Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

A Very Negative & A Couple of Very Positive Reviews of HARRY POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS...

Hey folks, Harry here with a reaction from a young viewer of HARRY POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS in reaction to the review two below! What I think is interesting about these three reviews is this. Both positives tend to like things differently, and dislike different things. However the negative hates the things they love and loves the things they hate. Mr Contrary? Possibly. There's always a few out there, but it seems most are being enchanted by the film!

heya Harry, I live in England and was lucky ebough to be invited to the Harry Potter Premiere last Sunday (My Parents Work In Tv And Film) and I can't tell you how wrong that negative review of the film posted on the website was.

The film is magnificent. Whilst not being epic like Lord Of The Rings, the film never the less is a fun, cool, magical adventure that will no doubt be cherished in the hearts of youngsters and adults alike (very much like the books). I am 17 years old and a huge fan of the books, and, I must say, a little dissapointed with the first film. Although I was swept away by the sheer coolness and magic of it, the acting of harry and the rest of the kids pulled me back. But hey, they were just little kids then, so slightly below average acting was inevitable. But guys, in this film, the kids are brilliant.

Harry's voice haveing dropped gives a fantastic edge to him-it was easier to relate to him this time round. Ron is exellent, as he was in the first, and for those doubting Emma Watson's talent (as i was) she gives in a much more confident, solid and very, very good performance as Hermione. Jason Issacs is probably the best cast role in film history, (or one of them). his portrayal of Lucious Malfoy is phenominal...he is evil right down to the core, i had a lump in my throat as i sat there watching ace. Brannagh was hilarious, smug, arrogant and a complete coward...perfect. all the rest of the cast are wonderful, (i would get into more detail but i want to get onto other things).

The special effects. in the first one they were a mixed bag. the troll did'nt look too good inh my opinion, and the quidditch was to bright. but i am one of those people that don't hate the use of special fx. if they are needed to tell a story, use em. but, the special fx in this film are, sorry to repeat myself, phenominal--with the exeption of Fawkes, the phoenix. he looks fantastic as a puppet, but his cg counterpart looked a bit rushed. a small price to pay for the phenominal effects of the Basilisk...probably the best creature animation since jurrasic park..incredible. and the quidditch...faster, less bright...louder and genrally a roller-coaster ride only rivalled by the phantom menace's podrace. those of you who thought it looked a bit fake in the first film will be pleased with the change.

Hogwarts looks better (hard, since the sets in the first film were great, but it does) and it is dark and edgy whilst at the same time being cosy and magical. knockturn alley (readers of the book will know what I mean) is very, very atmospheric. it's scary and dark...not for kids. dobby looks, and sounds as i imagined him to, and provides many humourous moments.

For me, the first half of the first film was weak, i didn't like the way they had rushed it. But in this film, the first half is easily the strongest. the only criticisms i would have, is that for around half an hour in the middle of the film, it get's a bit slow and dull. there is alot of conversation, which is always good to have, but...i don't know why...this just seemed dull. see what you make of it.

overall, this film is absolutely brilliant, magical, cool and fun. the flying car sequence immedeatly gets you into the action, and wow, what a trip you'll be taken on for 2 and a half hours. i can't stress it enough, the film is magnificent, go see it, for if the perpose of film is to take the viewer away from the real world, and take them on an adventure wonderous and intoxicating, this could easily be called a great experience.

Pint-Sized Hagrid

Hey folks, Harry here.... Well, I've added this positive review to the top of the negative one, because frankly... that negative one seems a bit off kilter to me. I mean, literally all the word I've heard is that the most negative thing about this film is that it is less magical, but darker and edgier. And from what I've heard people have dug the FXs quite a bit. As if to reinforce that thought, here's a look from someone that sees it as the wonderful family film that it most likely is. Here ya go...

Hi Harry,

Love the site. Keep the Angel/Buffy updates up! I need to know what’s going on being that we haven’t even started the series over here in the good old U of K yet…

Anyway, just thought you should know I got to see Harry Potter : Chamber Of Secrets last night. I thought you might like a review? Enjoy!

Harry Potter 2.

First off, let me start by saying that I’ve read the second Harry Potter book and I didn’t enjoy it that much. I felt it had a fairly weak plot compared to the other books in the series and a lot of the story revolved around some fairly tenuous links. The film, on the other hand, is absolutely superb. It’s every bit as good as the first and then more so.

I’m not going to go into detail on the plot seeing as anyone who is interested can just read the book to get the whole story. I am however going to comment on the only two detrimental features of the whole thing :

1) Nobby “the house elf” – Nobby looks and acts like the spawn of a very sordid love triangle between Jar Jar Binks, Gollum and Gizmo. I hated him, the kids will love him.

2) Kenneth Branagh – Is there any possibility that they didn’t really pick up on the fact that Gilderoy Lockheart is meant to be suave, sophisticated and charming albeit completely shallow and a tad narcissistic? Branagh copes with the narcissism very well, being as far up his own arse as it’s possible for a human to be without disappearing, but he lacks any charm whatsoever. Or maybe it’s just because I don’t like him? Who knows. I found his screen time, whilst necessary (very necessary obviously) just a little irksome. He made my fists itch.

Apart from those two tiny things which just annoyed me the rest of the film was excellent. The film quality itself is par excellence. It’s very bright and cheerful one moment and very dark and forboding the next And it switches from one to the other beautifully. The set pieces are amazing and whilst a couple look a little ‘fake’ most are very convincing. Harry is slightly cheekier and a little more chipper than he was in the first film. Ron is just balls out funny. Hagrid is still his awkward little self (well, except for the fact that he’s a giant.) You can still detest the Dursleys and wish something nasty upon them. And I may be arrested for saying so, but am I the only one waiting for Hermione to turn ! 16?

