'Potter' gets edgier in second film
By Nicole Rodriguez
The magic is back in the second installment of Warner Brothers' "Harry Potter" series, and this time is proves to be stronger and more enchanting then ever.
This film, entitled "The Chamber of Secrets," opens to find Harry (played by Daniel Radcliffe) living back with his horrid aunt, uncle and cousin, dreaming of the day he can return back to his boarding school at Hogwarts and be once more amongst friends. Unfortunately, as Harry is planning to return, he receives a visit from a strange creature named Dobby, who warns Harry that danger awaits him back at Hogwarts, danger that has until now been locked away in the Chamber of Secrets.
Choosing danger over another day with his awful relatives, Harry returns back to school and, with the help of his chums Ron and Hermione (Rupert Grint and Emma Watson), resolves to solve the mystery surrouding the Chamber of Secrets and save Hogwarts from the evil that threatens its students.
Released only a year after the original film, "Chamber" proves to be even more magical than the first. This improvement is quite an acheivement, seeing as the first film was so successful both critically and at the opinion.
The differences between the two movies are obvious from the start. While "The Sorercor's Stone" focused on being magical in an almost Disney-esque, "Chamber" is darker and grittier. It seems as though director Chris Columbus ("Home Alone," "Mrs. Doubtfire") has set out to target a slightly older audience, filling his movies with giant spiders and snakes that would most certainly terrify the seven- to eight-year old audience "Sorceror" was intended for. The PG rating almost seems generous, given these intense sequences.
This intensity, of course, demands a lot more from its actors than the original film did. And lead actor Daniel Radcliffe tackles it head-on in a performance that is even more impressive than his first. In fact, this story rests solely upon the shoulders of Radcliffe, who shared top billing with screen veterans in "Sorceror." In fact, the big name actors of this film (among whom are "Dogma's" Alan Rickman and Academy Award nominee Maggie Smith) have less screen time than Harry's pet owl. Their reputations alone guarentee them top billing.
The only adult actor who did have a significant amount of screen time is the delightful new addition to the "Potter" cast - Shakespearean actor Kenneth Branagh ("Hamlet," "Much Ado About Nothing"). As celebrity teacher Gilderoy Lockheart, Branagh provides the film with a sense of much needed comic relief. In fact, outside of Radcliffe, his performance is probably the most memorable and most appreciated of the film.
Admist all of this improvement, however, the film is not without its drawbacks. As with the original film, Columbus feels a need to remain entirely faithful to the book source of his film. And, while this is admirable given how few directors strive to do this, the movie also comes off as too long, and young moviegoers are apt to lose interest sometime along the 180-minute way. "Sorceror" (which ran 152 minutes) had this same problem. Columbus and screenwriter Steven Kloves need practice in the fine art of editing.
Sadly, however, it seems that they will never have a chance to learn this art. It has become common knowledge in Hollywood circles that this is the last time the cast and filmmakers will work together. Although all seven of the "Potter" books have been optioned for film, director Columbus, as well as all of the teachers (including Smith, Rickman and "A Fish Called Wanda's" John Cleese) have announced that they will part ways with the "Potter" series following this film. It's too bad. If the movie got this much better the second time around, imagine what could have happened the third.