Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

A New Review Of HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS!!

Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.

So I’ve been hiding the link to story where The Leaky Cauldron posted the international trailer for HARRY POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS in stories for the last week. In case you haven’t found any of the links, CLICK HERE and feast your eyes.

So far, each new clip from this film shows a little more, and also gives me confidence that they’ve pulled off a film that is better than their first outing. Our review from Walkabouter certainly suggests that’s the case. And now we’ve got this new reviewer chiming on. Do they agree with his early assessment? Let’s see...

Be warned... there are spoilers here if you haven’t read the book, and even if you have, there’s some stuff here you might want to see onscreen first...

to the AICN crew, from Sam's Myth:

Tonight I was lucky enough to catch a screening of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, almost a month before its release. I'm a big Harry fan and I'll just say right off the bat that it doesn't disappoint; It's quite great actually. Spoilers follow (but who hasn't read this book anyways?).

I'd love to just look at this film as its own individual unit, but the fact of the matter is that the most natural way of digesting it is by comparing and contrasting it to the other formats: the first movie, the movies to come, and of course the books. Just like most any Star Wars fan will tell you that Empire is the best, the majority of Potter fans easily dub Chamber as the worst (or the least great) of J.K. Rowling's books. Well we're in good shape if the worst of the books can be turned into a movie this fun. And with Alfonso Cuaron (of Great Expectations and A Little Princess, both fairly underrated) on board for the next film, it can only get better from here.

It's cliché to say this, but I will anyways: The first movie was a magical and fantastic introduction to the world of Harry Potter, and the second picks up from there (granted, less romantically) with a much darker tone. The film is literally darker, moodier (is it a stretch to note the noir-like camera angles?), and scarier. The film's mystery stems from the ressurection of the Chamber of Secrets, a hidden Slytherin heir, and some hot and bothered spirits lurking in the literal and figurative bowels of Hogwarts; That sense of mystery is what makes the movie so great. It's nice to reach that darker place, like when Tom Riddle's handwriting reveals itself to Harry from thin air, or when the other students start to silently question Harry's integrity as they do their homework. The set pieces are gothic and haunting (the gigantic trees of the Forbidden Forest; the Legend-of-Zelda-esque titular Chamber), and some moments are surprisingly uncanny-- like seeing Hermione frozen stiff, eyes glazed over ("petrified"), and the bizarre Shining-meets-Lolita incarnation of Moaning Myrtle, who is a lot freakier than that stupid girl in the Ghost Ship trailer.

The three kids (Daniel Radcliff (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron), and Emma Watson(Hermione)) turn in very solid performances. You can see how far they've come (and how much their voices have dropped) in just a year, especially Radcliffe, whose performance sometimes made me forget I was watching a kid. And then the other usual suspects are all back: Draco is meaner and has a badass new broomstick, Dumbledore confirms his lightning-bolt scar (Yep, it's there. And you heard it here first), Oliver Wood is still the man but has less screen time (sorry ladies), Warwick Davis gets another couple shots (yeah!!!), and our lovable friend Hagrid once again gets the honor of leading us to the closing credits with goosebumps. Kenneth Branagh, playing the haughty and hillarious Gilderoy Lockhart, fills Alan Rickman's shoes as the stealer of the show, and he'll keep the adults in the audience fully entertained with his craft. Great newcomer performances also from Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy, Mark Williams as Weasley, and Bonnie Wright is adorable as little Ginny Weasley.

Chris Columus has also fine-tuned some of the visual effects (don't get me wrong, some of it still looks plain bad, mainly the strangely lit and seemingly blue-screened spectators during the throwaway Quiddich sequence). Dobby the house-elf looks pretty freakin real in most of his shots, and the Basilisk (the Chamber's slithering pet) is one of the best-looking and genuinely frightening reptiles since Jurassic Park. It's also nice to see some old-school puppetry being used instead of just CG-ing every little thing (hint hint George), such as with the funny (and plot-oriented) Mandrakes and Fawkes, Dumbledore's mythic winged phoenix.