Overall I’d say this is a superb family film, a bit darker than the first and a bit less smooth running – I can see that the plot might kind of leave the uninitiated struggling in a few places – but it’s definitely worth the watch and worth them taking my hard earned cash to go see.

Cheers for now then,


Hey folks, Harry here... I see this very soon, and I'm hoping that it works. I want this to be very good, and thus far I've had fairly positive feedback on the film, till now. So is this a review from a contrary personality? Will that be you too? Personally I can't wait to see this! Hope this one's wrong...

Hey dude,

Long time reader, first time.. you know the drill.

Just watched the new Harry Potter, and I have to say I feel violated this is one huge steaming pile, it has everything which is the main problem not only dose it have some good individual moments (although there few and far between) the film largely comprises some of the worst acting, CGI, etc. i've seen in along time and I watch alot of movie (it's part of my job, I work in a multiplex).

Where do you start, the plot, the actors... PLOT - Ok I've never read the books and after watching this I'm not compelled to do so, but I can see why kids like it blood, action, a ghosts who wants Harry to join him in her toilet if he dies! In the age old tradition of children's entertainment it portrays that writing under the influence of drugs will make you a shed load of cash.

ACTORS - Right those mature members of the cast Harris, Smith, Coltrane etc they all turn in your expected half decent performance, Branagh plays the over cocky self loving idiot Lockheart very well but is an under used high point in the movie. As for Radcliffe, Grint and the rest of the 'and now I shall say may lines as if independent from the rest of the script and or reality, or just in stupidly high pitched attempt of panic that it sounds like I've been breathing helium for an hour' well need I say more. It is sad that a film with such a cast the best actor is a CGI elf 'Dobbie' who by a running mile is the one true high point of the film.

OTHER POINTS - again Quidich looks like they ran out of cash and just knocked something together in an afternoon. I can't believe that of over half a dozen visual effects companies that are involved in the movie that's the best they can come up with. Also the number of coincidental 'occurances' just becomes annoying and stupid like a certain charaters middle name (well random combination of letters) which you see breifly is a major point in identifing them.

FINAL POINT - I'll finish on a good point if you jumped during 'Eight Legged Freaks' you will again, Dobbie rules, and with that I must be punished and so will go iron my hands.

Db1animal over and out, except for, THANK GOD FOR LOTR & BOND they I have no doubt will restore my faith.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4 a.m. CST

    For shame....

    by jazzuk

    This reviewer has clearly lost touch with his/her inner child. Or at least so some will say. Others will say "At long bloody-last - an honest review of a franchise that was a tired exploitation of what was a worthless source in the first place". JK Plagiarist recently revealed that there will be a significant death in book five - If there's a God this will be the first time that an author announces their own suicide in their own work. So some might say.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:02 a.m. CST

    Not Gonna Say it!

    by Creative1

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:02 a.m. CST

    Didn't really like the first one

    by zengamer

    Don't really expect to like the second one.

  • "Why, that pesky wabbit. I'll will get for you Mr Hawwy Potter, bwuvver."

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:16 a.m. CST


    by Xarus

    Attacking film adaptations of novels for poorly translating the subject matter to the big screen is one thing, but for attacking the film based on plot points found in the book is something else which should be taken into consideration before criticizing a film. Though adaptations are intended for a movie-going audience, they can never replace nor stand-alone from their book counterpart. They can be appreciated for what they are because they enhance the source material.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:20 a.m. CST

    Where do morons like this live??

    by kid_ego

    Seriously folks, have you ever HEARD of grammar?

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:24 a.m. CST

    Why is this movie even being discussed?

    by kamakazie

    reviewer wrote: "I have to say I feel violated this is one huge steaming pile" Are you sure you weren't watching the first Potter movie???

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:29 a.m. CST

    Well, what did you expect? The Two Towers?

    by Heleno

    Seriously though, the first one was just workmanlike, and while I have hopes that this one will be better, that's all. Having said that, this review though smacks of someone who really was in no mood for a kids' movie.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:32 a.m. CST

    Not the only one on drugs.

    by nazismasher

    This review's problems go beyond simple proofreading and nitpicking. It's such a rambling mess it's hard to understand what this guy's trying to say. OK, you hated it - I will take that under consideration (I'm not sure if I want to see Chamber of secrets or not), but you loose a lot of credibility when you just can't make yourself immediately understood.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:36 a.m. CST

    In the age old tradition of children's entertainment it portrays

    by Julius Caeser

    I think JK Rowling could argue this perfectly, so I'm not going to. Next this tool will be saying that Dr Seusss was an addict. People like this guy should be drowned as society realises how feckin stupid they are. Hey he must be bright - the thick fecker works in a multiplex - one step up from 'Big Mac and Large fries sir?'

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:39 a.m. CST


    by Julius Caeser

    To me this review is based on Mr Multiplex seeing all the trailers - lets face it, he offers nothing that I haven't read or couldn't write myself. I say we flame this fucker how do I get this wanker's email?

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:43 a.m. CST

    What the Fuck!!

    by noodles001

    "This reviewer has clearly lost touch with his/her inner child." If you ask me this guy is fully in touch with his inner child ie. he likes to be entertained and have fun at the movies. If he can't enjoy the Harry Potter movie then so be it. To release and make a second HP movie within a year of the first smacks to me of a Film company milking the cash cow before kids (that's right, KIDS!) turn to the next fad. This reviewer has exposed what I was expecting which is a rushed HP film. Chris Colombus is one of the worst directors ever. Expect more reviews stating similar sentiments I reckon.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:45 a.m. CST

    Illegible gibberish

    by Qwerty Uiop

    I don

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:50 a.m. CST

    I also doubt this guy has seen the movie.

    by Defiant

    As said, he offers no information that can't be found in the Trailers. This is more of a biased rant than an actual review.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:54 a.m. CST

    Jesus! Ut's Harry Potter! It's not gonna be any better or worse

    by chuckrussel

    'nuff said!

