Slightly better, no more memorable

Rating: 8/10 (10 December 2010)

Coming in with slightly less hype if no smaller set of expectations, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets", the second book in Rowling's series now being adapted to screen, is truly a sequel to the first film: almost identical in shape and style, though a few darker shades have been welcomely added.
The movie stills follows the book extremely faithfully: Harry is back for his second year at Hogwarts, though instead of finding a sorcerer's stone he and his pals Ron and Hermoine have to discover a far more sinister secret: the school's storied Chamber of Secrets, which may be the key to explaining why so many students have been petrified (and since they we're all muggle-born, there's a distinct Slythern connection). With a couple small exceptions, nearly every scene in the book is in the movie, so no need to worry about your favorites not being here, but that in turn makes for an overlong, often sluggish movie. Even in it's strict adherence to it's source, Chris Colombus and Steve Kloves don't seem able to convey the appeal of the books on the screen; the often swift pacing and quick-witted attention to detail that make Rowling's books such a delight are instead turned into a bit of a lumpy, routine cinematic journey, more like they're trying to outline each of the book's major plot points rather than translating their appeal to the much tighter confines of a film. It's more like a power-point presentation than a real movie
That being said, this second go-around is a modest improvement over the original, even with most of the same flaws. If Colombus and co. haven't quite been able to convey a sense of cinematic dread and foreboding, they at least make this installment a bit darker and more colorful than the original. Scenes involving a gang of angry spiders and a wild, uncompromising giant willow are nicely creepy and even have a sense of dark whimsy. Quidditch feels less like Nintendo pinball and more like a real-yet-otherworldly death match, thanks to much improved, more nimble special effects.
And nearly all the cast returns, which is more than welcome. Although there's unfortunately less of Alan Rickman's Snape and Emma Watson's Hermonine, the original's primary scene-stealer's, there are some welcome new additions. Kenneth Branagh gives one of his broadest, loosest performances ever as the fatuous rock-star new professor Gilderoy Lockheart, who can't even seem to wave his wand correctly, and Jason Isaacs gives a memorable sneer to his brief role as the debonair, possibly evil Luscious Malfoy, father of Harry's nemesis Draco. While the larger role Daniel Radcliffe takes on as Harry in this installment does show him under a bit of strain (especially since until now he could get along entirely on wide-eyed reaction shots), he does everything necessary to carry the movie, if not memorably. And there's perhaps an unintentional but welcome sense of Pathos to Richard Harris in his final screen performance as Dumbledore, especially with his characters frequent musings on mortality and death.
And unfortunately this film, although a bit better, is no more memorable than it's predecessor. It feels too undistinguished from many other big-budget Hollywood kids movie, especially with Colombus's penchant for cloying shots of constantly smiling children and an all-too-arch score. It's certainly welcome that he passes the reins for the next installment (to "Y tu Mama Tambien" director Alfonsou Cauron!), for which hopefully we'll see a more inspired makeover. For now, this will suffice (and it's creators will surely be well-compensated), but not for much longer.