And when the phoenix cries on Harry's arm to heal his battle wound, it's strangely poignant. It's one of the few times you get that feeling, and if there's a flaw in the movie it's that it lacks the heart of the first. There's no real mention of Harry's parents-- a powerful visual and thematic element of the first movie-- and other than in the last scene, the movie doesn't quite capture your heart like the Sorcerer's Stone. Both of the Potter films suffer a bit in pacing, editing, and Columbus' lack of an unmistakable vision. But Chamber makes up for its flaws with a dark plot, its great sense of mystery and danger, and just the fact that at the end of the day, it's Harry Potter, and Harry Potter rules! You can look forward to being a kid again on November 15th.

Excellent. Thanks, man. For those of you who spent all day e-mailing me about the “recently announced” titles for the next four (!!) HARRY POTTER books, it looks like the rumor mill was working overtime yesterday. Yes, a Reuters search of the UK Patent Office trademark database confirmed that Warner Bros. had registered several titles, including HARRY POTTER & THE ALCHEMIST’S CELL, HARRY POTTER & THE CHARIOTS OF LIGHT, and HARRY POTTER & THE PYRAMIDS OF FURMAT. They also registered HARRY POTTER & THE GOBLET OF FIRE at the same time. Warner Bros. now says that none of the other titles will be used later in the series, and that the Reuter’s search had just turned up suggested alternate titles. Because those titles, along with the already announced HARRY POTTER & THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and the books in stores now, would add up to eight novels instead of the promised seven, fans went a little berserk. Anyone who thinks that POTTER-mania is dying out should have seen my inbox today. I’m glad Reuters did a followup to their original story from yesterday, since it helps calm excited fans down again.

"Moriarty" out.





Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Oct. 22, 2002, 6:34 a.m. CST

    Potter?

    by Mr_Morden75

    Je suis le premier talkbacker! And I dont particularly like Harry Potter...

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 6:57 a.m. CST

    potter isn't funny

    by marmaduc

    it's a movie only for children from 1 to 10 years

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 7:03 a.m. CST

    What about the ending?

    by Lance Turk

    They have to kiddy it up somehow. I was always kind of shocked when I read the ending of the book because the final battle is nothing but spurting blood on everybody's part. They have Harry sort of covered with green slime in the trailer, so I guess there will be some of the spurting blood... but not to the extent that the book went to.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 7:32 a.m. CST

    No heart?

    by AliceInWonderlnd

    Dissappointing - because I didn't think there was *that* much heart in the first one. I mean, it was all right. And that is a damning judgement, cos it should have been quite a bit better than "all right". That said, this book did have a giant spider in it, so Jon Peters should be happy, at least.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 7:34 a.m. CST

    Sounds good

    by evilody

    Actually I liked the second book more than the third, which bored me badly. Chamber of Secrets takes a while to get going, but once it clicks into top gear it's way more fun than the first. Who will be the first tosser to say how The Two Towers will blow this away? Uh, that'll be me. Actually I have no time for LOTR, sorry.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 8:15 a.m. CST

    Sorry but the first film was truly abyssmal...

    by paulio

    Hav`net read through the article yet (up to eyelids in work) but the first film was a cinematic mess. Book great film terrible. I`m skipping this and getting t when it goes cheap on DVD. Film three has a better director so I might jump back on then.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 8:25 a.m. CST

    "Quite Great" - says it all

    by jazzuk

    Here's a reviewer who had a big bone for the movie even before going in but having actually seen it has had to admit that the word "great" just doesn't apply, and so it's "quite great". Actually, from the review it's quite clear that this isn't a Harry Potter movie. It's a dozen other movies all wrapped up in a neat little franchise with a new banner over the theatre door. But I guess in it's own way that is what _makes_ it a Harry Potter. A derivative childish film can at least be said to have remained true to the derivative, childish drivel that provided the source material. It will be interesting to see just how well this movie does now that the Harry Potter bandwagon has moved on.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 8:42 a.m. CST