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 5:01 a.m. CST

    This jackass cant even write a review

    by Dolemite_fan

    b/c last time I noticed, thats an outline for a possible review. Characters? Plot? Fuck outta here with that shit, and review it the right way.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 5:04 a.m. CST

    haha, good "review" ! really!!!

    by pparker

    at first, i was a little bit disappointed when i read "very negative review for HPATCOS" because i really want this movie to be good. i have already bought two tickets for me and my little cousin, the movie will start on november 14th here in austria, that is one day earlier than the us release. but now, after reading this "review", i feel much better. this has to be one of the most amateurish pieces of shit i have ever read. so whats exactly wrong with the plot? is it really bad because there is a lot of action and even some blood? why didnt you give us some examples for the "drug influenced" writing? i mean, you are just telling us us all the things you didnt like, and thats it. what exactly are your reasons for being such a troll? i believe that you dont like the little actors because they have the opportunity to star in one of the most successful and beloved movies of all time, while you, a grown up man, have a shitty job in a multiplex (i work in a multiplex myself and its not as cool as i thought it would be). or are you just jealous because a children movie has easily outgrossed your beloved FOTR? i was afraid that this review would lower my anticipation, but it didnt, because it is (in your own words) a huge steaming pile. i am still waiting for the cool news today...

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 5:14 a.m. CST

    Harry Potter? Are you still talking about that old crap?

    by Merkin Muffley

    Don't you know the NEW

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 5:14 a.m. CST

    Chamber of Secrets is the WORST of the 4 books!!!

    by Kicksave

    While I liked the books and the first movie, my expectations aren't really high for Harry Potter: Chamber of Secrets. The second book is BY FAR the least readable of the series. All of the books suffer from convoluted plots, poor logical resolution, repetition, and a very healthy dose of "making this up as I go" syndrome. Usually JKR's strengths in characterization and mystery cover up these flaws, but not so in COS. If you don't already know how COS ends, you WILL scoff heavily at the plot resolution. Convenient, nonsensical, and lame all at once. But there's hope: the subsequent books in the series are much improved, and should make for better movies as well.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 5:16 a.m. CST

    Harry Potter? Are you still talking about that old crap?

    by Merkin Muffley

    Everyone knows the NEW kid-lit sensation is Lemony Snicket. HP is just SO 1999. (P.S. now I know how so many people end up postting incomplete thoughts! It can happen to you!)

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 5:23 a.m. CST

    You cant win here

    by pogo on my own

    You write a positive review and you are a plant. You write a bad review and you are an idiot. That and I dont understand people jumping all over the folks that review the flicks, they are writing a review for a silly website, not for Time Magazine.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 5:26 a.m. CST

    Box Office debate yet again

    by noodles001

    Ahh, someone's at last mentioned the B.O gross difference between HP and LOTR. That's something that the media tends to like to report. The truth is LOTR is a more critically acclaimed film as HP is not. I'd expect the sequel of HP to do better in terms of cash then the Two Towers, as I don't see parents to bring their small kids to LOTR. But if you say which is the better film; that's a different matter all together. I'll have to say that here in London, I am sick of seeing HP posters at every single corner. The hype is on overload and I hope that will be it's undoing.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 5:31 a.m. CST

    The "Law of Finite Esteem"

    by Maki Maus

    One of the major reasons I got out of fandom (right up there with my growing disgust at the average American fan, who is no longer capable of composing a sentence without resorting to mindless epithets or just rampant incoherency) was the tendency of fans in general to praise something they like by dissing something else in comparison. Hate to tell you this, kids, but it doesn't work that way. Liking something (or disliking it) is no reason to be rude to other fans, nor is it a reason to simply try to degrade either their taste or their intelligence by maintaining that there is only one "Right" way to do a movie. Unfortunately, what they're doing is playing into one of the oldest and most crippling rules of behavior that has inflicted fans since day one. It's called the "Law of Finite Esteem", and it goes like this: 1) There's only so much acclaim to go around. 2) Therefore, if you wish to praise one thing, you must compare it favorably with another, by exaggerating both actual defects and perceived flaws in the unfortunate "loser". Likewise, if you wish to declare your dislike of one thing, you must do so unequivocally; nothing like this ever existed on the face of the earth that was this unmitigatedly crappy. 3) If anyone presumes to disagree with you in the level of your enthusiasm, either positive or negative, don't bother listening for a second opinion. You're right, and that's that. And that's that. I enjoyed the first Harry Potter movie. As a teacher, I was more or less morally obligated to read the books, and so far I find nothing on which to hang the unfair comparisons I've seen screaming at me. I find them to be well-written, well-plotted books that held me interested from beginning to end, and which instill a positive message far above the quibbles to which children's literature is often subject. It is neither petty, condescending, nor vindictive, unlike the minds of a number of ostensible adults dispensing learned commentaries on the topic without bothering to read them. It's the mark of an unsound scholar to propound a theory which he or she knows rationally to be untrue. It's the mark of no scholar at all to dismiss something which he or she hasn't bothered to explore. In other words, the writer of the letter proudly claims to have never read the books, and proves it by numerous misspellings of names and misinterpretations of the characters' motivations. The writer further claims to have seen previews of a movie that he/she hated, but doesn't get around to telling us why, only that he/she hated it. A dissertation with no foundation and no support tends to fall apart rather quickly. I give this one about two days before my parakeet has managed to obscure it completely. P.S. I liked the first LOTR, and am waiting happily for the second. I liked the first Harry Potter movie, and am waiting happily for the second. It is possible to like more than one thing and still survive. Some of us even prefer it that way. It's called maturity.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 5:38 a.m. CST

