little details would have allowed Cuaron to bring his inimitable style to bear upon the picture. As it is, Cuaron directed the next installment, 'Prisoner of Azkaban', which has a labyrinthine plot that becomes muddled rather than amplified by Cuaron's imagination - 'Chamber' would not have suffered in this way.
I think it's time I better mention the fact that I still found the movie enjoyable. While overlong and emotionally heavy-handed, it has just the right amount of humor and sinister spookiness to be good fun for all in the mood for well-made frivolity. As is custom with the Potter adaptations, production values and professionalism are never in doubt; the best possible crew has been hired and they do their job well.
The casting is, as always, excellent. Along with the returning who's who of British legends from the first movie (the late, great Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, etc.), there are new arrivals in Fiona Shaw and the magnificent Kenneth Branagh - who shamelessly steals every single scene he appears in, even ones with the peerless Alan Rickman. Rickman, of course, is the perfect Snape, exaggerating his stylish wickedness but keeping just enough on this side of pantomime to avoid being ridiculous. I cannot imagine other people find him menacing in the first two movies. He is just great fun.
Bizarrely, the child actors are actually not as good in this second movie as their younger selves were in the first. Perhaps they're trying to 'act' too much. Rupert Grint, who was the best of the lot in the first movie, here begins his slide into relative mediocrity - his role consists of making the same horrified nauseous face over and over while rasping in a very high, fearful voice. Watson's Hermione and Radcliffe's Harry improved massively after this movie, which, thankfully, seems no more than a sophomore slump for their acting careers.
'Chamber' does have a different tone as compared to 'Stone'. The palette is darker, with Slytherin green (for obvious story reasons) dominating the screen. It is also much scarier than the first, while still retaining the whimsicality - and the innumerable reaction shots of children grinning delightedly that have become Columbus' dubious trademark - that the first film possessed and that made up much of its charm. With no more magical explaining to do the plot is given top priority, and a sinister one it is, too.
The world seems to want Harry never to go back to Hogwarts. Mysterious warnings be damned, Harry lands up controversially at school, where cats, ghosts and students alike are being Petrified by an unseen agent - only, Harry is hearing voices. And his strange talents - strange, even for wizards - are becoming public. The heir of Slytherin has returned to Hogwarts - but who could it be? And how can we make the audience get that we hate racial discrimination? Oops. Not quite sure about the last line there.
A fun movie, not a masterpiece. Guardedly recommended, if you have three hours to pass.