    Harry Potter is exciting

    by holidill

    Sorry, but most of the posters here are obviously not Harry Potter fans which is a shame because up until they announced the film, I had no interest in Harry Potter, I mean I'm almost 30 years old. But then my sister who is older and has kids told me how good the books were, then my dad who is a teacher told me how good the books were. I wrote them off because they need to read the books. But I kept hearing from a myriad of people how good it is. So when they announced the film I decided to get the first two books and maybe get the other two if I liked them. After reading the first book in a day, which I hardly ever do, I ran out and got the remaining books. Then my girlfriend, now fiancee wanted to read them, she loved them more than me. We went to see the film and loved it. Bought the DVD, loved it more. Now we are anticipating the sequel. We have also gotten a number of other people into the books and movie and they all like it to. I've seen both trailers and they look awesome! I cannot wait another month, must see now!

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 9:10 a.m. CST

    Potter: NO

    by CrazyCanuck2k

    The first movie was a mediocre attempt at best at making J.K. Rowling's vision accesible to people who haven't read the books. Anyone who hasn't read the books and has an ounce of intelligence would quickly dismiss the film as a flash in the pan marketing project. Every kid, age 1-12, eats this shit up. Why do you think those god awful Pokemon movies did so well? I for one will be watching only one movie with a wizard or two in it this year. And you can bet your ass they didn't leaen their wizardry in Hogwarts (or whatever)

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 9:33 a.m. CST

    This jaded attitude is getting ridiculous...

    by Hobbitastic

    OK, I'm a huge fan of the Harry Potter books so my opinion is a little biased. I thought the first movie was good but not GREAT. In fact, I was rather disappointed that I enjoyed Lord of the Rings more than it, largely due to the fact that NO ONE on this site could shut up about it and took every chance they had to rip on Potter (when none of them - including Harry - had even read the books). I don't post on here anymore because somewhere along the line, geek love became geek hate. I have a theory about this: before the internet, we hardly knew anyone that was into the things we love as hardcore as we were (whether it was Tolkien, comics, or in my case, Monty Python). Many people built it into their heads that all the things that the "popular" kids liked must suck because there were SO MANY PEOPLE who loved them. Now, the internet has arrived and people from all over the world, from many different cultures and backgrounds, can "meet" and talk (usually talk shit to each other with the protection of anonymity - can't kick my ass if I'm in Chicago and you're in Johannesburg). So little by little, we realized that the little pop culture niche that we lived in was really just one of millions; we were not alone and, get this, there's more of us than there is of them! Holy shit! Does that mean that the popular things that suck are really the things that I like? I guess that means they DO suck! Listen to me. YOU'RE KILLING GEEKDOM! It used to be a fun place but once everyone starts saying that everything sucks, there's something wrong. Yeah, yeah, I know what you're saying. "But everything DOES suck." Not true. Look, just because you're 21 now and the new Star Wars movie doesn't hit you the way that you remember the first Star Wars movie did when you were 7... guess what? You're a completely different person now! Hell, you've replaced all the cells in your body twice by then (yes, that was a nod to Waking Life but I was aware of that fact before seeing it). The movies (or a lot of them anyway) didn't change: YOU DID. It's up to you to remember what made you happy when you were a kid and incorporate some of that into your everyday lives, particularly when you pay that $10 to go to the movies. Perfect example: A lot of us are big fans of TRON. Well, I was watching Tron the other day and I thought to myself, "If this movie were made today exactly the same except for updated special effects, people would hate it. They'd hate it even more than they did 20 years ago." It's true. You'd all be here posting how derivative it is, how bad the story is, how special effects don't save a movie if the story sucks, and you'd be right. But the fact remains that most of us who were young'ins when Tron came out adore the movie. Because we remember how cool it was to us. We didn't give a shit about story, just the cool factor, and it was cool. So 20 years later, at least with kids' movies, most of us have lost our abilities to appreciate the evolution of this kind of stuff. It's all about who can hate things more than who. Where did it go wrong? I'm not saying that everybody has to like everything but, if you keep track of a lot of the posters here, you'll see that A LOT of them hate almost EVERYTHING! But they still come to this site to post. That's the problem. We need to return to our geek origins. We need to find that little 8 year old geeklet that we once were, cradle them in our arms and say, "It's OK, little buddy. I won't let you down again. I promise I won't you down again." So, getting back to my original point: stop hating Harry Potter because if it was around when you were a kid, you'd be saying now that it was one of the best stories ever so quit yer bitchin'.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 10:19 a.m. CST