    This is the worst review I've ever read

    by folllowthegourd

    Harry This is the worst hack job I have ever read that passes for a review on this site. At least try to make sure your reviewers can spell and understand syntax before you publish a posting. This joker has nothing constructive to say. I am seeing the movie on Thursday but feel no wiser to whether it will be good or not after reading this crap.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 5:43 a.m. CST

    I hear that they're calling this on Harry Potter and the Room of

    by NoOpinion

  • Me I said thank God for LOTR too. Harry Potter 1 was a cinematic wreck. If LOTR hadn`t followed it I would have lost all faith in film adaptations. I`m not comparing, I`m celebrating a good film verses an awful one and yes, I am in touch with my inner child. HP2 doesn`t look on first glance terrible though, but I`m still waiting for it to hit bargain bin dvd before I catch it tho`. The law of diminishing returns mean that a sequel to a disaster movie isn`t worth the time it`s wasted on.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 6:02 a.m. CST

    AICN-staff: Please post quality not crap like this

    by masse

    This review is among the worst I ever read, syntax and spelling combined with the vocabulary and reviewing skills of a 15 year old makes it laughable. I find absolutely no value in reading this article at all. I imagine chat-reviewing in l337-speak on IRC is more worth my time. Please make AICN what it used to be again!

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 6:52 a.m. CST

    NoOpinion, that was the best talkback since months

    by Mac Styran

    "Harry Potter and the .. .err.. ROOM of secrets" ... yeah, those dumb americans will get that. "CHAMBER" ... what`s a CHAMBER supposed to be anyway. Or we just avoid too much detail: Part 1: Harry Potter and that thing with the stone Part 2: Harry Potter and this thingy about some secret you can go on....

  • But before I get started, I have this to say to Noodles 001. While I'm as cynical as the next geek about Hollywood and her motivations, I think it's more likely that the reason they've fast-tracked the movies is so they can maintain some consistency with the casting, given that kids tend to, well, grow up pretty fast. Not, I'm sure, that economic concerns were far from the studio's mind when the decision was made, I just thought that attack was slightly unfounded. Right. I was, for minutes after reading the first sentence of that review, struck dumb by the inconceivability of someone in their right mind actually reading the whole thing, let alone attempting to pass it off as a legitimate piece of film criticism. Balance is one thing, Harry, but surely you could have waited for a negative review not composed by a lobotomy patient. It's not like there won't be any others, and, as much as I'd like to think it was so, not all HP haters are that impaired. Still, if Harry can write unintelligible nonsense on this site, I don't see why all his Special Ed friends can't too.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 6:59 a.m. CST

    Anybody check MGM's garbage for miracle grow

    by Idetic Amnesiac

    Because that negative review looks like a studio plant to me and the plug for Bond points to MGM.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 7:03 a.m. CST

    Why do we have to put up with this kind of review?!!

    by laguna_loire

    I hate to pick holes, but this negative review is not constructive, and follows the tone of the some of the more moronic anti-HP rants, to wit:"HP SUX!! LOTR RULEZ!!". I hope this waste of space isn't in the cinema watching Bond, as he'll probably slam that for all it is too. Message to LOTR 'slam-everything else'-cynics: your film is out next month. Go and watch your spesh edish of FOTR and leave those who actually WANT to see HP WELL ALONE.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 7:19 a.m. CST

    Harry posted this shit up, but he wouldn't post my Wallace and G

    by Julius Caeser

    I email harry months ago and told him about the shorts that Aardman were doind to prep some new people for the Wallace and Gromit movie - and that you could view the shorts on the BBC website. Did he post it... nope Harry only posts shit

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 7:20 a.m. CST

    Idetic Amnesiac, the plant also leads to.......

    by laguna_loire

    Lord of the Rings too!! Maybe there's a massive conspiracy of sorts!! Maybe 'ol' Martin Scorcese is in on it too!! All this talk of plants!! What next?!! Studio grasses?!! "OI YOU, YOU GAVE OUR PLOT AWAYYYYY, YOU SLAAAGGGGGGGG?!!!!!!!?!" lol!!

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 7:28 a.m. CST

    I don't want to jump on any bandwagons here...

    by AliceInWonderlnd

    But that review sucked. Hell, I could have reviewed this movie better just after watching the trailers. "It stinks and I don't like it!" So maybe Mommy and Daddy can take the little tykes along to watch Bond instead, I guess... does anybody else perceive a possible flaw in this premise?

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 8:18 a.m. CST

    Yes, but did they get my good side?

    by Magical Me

    I kept telling them to shoot me from the left... damn. Did he wear my lilac robes, and keep his wizard's hat at a jaunty angle? I didn't think so. No actor could possible exude the charm that made me the five-time winner of 'Witch Weekly's Most-Charming-Smile Award - but I don't talk about that. Come on... it's just not possible.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 9:02 a.m. CST

    What the &*^% is it with you LOTR fanatics?

    by MsSaffy

    Why the hell is it that you always bring it up in comparison to Harry Potter? What... you have Wand Envy? You wanna talk about adaptations? I'm going to start bringing up the glory of the first 2 Godfather's that. Even though the 2 movies have NOTHING to do with each other I am gonna compare them at every given occaison. Maybe you'll understand how stupid you sound? Go play with your Orcs and Let me *(&^ing enjoy this movie.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 9:14 a.m. CST

