A strong sequel, but elements get lost in transition from book to film...

Rating: 9/10 (14 February 2006)

Chamber of Secrets is the sequel to the widely received Philospher's Stone and a marked improvement over it's prequel in terms of plot and character depth and acting skill by the film's young actors. A lot of this is down to the fact that the book itself is very well written though sadly some elements of it aren't portrayed quite as well in the film.
Like Philosopher's Stone, the line-up is strong, with many well-known names here in the UK (Robbie Coltraine, Alan Rickman to name a couple) that gives this film an air of greatness, and even the film's young stars - Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron) and Emma Watson (Hermione) exude far greater confidence in their roles this time around and appear to be more at home with their surroundings. Some of this is down to better scripting, some to better acting ability (or training) but a lot of it is simply down to the actors returning to familiar territory.
Many book-to-film transfers usually end up omitting large parts of the plot, or lend themselves to grandiose special effects designed to prop up a weak, or butchered plot. Chamber of Secrets manages not to fall into either trap, although sacrifices were made to the plot to keep everything together in a short time frame.
For instance, seasons pass incredibly quickly in the film. So quickly, in fact that if you blinked, you've probably just skipped a couple of months. This isn't an exaggeration: The book manages to cover several main festivals and holidays that the film simply omits - i.e. Halloween. Moaning Myrtle is introduced in the film for the first time in a girls' toilet. In the book, she is actually introduced to Harry, Ron and Hermione during a Deathday Party hosted by Nearly-Headless Nick on Halloween. Incidentally, the girls toilets are 'out of order' in the book.
Another change between book and film is the introduction of the wizardry version of racism. Although it was a theme touched upon in the first book, here it is the main undercurrent and sits well at home with Harry's arch-nemesis, Draco Malfoy. He almost looks like an advert for the Hitler Youth in the film, and the comments about "Mudbloods" - a phrase to describe, in derogatory terms a witch or wizard born from non-magical parents, certainly sit at home with his appearance... Had it been explored further. In the film however, it seems to be reserved for just a couple of scenes, and one of those - the scene following Malfoy's verbal assault on Hermione in the schoolyard, had been re-written so that it seemed Hermione herself took personal offence (being almost reduced to tears), rather than Ron and Harry (and just about everyone else on the Gryffindor Quidditch team).
A few new characters are introduced into the film too, including Ron's sister Ginny, and my personal favourite, Dobby - a house elf, not too dissimilar in appearance to Gollum from Lord of the Rings. He became my personal favourite character simply because of the way he's in constant conflict with himself - ironing his hands or smashing his head against a wall when he lets secrets slip. He provides a lot of laughs in the short time he appears in the film.
An ominous new character is Lucius Malfoy, Draco's father and a holder of many dark secrets, some exposed in the film, but many more left behind in the book. In the book, he shares the same "racist" attitude as his son Draco, but is more aware of who he can share this view with, and when it's best to keep his mouth closed. Again, only a part of this is carried into the film. It's not essential, but it certainly adds an extremely dark element to the Harry Potter universe.
Finally, there is Gilderoy Lockhart, an opportunistic fraud whose character carries extremely well from book to the big screen. In the book, Hermione (along with all the other girls) is besotted with him, whilst Harry and Ron quickly see through his paper-thin veneer. This, sadly isn't apparent in the film, which is a shame because it provides for many hilarious moments when he's running scared, with Ron and Harry seeing him for what he is, but Hermione, with having a massive crush on him, seeing something completely different - Bravery, when he was incapable of showing it! One thing that becomes apparent is that Hogwarts seems to go through a lot of Defence Against The Dark Arts teachers...
As a standalone film, it fares pretty well. The characters are strong, and the acting somewhat more believable this time around. The humour's there, and the Harry Potter universe is faithfully recreated, but darker elements have been watered down, possibly to make the film more accessible to children (though it's a children's book in the first place?), or possibly because it was felt that certain elements just weren't needed.
I feel that if you have read the book first, you will be disappointed with the big screen equivalent. I discovered that although I read the book long after seeing the film, it wasn't difficult to see what had been omitted, and I would've felt disappointed with the end result had I know beforehand. But I didn't, and as a standalone film, it's very good.
What does become apparent however, is that as the books continue to grow bigger and bigger, a lot more sacrifices will have to be made in future to try and squeeze a 700-page book (like Half Blood Prince) down to a three-hour film, and I wouldn't envy the person who ends up with the task of doing it! Apparently, Goblet of Fire makes some major omissions (I've not seen it, or read the book yet to draw a comparison, but the book is only a fraction of the size of Half Blood Prince, though it is double that of Chamber of Secrets.