    canucks are crazy

    by maxwell's hammer

    Hey now Canuck...i saw Harry Potter without ever having read the novels, and this might come as a surprise to you, but just a few weeks later, I was moved to go purchase the books, and I promptly read all 4 of them over the course of a few months. They're quite good, and I have to say that the film was a good primer. I'm actually looking forward to #5. So the film may not have lived up to your standard, but it got me hooked.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Hobbitastic - it's not just about lost childhood...

    by jazzuk

    Yeah I *know* I'm a different person to the one that saw Star Wars in 1977. But that is *not* why TPM/AotC _seem_ crap, they *ARE* crap. You want more credible evidence? Ask my _FIVE_ year old daughter. She sat enthralled watching Star Wars IV,V and yes, even VI and IV was her favourite "Daddy's film" for a while (until "the hobbit film" - as she calls it - came along). Wallace and Gromit/Shrek/Toy Story etc vie for #1 in her personal "all time" chart. But for a while there was a time that she would _ask_ to watch "Star Wars", and if I tried to put on TPM would get shouted at until I put the "proper" one on! Incidentally, she still asks to watch ("the hobbit film") from time to time and even asks to see the TTT trailer every now and then (she was _very_ upset when we explained that she couldn't come to the cinema to see it with Mummy and Daddy). So stick *that* in your "jaded" pipe and smoke it!

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 11:04 a.m. CST

    I'm back

    by Glass

    And I'm not black. Harry Potter is a great story, and I can't agree the movie is for kids 1 to 10. That's really just a ridiculous thing to say. I also don't understand Hobbitastic. What is this, a junior high cheerleading sleep-over camp? What's this guy talking about?

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 11:14 a.m. CST

    Potter

    by Unsafe_breadbin

    H.P. is an interesting one for me. The books are fantastic - best stuff I've read (for kids or otherwise) in years, and they do live up to the hype (and if you haven't read them, do that before you see any of the films). The movie though was a big big dissapointment. Looked bad, didn't flow well and was generally just plain dull. I might give the new one a try but I really think that they haven't managed to capture the essence of the books - and if it wasn't for the books, would anyone think it was a good movie? I doubt it. Whereas for LOTR I think they've taken some unintelligable, impenetrable, woefully geeky and generally overrated books and made some marvellously accessable films that everyone can enjoy - a genuine reason for a film version because it's allowed me to enjoy a story I otherwise wouldn't have been interested in. But for HP I can't really shift the thought that making cash sin't so much the bottom line but the only line. A shame if it is.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Stop telling me why I don't like things

    by WeedyMcSmokey

    Its become increasingly popular for some to tell people why they don't like Harry Potter, or the latest Lucas crap-fest, or even LotR - and apparently its because I'm not a kid anymore - or I have changed since then. Fuck that. Firstly, no one changes - you're not different then you were when you were a kid, your bigger and you probably smell a little better, but you're just the same ball of id re-packaged with a haircut. Sure, your interests change, hey I don't remember looking around for pussy at 8 years old either, but basically, you're the same person. Secondly, I am very much a kid - everyone is always telling me to grow up - "grow up" they say - and the first Star Wars films still make me go WHEEE!!!. The new ones, make me go BOOOOOOOOO..... Harry Potter made me go BLEH.... don't tell me you look at these films with a cold critical adult eye - you want to feel like a kid when you watch them, get lost in their world, escape. Except that they're usually trying to sell you something, and haven't concentrated on the construction of their little universes. So in conclusion, I eagerly await Harry Potter and the Urinal Cake of Eternal Fire.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Just looks better and better.

    by minderbinder

    And sure, we all aware that there are people out there that think HP is only for kids and could care less about it. (pokemon? please. If HP was popular for the same reasons as pokemon, would it really be the #2 movie of all time?) The other 90% of us (adults included) will be in the seats for this one and having a blast.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 1:11 p.m. CST