    2nd reviewer

    by Glass

    Harry, please do some editing for god's sake! I have no idea what this moron said because he doesn't understand the many important uses of punctuation. I'm sure it's a pain in the ass to fix people's despicable grammar, but it's even worse to read it.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 10:15 a.m. CST

    come on

    by Moosehead1867

    Lets face it, Fairy Potter sucks donkey dick. I watched about a half an hour of the first one on pay-per-view then turned it off. What a steaming pile of crap. JK Rowling just ripped off ideas from other fantasy others, dumbed it down, then passed it off as her own. That plagarist deserves to be back on welfare.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 10:21 a.m. CST


    by Lobanhaki

    I'm sorry, but the woman who brought that suit was smacked down by the courts, and I think might have even been punished for bringing a baseless lawsuit forward. She couldn't prove any of her allegations. With plagiarism, the very proof one needs is out there, so if Harry Potter were really plagiarized from another source, it would be pretty obvious. If it isn't, well, then there are no copyright laws for certain ideas. Doubtlessly, there have been plenty of children with magical abilities who are unaware of their true destiny. Doubtlessly, there are books and movies out there where kids went to school to learn magic. But it's not the elements that made the stories original, nor the names given to things. It is the stories told. When I first read the original Harry Potter, I was quite taken with it. I read fantasy and sci-fi on a fairly regular basis, and I can tell the good ones from the crap, and reading that book, I knew it was something good. Harry Potter has succeeded because Harry Potter books have good stories, with unexpected turns of events that most people can't be bothered to write or film. There have been films before that have had big hype behind them, and failed. I look forward to this movie, and to Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 10:40 a.m. CST


    by Glass

    To all you normal people who lack borderline personality disorder: Isn't it hysterical that these psychos have taken some kind of schitzophrenic offense to Rowling's books, as though she doesn't have the right to author a book that is of the same genre as Tolkien? It irritates/humors me.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Speaking of tired ideas and plagiarism, do I need to point out t

    by minderbinder

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 11:25 a.m. CST

    HP, SW, LOTR fans...

    by MountDoom

    I have to say it amazes me that fans of SW can't like LOTR. Or that fans of LOTR can't like HP or SW. I mean talk about tunnel-vision. Why do we even go to the movies in the first place? I go to be entertained. I try to keep an open mind and enjoy myself. Does it always work? Of course not...some movies are just plain bad, and that's a shame. But I for one am a fan of LOTR (read all books), HP (read all books), and SW (saw all movies). Sure I have my favorite out of this group, but I don't let that keep me from enjoying the others. I feel sorry for the people who are going through their lives with blinders on. There are not letting themselves enjoy things as much as they could be.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Hermione has an insatiable penchant for

    by Mister_Pink

    well, you know.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Why HP has succeeded...

    by jazzuk

    "Harry Potter has succeeded because Harry Potter books have good stories" Bwahahahaaaaa. HP "succeeded" (as most things do) through luck and fortuitous timing. The publishers realised they had a very marketable commodity on their hands in the form of an author with a bleeding-heart-rags-to-riches sob story. The fortuitous timing was that it came along at the same time as a UK govt initiative to encourage children to read AND at a time of renewed interest in all things fantastical (not to mention the target market of children of parent who grew up with wizards and magic as a staple of _their_ childhood). Since most parents don't take much interest in such things, all it took was a good marketing campaign to generate some initial interest, followed up by some canny manipulation of the media for the launch of book 2 (lots of pictures on TV and in the press of kids clamouring for the new book, yet curiously these scenes didn't seem to be repeated elsewhere, i.e. where cameras and press officers weren't around to officate over proceedings). The predicatable snowball effect was guaranteed. But anyone that has read the stuff cannot honestly say that it is good writing, let alone original, let alone engaging. There are far better childrens authors out there who have been done a grave injustice by the attention and misplaced praise lavished on Rowling. The films are riding on the crest of this wave of media attention and hype inflated sales, not quality driven success. I know many, many people who bought the first book out of interest and are thoroughly dismissive of the whole thing, but they can't get their money back, can they. And sadly, some of those people, despite acknowledging how bad the books are, have compelted their set because they see it as some sort of "investment" - not to mention the inate and utterly bizarre fetishistic instinct of humans to build "collections". But you don't want to understand why it is a success, you merely want to follow the crowd - it's easier than using your brain. So off you go, they went that-a-way..... remember to bleat, like a good little sheep.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 11:50 a.m. CST

    If you're so lame that...

    by Nordling

    you can only enjoy one franchise to the exclusion of all others, you deserve all the derision I can heap upon you. I love the Potter movie, the books, all the SW movies, and LOTR. Gee. I must be a freak of some sort, you know, to actually enjoy multiple franchises. I'm probably going to be even weirder when THE MATRIX sequels come out and I love those too. Look in the mirror, you franchise exclusivists. See that gut? The T-Shirt with a comic book character on it? The constant Cheetos dandruff coming from the chin? The body odor? See where exclusive devotion to a franchise gets you? No go get some sun, you mushroom-looking freak. Saffy, you da bomb, yo.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 11:51 a.m. CST

    "smug, arrogant and a complete coward...perfect" What is he tal

    by Magical Me

    Smug!? Arrogant!? Coward!? Smug, arrogant, cowards do not defeat Vampires, Werewolfs, and Hags. Smug, arrogant, cowards do not have numerous best-selling books in publication (buy your copy of my autobiography, Magical Me, today - available where all wizarding books are found). Smug, arrogant, cowards do not achieve the Order of Merlin, third class, or win Witch Weekly's Most-Charming-Smile Award 5 times (but I don't talk about that). What about my incredible good looks, or amazing sense of style (Brangang, or whatever his name is, better have worn the lilac robes!)? This is dreadful. I need a new agent./ Yours truly, Gilderoy Lockhart

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 11:51 a.m. CST

    glass: Of course she has every right...

