Harry Potter's Second Year at Hogwarts means more character development!

Rating: 9/10 (23 November 2005)

Wow! What an improvement in every way over "The Sorcerer's Stone!" At first I was a little ambivalent that this film would be essentially a rehash of what happened in the first film, and indeed that is the case, but it helps to examine the nature of the universe and characters created in the first film and ties it in extremely well to the films that follow. More specifically I am referring to how this movie was essentially designed just to provide more character insight into the connection between Harry and Voldemort. Whereas we encountered the "real" Voldemort in "The Sorcerer's Stone" as essentially a parasite living off of Professor Quirrell, here we have a "copy," a virtual Voldemort created when he was a student named Tom Riddell 50 years ago. The copy has all of the knowledge and memories of the Voldemort in the present but retains the form of the past and even tries to "become more than a memory." Not only is this a highly innovative way to flesh out the arch villain's backstory but it also provides greater motivation for his rebellion years ago and for his return two years later. Both of these two movies have the same plot really which is setting up the background and personality of a boy wizard prodigy who comes to learn more about himself through the attempts of his nemesis, Voldemort, to seek revenge. This movie posits Voldemort on a more realistic playing field and yet with the most creative of devices, that of the virtual becoming the real, which then allows for the revelation that Voldemort rubbed off some of his powers on Harry. Is Harry then another more complex copy of Voldemort we wonder? They certainly do have a connection, mutually attracting and repulsing one another, tied by history and circumstances, and yet divided by alternative perceptions of this connection. Voldemort derives his view of the world from his abilities, an ideology akin to predestination, while Harry has defined himself by his actions, his choices, not by any predetermined role that he must play because of the innate tools which he has been given. Philosophically, the ideas are far richer than in the first film. It is as if Columbus remade the same plot only with new scenarios better connected thematically. The complexity of the ideas presented in this film are so far beyond that of typical kids fare, and I can see why fans of all ages are intrigued by this franchise on so many levels.
In terms of intensity this film still grapples with having a kid-friendly, toy-box insipidness that can't accommodate the more complex ideas, more probing character exposition, and darker themes. Once again I feel completely immersed in this magical world, and, although this film is more epic in scope, I would like to see this scale expanded to give us a glimpse of the world beyond Hogwarts. As much as I love the claustrophobia of these first two films, I still find it difficult to posit this magical world within our own real world. The cinematography exudes mythological reverence with its massive establishing shots of the most richly appointed interiors with the only external establishing shots being of the castle or the dark forest. When this epic camera-work could have really been applied to great effect I don't think it was all that effective during the closing battle scene, which should have been taken more seriously than its almost plastic-y, Spy Kids dimension which I think patronizes the youth audience towards which this film is marketed.
The best thing about this film, though, is the acting. Emma Watson has obviously received professional help--acting lessons that is, and the addition of British gods Kenneth Branagh and Jason Isaacs added the right mix of serio-comic absurdity. And their presence helps to mitigate the dull political banter that reminds of the debate over the taxation of trade routes in a galaxy far, far away. Outstanding film all around.
Originality: 100 Intensity of Effect: 90 Complexity: 90 Coherence: 100 Average: 95 Dialogue too stilted for real children at times (-5) Acting excellent (+2) Cinematography (+1) Brilliant pacing (+2) Sumptuous mise-en-scene (+1)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: A (96)