    To the scholars who replied to my post...

    by Hobbitastic

    (First, a quick note to Jazzuk about his daughter's taste in movies: If Daddy doesn't like it, baby won't like it either; it's called imprinting.) My previous post is my opinion. It's not set in stone. If you don't like it, fine. I'm not asking you to. I just happen to think that there's too much negativity amongst us and that Harry should change the name of his website to the more appropriate "Don't It Suck Ass News" the way some people carry on. So thank you all for illustrating my point beautifully. Seeing as you took it as a personal attack, it's good to know that, whether or not you thought about what I was trying to say, at least my message is reaching the right people. Sure, I'm being bashed for it and will continue to be bashed; I don't care. I've said it before: on the internet, opinions are like assholes... everybody IS one. And it's like everyone's guard is so up to defend why they do or do not like something (usually "do not") and I'm no different. I'm not saying you're a dick if you don't like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. I was just saying that maybe MAYBE you haven't considered that as an option. Apparently, I'm wrong. Whatever. But if there are that many other people who are preaching against geek hate, then that's something to think about. I don't really care if you do think about it or not but I couldn't let it be left unsaid, even at the risk of people I've never met in my life and probably never will calling me names.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 2 p.m. CST

    One question:

    by Spice-Orange

    Are there any Zombie Bruce Paltrows in this movie?

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Potter is Gay

    by The_Lion

    Anyone who spends this much time writing about this gay subject must be gay himself. In short, this whole thing is gay.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 2:19 p.m. CST

    Hobbitastic

    by Glass

    Nobody cares.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 2:48 p.m. CST

    Hobbitastic - I think you hit a little too close to the mark.

    by LairyFights

    But who really cares about those cynical asshats? I want to know what's up the Dumbledore scar! Reviewer: you got some 'splainin to do.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 4:45 p.m. CST

    GAYNESS

    by TomVee

    "And sure, we all aware that there are people out there that think HP is only for kids and could care less about it. (pokemon? please. If HP was popular for the same reasons as pokemon, would it really be the #2 movie of all time?) The other 90% of us (adults included) will be in the seats for this one." All I can say is, I tried reading the first book after my youngest daughter and wife got done reading it. I bought it for them when it first came out, thinking this looks interesting. Little did I know at the time! I didn't get past the first couple of chapters, as it was clearly not written for adult males. I also tried watching the movie, which my youngest daughter and my wife loved (albeit with some reservations), but I could not get past the first 30 minutes. It seemed to be an OK movie as movies go (Chris "Home Alone" Columbus directing was not a good idea, obviously), but again the subject matter was not aimed at adult males. It is as simple as that. HP is for children and mommies and, I suppose, gays of all persuasions. Period.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 4:45 p.m. CST

    GAYNESS

    by TomVee

    "And sure, we all aware that there are people out there that think HP is only for kids and could care less about it. (pokemon? please. If HP was popular for the same reasons as pokemon, would it really be the #2 movie of all time?) The other 90% of us (adults included) will be in the seats for this one." All I can say is, I tried reading the first book after my youngest daughter and wife got done reading it. I bought it for them when it first came out, thinking this looks interesting. Little did I know at the time! I didn't get past the first couple of chapters, as it was clearly not written for adult males. I also tried watching the movie, which my youngest daughter and my wife loved (albeit with some reservations), but I could not get past the first 30 minutes. It seemed to be an OK movie as movies go (Chris "Home Alone" Columbus directing was not a good idea, obviously), but again the subject matter was not aimed at adult males. It is as simple as that. HP is for children and mommies and, I suppose, gays of all persuasions. Period.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 4:45 p.m. CST

    GAYNESS

    by TomVee

    "And sure, we all aware that there are people out there that think HP is only for kids and could care less about it. (pokemon? please. If HP was popular for the same reasons as pokemon, would it really be the #2 movie of all time?) The other 90% of us (adults included) will be in the seats for this one." All I can say is, I tried reading the first book after my youngest daughter and wife got done reading it. I bought it for them when it first came out, thinking this looks interesting. Little did I know at the time! I didn't get past the first couple of chapters, as it was clearly not written for adult males. I also tried watching the movie, which my youngest daughter and my wife loved (albeit with some reservations), but I could not get past the first 30 minutes. It seemed to be an OK movie as movies go (Chris "Home Alone" Columbus directing was not a good idea, obviously), but again the subject matter was not aimed at adult males. It is as simple as that. HP is for children and mommies and, I suppose, gays of all persuasions. Period.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 4:57 p.m. CST

    3 TIMES NOT!

    by TomVee

    I did not intend to post 3 times, obviously. What is up with this site the last couple of days?