    by jazzuk write a book in the same genre as Tolkien. No argument there. But equally I/we have every right to point out that what she has written is unutterable crap, and would still be unutterable crap if Tolkien had never even existed. Having said that, of course if Tolkien had never existed (along with numerous other "sources of inspiration"), Rowling would not have had the first inklings of an idea or the creative power to create these things for herself and Potter would never have been inflited on us. If Potter is the necessary price of Tolkiens legacy, so be it, but don't expect me to like it or deny it's vapidity, let alone elevate it above or even favourably compare it to, Tolkien in the pantheon of fantasy literature.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 12:06 p.m. CST


    by MountDoom

    While I agree that Tolkien is the best fantasy writer of all time, I do disagree of your theory of why HP is successful. It was not the glourious marketing techniques of the publisher, nor the push for kids to read more. Thsat could only explain a moderate success story. JK was new to the scene...her name alone couldn't sell the first book. With new authors, a success of this magnitude (which is exceptional), is due mainly to word-of-mouth advertising. Fans of the book told other people...and so on, and so on. It snowballs. And it didn't hurt that the book was aimed at kids. They are always the biggest market (what was the last animated Disney movie that failed at the box-office? I don't know either). So like I far a pure literary skill and enjoyment...I'm in Tolkiens corner. But I still enjoy other is too short.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 12:25 p.m. CST

    You know...

    by God's Brother

    people here in the west read from UP to DOWN... This site is always screwing that up. ALSO: Last night I had a dream that I was the incredible hulk. COINCIDENCE????? no...

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 1:48 p.m. CST


    by Glass

    Fine, you have your opinions about Potter. I can't fathom your reasoning, but whatever. I like Potter, I like LOTR, I like the Matrix. My point, however, is that while you decry all Potter fans as "sheep," you fail to realize that you, in fact, and everyone like you, are the sheep. You absolutely refuse to allow yourself a moment's pleasure if it means sacrificing your need to take the opposite stance on every issue. If no one liked the Potter books and the movies, I'm willing to bet you'd be obsessed. You're like the rest of the sheep who can't stand the fact that sometimes, new is good. Bah, I say to you, Bah.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Pint Sized Hagrid

    by Glass

    By the way, buddy, that was a fantastic review! Keep it up.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Maki Maus and the law of finite esteem

    by Alpha Zebra

    Well-put. Thank you.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 2:57 p.m. CST

    Alpinestreams you ignorant slut

    by Alpha Zebra

    Hey, I'M looking forward to Bond. A mature self-actualized intelligent person allows himself the occasional flights of fancy, even in the form of mindless entertainment peppered with delicious eye-candy (Halle Berry). Keeps the palate fresh.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 3:10 p.m. CST

    NONE of those reviews make sense

    by MrCere

    The negative review is the worst of course but then the possitive reviews tell us how "brilliant" the movie is and then give major reasons why the film falls short. Brilliant would mean the film has no or very minor weaknesses.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Both reviews are fake

    by Avon

    I've read books 1 to 3 and the second is actually my favorite! Am I stupid? If the movie is as good as the book I'm happy. Frankly, I know who wrote that second review. He's a grumpy old bastard. Cheer up, it might never happen and try to have a little more "variety" in a review. I often read completely negative reviews and wonder why they really hate the movie. Is it the fact that they know the movie is going to make millions upon million regardless of the shit he/she says. Yup.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 3:37 p.m. CST

    "It might never happen"

    by Avon

    I've read books 1 to 3 and the second is actually my favorite! Am I stupid? If the movie is as good as the book I'm happy. Frankly, I know who wrote that second review. He's a grumpy old bastard. Cheer up, it might never happen and try to have a little more "variety" in a review. I often read completely negative reviews and wonder why they really hate the movie. Is it the fact that they know the movie is going to make millions upon million regardless of the shit he/she says. Yup.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:37 p.m. CST

    LotR vs HP? Puh-lease.

    by Mehykhati

    Ok, while I am a huge fan of LotF, I am also a fan of HP. Every LotR fan rips HP to shred, and what do they base it on? Some stupid comment about how LotR is better and more original, what-have-you. I'm not hating on LotR, just the people who don't realize that LotR is in a far off place from HP. You see, Tolkien created his own little world with his own little languages and his own little people. Above all, LotR trilogy was made in a more adult fashion. He wasn't directing his books towards a younger generation. He has hard words to pronounce and a very adult plot line. He would be in the science fiction/fantasy section where as HP would be in the children's section. My point? HP is made for kids. Adults just happen to like reading them too. They're simple and deal with children as the main characters. They do adult like things in a childish sort of way. As such, HP is set in our modern world, with non-magic folk.. Meaning normal people. LotR is set in a whole different world. So you can't really compare the two, you know? They're too diverse and different to say that one is better than the other. If HP was honestly all that bad people wouldn't read it. As for the movies, LotR has a strong plot in it's movies. It does well all by itself without having to read the books. The HP series are a companion to the books. If HP was left on it's own it would probably flop. It runs off a strong plot to seem weak. So I consider them a good companion where as the books are way better.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:40 p.m. CST

    And another idiot

    by 2LeggedFreak

    Really I have to question how somebody can be violated by an mediocre kids film , let's get some perspective here pulleese. And talking about perspective there really is a horrible tendency on this site for fans to get all excited about the here and now , even if it is complete crap !! I'm sorry but all this mad enthusiasm for Harry Potter when it couldn't really be in any film film fans top 100 ! Examples of some "Family Films" that are better than HP...Back to The Future 1, 2, & 3; Star Wars IV, V,V1, Iron Giant,Bedknobs & Broomsticks, The Jungle Book, The Lion King, Toy Story 1 & 2, Ice Age, Shrek, Monsters Inc, The Witches, James & the Giant Peach, Mary F*!@@*g Poppins,Spiderman, Superman 1 & 2. Potter is nowhere near any of those films, don't waste your breath on it (unlike me).

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 6:08 p.m. CST

    that negative review

    by d-boy

    What the hell is this guy talking about. No, seriously. What the #@#? is this guy talking about? Was he writing in English? Has he heard of the invention called...the comma?