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 5:32 p.m. CST

    What, no title change?

    by Philmaker

    Shouldn't it be Harry Potter and the Closet of Secrets, or some such? After all, wasn't Philosopher's Stone deemed too intelectual for American audiences? Someone please explain why the first title was changed. I have forgotten.

  • How could Oliver Wood have less screentime? He barely had five minutes in the first. Hey Rowling, hurry it up! You want to make another billion don't you?

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Dumbledore's scar, and AICN

    by Big Papa

    I just began rereading the books today and, yes, Dumbledore has a scar (though it isn't a lightning bolt...maybe that was a typo?). It says right in chapter one of the first book that he has a scar shaped exactly like London's Underground on his left knee.******What's wrong with the website? The last few days I've been clicking on articles, and nothing happens...or it takes MANY TRIES to get anything to happen.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 8:10 p.m. CST

    Here we go, drop the words.......

    by laguna_loire

    Quick test for you here folks:- Drop a title for a review or such on AICN with either "Harry Potter" or "Star Wars" - - BANG!! INSTANT FUCKING ASSHOLES!! JUST ADD WATER!! - - I await this film with hope that its good as they say, and yes I love the books. Incidentally to al the flamers here - the best way to flame something is merely to ignore it, to carry-on with life and not pay it any attention whatsoever. So, by dropping your (usual tired) bile here you're actually admitting that you're bothered by HP, and thus something is there. CHING!!

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 9:08 p.m. CST

    The only way i'll watch Harry Potter will be when...

    by brujoazul

    Harry and friends get as old as Gandalf and have evolved to the point of delivering a story that's not kiddie like and actually fight someone badass as a balrog...no wait that would be sci fi cause they already live in the near present, oh well i guess not. oh by the way go watch The Two Towers it will rule.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 9:09 p.m. CST

    yes...yes

    by Master T-MACK

    Y'know, ther's nothing wrong with Hensen puppetry. Lucas should incorporate it...but not on Yoda. Anyway, HP2 does look better and darker and scarier and I don't give a flying Fawkes is little kids are scared. The books are read by almost as many adults as they are children. Lets see some adult themed Potter! And HP2 shall bring it.

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 10:06 p.m. CST

    "(but who hasn't read this book anyways?)"

    by Three Quarks

    People who don't say "anyways."

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 11:04 p.m. CST

    Pretty nice flick, books are prob. alright.....

    by KingKarll

    ....but I just didn't 'get it', after watching the movie. Harry Potter was Fine in a 'Bedknobs and Broomsticks' way, I think-and as a 10 year old I prob. woulda inhaled all the 7 in the run no doubt. But now, ummmmmm, I think the one flick will be all I've any need to see, thank you. Bring on da Ents....

  • Oct. 22, 2002, 11:44 p.m. CST

    paulio

    by FlickChick

    ~~~I agree...The first movie made a train-wreck out of the novel. I am so happy They are getting anew director...The guy who directed A Little Princess is doing it?? *YES!!!* ~~~And that reviewer lost all credibility for me when I read these words: "It's clich

  • Oct. 23, 2002, 1:15 a.m. CST

    DUMBLEDORE'S SCAR

    by SamsMyth

    Yes, Dumbledore has a lightning bolt scar, just like I said. It's on his forehead above his right eye, in the same position as Harry's. Of course it has faded and healed with age, and you can only see it in one moment in each of the two movies. In 1, when he leans down and puts his forehead in the light while talking to Harry on the bed. In 2, in one of the last scenes when he's talking to Harry. Rowling of course hasn't referred to this, which leads us to think that Columbus knows something that we don't yet. If you don't believe me, go watch the DVD. Just remember who told you. Sam's Myth.

  • Oct. 23, 2002, 3:48 a.m. CST

    My daughter is not a duckling...

    by jazzuk

    Hobbitastic - you think I "imprinted" my liking of LotR on my daughter? You think I "imprinted" my preference for ANH over TPM? Bwahahaaaaaaa. What, you think my daughter is a duckling? You might like to know that I find Shrek to be a much over-rated but largely boring movie. Ditto Monsters Inc. Good in their own way, but a yawn-fest in so many others. But my daughter loves 'em. Go figure that, Mr Pop-Psychologist. You think that those of us who don't like HP, Ep1/2 etc are deluding our inner child? I put it to you that you are using your inner child as a crutch, not to mention a blindfold.

  • Oct. 23, 2002, 6:33 a.m. CST

    your story

    by Unsafe_breadbin

    Um...well at the risk of going against the 7000 people who've read it so far and not complained, I'd say don't give up the day job just yet! I've read a whole lot worse admittedly, but it does rather read like you're trying way too hard - it's not neccessary to have a joke or a witty aside at the end of every single paragraph, it just makes it scan badly. But do keep writing - as with most things, practice always helps.

  • Oct. 23, 2002, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Regarding Dumbeldore's 'scar'...

    by Bababooey Fett

    It has been confirmed that the scar does exist and belongs to Mr. Harris NOT Dumbeldore. Any resemblance to a bolt of lightning is mere coincidence. No hidden meaning or plot device. Of greater concern is the fresh revelation that the cast may not be up to a 4th movie. Chris Columbus has advised the three young protagonists to take some time off and 'be kids'. Good advice... but certain to cause much consternation to the thirteen-year-olds who dominate HP web forums (unlike the fifteen-to-twenty-year-olds who seem to dominate here). Goblet of Fire would have been difficult to compress into a typical feature running time (it's roughly double the size of Chamber of Secrets) and its subject matter is a bit darker than the previous three. It is considered by most fans to be the best of the lot, however, and has much to justify a film version.

  • Oct. 23, 2002, 10:14 a.m. CST

    Regarding Dumbledore's 'scar'...

    by Bababooey Fett

    It has been confirmed that the scar does exist and belongs to Mr. Harris NOT Dumbledore. Any resemblance to a bolt of lightning is mere coincidence. No hidden meaning or plot device. Of greater concern is the fresh revelation that the cast may not be up to a 4th movie. Chris Columbus has advised the three young protagonists to take some time off and 'be kids'. Good advice... but certain to cause much consternation to the thirteen-year-olds who dominate HP web forums (unlike the fifteen-to-twenty-year-olds who seem to dominate here). Goblet of Fire would have been difficult to compress into a typical feature running time (it's roughly double the size of Chamber of Secrets) and its subject matter is a bit darker than the previous three. It is considered by most fans to be the best of the lot, however, and has much to justify a film version.

  • Oct. 23, 2002, 11:02 a.m. CST

    QUESTION: Who's a bigger jackass, someone who refers to things

    by minderbinder

    TomVee, I guess it's a moot point in your case...

  • Oct. 23, 2002, 7:01 p.m. CST

    Sadness

    by The Nameless One

    "The books are fantastic - best stuff I've read (for kids or otherwise) in years. ... Whereas for LOTR I think they've taken some unintelligable, impenetrable, woefully geeky and generally overrated books and made some marvellously accessable films that everyone can enjoy." I just have one thing to say. Are you 9?