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 6:45 p.m. CST

    grammar et al

    by tav

    ("Ad hominem" is Latin for 'to the man.' An ad hominem argument tries to attack characteristics of a person which are irrelevant to the issue.) The issue is the CONTENT of the last review, not grammar or spelling. Good form in writing is a separate subject and a worthwhile one, but tangential to the real issue. Secondly, I dislike discussions of grammar on the internet because it is a different medium than print (hence :) lol rofl brb etc) that has a unique emotional and temporal context. Finally, I do not endorse a thoughtful critique of grammar because I suck at it, too.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 6:56 p.m. CST

    LOTR vs Potter vs Matrix vs SW vs ST..etc

    by Jack Burton

    It never ceases to amaze me how people here bash the hell out of one movie or franchise while they put others on an untouchable pedestal. Everyone I know that loved Fellowship (just about everyone I've ever met that saw it) is also psyched for Matrix Reloaded. And most are psyched for Chamber of Secrets. And Bond. And Gangs of New York. I guess I just don't understand the constant bashing of what other people are into. Maybe then we'd have nothing to talk about on here but I just thought I'd throw that out there. Bash me as necessary I suppose.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 7:04 p.m. CST

    Jar Jar Rules! Fuck The Dude That Thinks Otherwise

    by ILoveEwksAndJJar

    Hermione is pretty hot and Bond sucks. Think this is dark wait till the fourth one. Yeah, I think that's all.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 7:22 p.m. CST

    Harry Potter Mystery Books

    by tav

    I agree with kicksave that JK's strengths are characterization and mystery. If you haven't read the books then the film resolutions seem extremely forced. In the books, it is more about a mystery unfolding and this passive conclusion was seen in the first movie *****spoiler***** when at the end Harry Potter's hands mmmmm... basically killed because they were infused with the power of a mother's love (WTF???) and this surprise seems very, very lame on the big screen. ******end spoiler***** In a book, you read about his parents, his feelings, his fears and strengths so the passive nature of the plotting is a powerful mystery unfolding for you, too. The visual scenes of Hogwarts really come to life on the big screen, but plotwise the Potter books are better reads than movie scripts. Also the third book is my favorite. Really some major surprises.. some people say they saw it coming.. but I was blindsided by the twists in that book! And Hulk Hogan should have been Gilderoy. haha.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 8:44 p.m. CST

    my GOD!

    by Master T-MACK

    When I saw the first film last Nov. 16, I enjoyed it. Immensely. In fact, Roger Ebert dubbed it, "a modern day Wizard of Oz." Chamber? Thou shalt dub it a modern day Star Wars adventure surpassing thouest original in epic and in thy action and surprisingly plot. I'm no Shakespeare but Kenny Branaugh is and what does he say about this film? Fan-friggen-tastic. That negative reviewer is a dousche!

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 10:33 p.m. CST

    I respect people's opinions . . . but . . .

    by LordofLaughter

    Harry is right, that review seems a little of kilter. And the second one, I understand how your dislike for a particular actor can ruin a movie . . . I still can't look at any Keanu Reeves movie without thinking "THIS GUY GET'S PAID!" But I'm really writting this for another reason . . . I am REALLY tired of reading reviews of films with such terrible writing. WHY, oh Lord, WHY is punctuation completely ignored in the age of the internet? Does no one realise that the best way to get your point across is to USE punctuation?? If you want people to understand HOW you are saying something . . . use punctuation. Hopefully my examples here make my point for me. Second, I can't take anyone who spells SO badly seriously. How can I believe a review of a movie from someone who seems to have never picked up a book? This is not an attack on any ONE person . . . this is a general, blanket comment. But PLEASE tell me SOMEONE has thought about this before!

  • Nov. 7, 2002, 12:33 a.m. CST

    And.. Someone who missed the point.

    by Mehykhati

    The point was, HP is better as a book. The movies aren't supposed to hold themselves upright on their own. They need to books. All the movies you named came out.. How long ago? That's like trying to compare them to Winnie the Pooh. The yellow bear has been around for a long time, giving it the chance to get recognition over time. Some of them got extra hype due to their cinema breakthroughs like Spiderman and ToyStory. You can't base HP on movie breakthroughs. Because HP isn't a movie breakthrough. It's just a really popular children's book put on screen. And that's what it should be considered as, not some monumental films based on new FX techniques.

  • Nov. 7, 2002, 4:04 a.m. CST

    MountDoom and Glass

    by jazzuk

    You don't believe that the power of marketting can overcome material inadequacies in a product? Unfortunately history is replete with examples of the inadequate raised to a position of dominance through sheer marketting effort (VHS, Windows etc...). Word of mouth is unreliable - people are generally vain beings. If public opinion appears to be saying that something is good, it is a sad fact that too many people will go along with that simply to appear to be "in with the in crowd". So all you need to do, as a marketting professional, is create an initial apparent swell of public opinion. Good marketting is about building that swell sufficiently rapidly and to sufficient size that the tide it creates will swamp any unfortunate reports that escape from conduits outside of your control, that the goods you are peddling are sub-standard. If you can reach the point where anyone that says "it's bad" is sneered at by people who haven't even seen the product for themselves, then you have done the job. That's how HP became so successful - it was made "unfashionable" to say that it was anything else. But please note that I'm not saying that Rowling is a COMPARITIVELY bad writer, as in "Tolkien is better therefore Rowling is crap". Rowling simply cannot write - anyone with half a brain and the wit to think for themselves can see this. But even when people DO admit this, they then pass it off as irrelevant because it's intended for kids, not grown ups - as if bad writing is somehow acceptable for children. If you want an example of an author that _can_ write and who _can_ produce excellent works but who you hear very little about despite the _fact_ that his work is qualitatively better than Rowling, look no further than Phillip Pullman, especially "His Dark Materials" trilogy (to keep this relevant to a movies site, IIRC New Line have secured this with Tom Stoppard writing - woohoo!).