  • Oct. 23, 2002, 10:48 p.m. CST

    Should be good.

    by the son of John

    The one thing I enjoyed about The First FIlm is the magic. I think it will be good. but what i haver herd from most people this will not be anouther empire strikes back oh well. What does everyone thing of the story posted on IMDB.com. I think it is bullshit. Why recast the actors that are getting older? Dont they have to mature as human being. So there cahracters can mature. The son Of John

  • Oct. 24, 2002, 5:16 a.m. CST

    Dumb Americans

    by british bulldog

    I'm just having a rant here! So don't read this if your the kind of person who gets pissed off easily. I don't whether its just me or the whole world who has the impression that all americans are as thick as a ton of bricks! I mean, international to you means something came from canada. Most of you don't have a passport, don't know where europe is and have never left the state you live in. Sorry if I don't think much of a race who change film titles because the population fail to understand it. An example that bugs me is Harry Potter and the 'PHILOSOPHERS STONE'. Changed to the Sorcerers Stone in America? Why? Because the morons in America would get confused by the reference to Alchemy. Oh no! Maybe they should go to fucking school then, instead of sitting around whining about Vietnam. It seriously bugs me when America does this to a film title, or to anything for that matter. My basic point is this, your a bunch of mongoloids.

  • Oct. 24, 2002, 6:42 a.m. CST

    british bulldog

    by ph27

    What annoys me about the name change is that it purpetuates the stupidity. If it had been called the philosophers stone in the state how many american kids would have learned what the word means. If you keep treating the population as kids that's all they'll ever be.

  • Oct. 24, 2002, 8 a.m. CST

    British Bulldog

    by The Nameless One

    That is quite a silly thing to say, especially since movie titles get changed on their transition to Europe as well. One example - UHF was changed to "Vidiots at UHF" for its European release. Why? Because the movie company assumed that Europeans have no idea what UHF means. Are Europeans too stupid now? Think before you speak my friend.

  • Oct. 24, 2002, 9:06 a.m. CST

    Harry Potter for kids only

    by noodles001

    I'll have to say this complete little shite called Harry Potter is for kids only. Everytime it's mentioned they say it's for kids and kids go out and buy the toys. Be realistic, the entire slant of these stories is aimed at kids. There's kids onscreen as the main heroes to entertain a kids audience. I feel slightly embarrassed for those who delude themselves to reading them. It's a craze which will fade away just like Pokemon and Teenage Mutant Turtles. Then all the kids will be laughing at you in the streets when you are reading the books in public you sad fucks.

  • Oct. 24, 2002, 10:07 a.m. CST

    King_tut_lives

    by EvilBunnyFrank

    That movie you are referring to is called "FLIGHT OF DRAGONS" and features the vocal stylings of Mr. John Ritter. I simply heart that movie and my childhood revolved around that and "THE LAST UNICORN".

  • Oct. 24, 2002, 2:25 p.m. CST

    the real reason for the title change

    by minderbinder

    First off, the name change was due to the publishers, for all we know, some british editor made the decision. It's not because americans don't know what a Philosopher is or what a Sorceror is(we do). It's because Americans aren't familiar with the legend of The Philosopher's Stone. And frankly, the legendary Stone has powers that are common to sorcerors (or at least alchemists), and have nothing to do with philosophy. So why exactly IS it called The Philosopher's Stone (other than obscure british tradition)?

  • Oct. 24, 2002, 6:26 p.m. CST

    Potter is the best thing for our culture... Nothing can compare

    by 1001 Jedi Nights

    I must say I was a bit shocked to see a bunch of kids reading that book. Even more when these same kids, who I've always known for being television-ridden couch potatoes, went on to read the ever-so-thick fourth book! It actually pulled them away from the tv and videogames! good word... and it's a book!!! You can't tell me potter is anything else but the saviour of our society. I heard that somewhere around 75% of those kids will expand to other books, which is exactly what we need! My wish list is this: Split Goblet of Fire into two movies so they can fit it all, hurry the hell up so they can use the same actors in the rest of the films, release book five for god sake, and non-potter fans quit your whining. Even you know of the positive impact this has had. --1001 Jedi Nights, mediaworlds.net

  • Oct. 25, 2002, 7:13 p.m. CST

    The scar

    by Skullfarmer

    If the scar belongs to Harris then what's it doing on Dumbledore? That totally ruins the illusion that we're watching Richard Harris AS Albus Dumbledore instead of Richard Harris just pretending to be Dumbledore.

  • Oct. 28, 2002, 6:23 a.m. CST

    Youse guys are geeks.

    by Ronnie_Dobbs