  • Nov. 7, 2002, 8:01 a.m. CST

    My take on it all...

    by Halloween68

    Didn't particularly care for the first film. I thought it lacked. I did like the books from the second one on. Although Rowling's not one on original ideas. It's the humour that is the charm of the books, which is excactly what was extracted from the first film. All in all though, when it comes down to it... Potter, neither in literature or in cinema will ever hold a candle to Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings. Literary wise, well that's fairly obvious. It's like comparing Shakespeere to See Spot Run. Movie, wise, well right out of the gate, one of the best most up and coming film makers of our time is directing it. Potter is being helmed by the director of Home Alone. I have to say that I'm extremely curious with what the next director, a more qualified individual will produce. The guy definately knows what he's doing. We've got to wait though til when? 2004? That's alright by me though. This way Return of the King steal the show next year. It'll already be theirs right out of the gate.

  • Nov. 7, 2002, 8:44 a.m. CST

    sounds like it'll work. First was good-prob do the VCR bit for t

    by KingKarll

    .....It's harmless fun, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, you know? I don't think anything more than that. Warning to smug LOTR trekkies: Too Towers will be more of the same old too-walk walk fightfightfight walk walk fightfight etc. I'll tell ya what-if Gollum DOESN'T work-yer gonna be having a Jar Jar Too on yer hands. 'Meesa Wanna Ring nowwwwww--Big Spider Chompem Frodo Yes yesss etc etc'. GAG. Can you imagine if the Ents look like they're right outta 'Pufnstuf' or 'Oz'? the unintended snickers could go round the block 48 times and then some..........Braveheart with Pointy Ears and Hairy Feet if it's good. Gigglesnort Hotel if it ain't. Youse heard it here first.

  • Nov. 7, 2002, 10:39 a.m. CST

    HP2 and LOTR

    by gryff

    I have to say, CoS is my least favourite book out of the series. I was v. disappointed with the first movie, but I'm keeping an open mind about this one. And for crying out loud stop the comparisons with LOTR!!! I happen to love both LOTR and HP... If you are a LOTR fan and detest HP then leave them alone! If you are a HP fan and hate LOTR then do the same!!! Just calm down children!

  • Nov. 7, 2002, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Mr. Jazzuk: Clearing some misconceptions...

    by mr stay puft

    The triumphs of VHS & Windows over superior products were not about marketing. The Windows marketing blitz occurred only after it was entrenched, & was about increasing sales through upgrades, not market share. It was primarily a triumph of strategic alliences & strong-arm tactics. In addition, your statement: "I know many, many people who bought the first book out of interest and are thoroughly dismissive of the whole thing,.." is less a barometer of Ms. Rowlings writing skills, as it is an indicator of the type of people you associate with. (Similiar to the ever-present refrain: "How did [so & so] ever get elected? I don't know a single person who voted for him!") Your thesis is undermined by its sardonic tone & lack of critique by objective references. Ms. Rowling may not be your 'cup of tea', but she can craft an entertaining read. All of my friends will concur.

  • Nov. 7, 2002, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Hey Limeys!

    by cooldude

    Here in the U.S., we go for truth in advertising now. So, over here, this movie will be entitled "Harry Potter and the Chamber Pot of Secrets." I bet you're surprised an American knows what a chamber pot is.

  • Nov. 7, 2002, 11:23 p.m. CST

    For God's Sake People!!!

    by harryfairy

    I'm a 14 year old Harry Potter fan who is absolutely disgusted that a bunch of grown people could get into such a stupid arguement! Sure, the negative review was a bit harsh at points and was very poorly written at the best of times, but that doesn't mean we have to get into a huge 'Harry vs. LOTR' or 'Harry Stinks' fight! Nor do we have to start insulting each other as well! First of all, to the multiplex reviewer: Please try not to refer to JK as a drug induced children's author! The books were not originally intended for kids, they just appeal to most ages! There's no need to sink to insults to try and get your opinion across. A few simple reasons would suffice. Second, to the fans: Quit insulting each other for your different opinions! One of you even went so far as to insult other cultures! British vs. Americans... Americans vs. British! Stop it! It's not right and you all are intelligent enough to realise that! I'm from Canada and you don't see me going around cutting down other people over a bad review! I had to register just to calm down a bunch of immature adults! That's sad. I hope there will be no more junk like this on this site because it's having a detrimental effect on it's quality. In fact, AICN has just lost another frequent reader.

  • Nov. 10, 2002, 10:24 a.m. CST

    OMG!! you shouldnt talk!!

    by angel_wings

    OMG!! Whoever wrote the second review shouldn't talk!! If they've read the book they obviously havent payed much attention to it; ITS NOT NOBBY IT'S DOBBY!!!-they mentioned it atleast a dozen time, and if you didn't see it in the movie(which they mentioned atleast 5 times, and it didnt sound like Nobby) then I have to question your judjment your judgement!(Talking about the other bad review) If you read the books or just saw the movie you should know(anyone with half a brain) thatit's based on a book full of magic(and if the book didn't apeal to you) what makes you think that watching the movie will change your point of view of the storyline!!!! And as for criticising the actors/and acresses (after whatching movies for aliving-by working in a ciniplex) you should see their acting is Amazing!!!And as for anyone with half a brain would see that the book is based on magic-it's a totally different concept then like most other movies!!!!!!!!!!!OMG sorry I just had to get that out; I'm a huge Harry Potter fan and you cant just let people critisice somthing that you dont even know about!!!!There is only one word to decribe the books and movies-Pure Magic!! Luv(not 4 the people with the bad review's but 4 evryone else): Harry Potter Luver, age:13