More wizardry and malevolent forces at Hogwarts

 HARRY POTTER 

AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS (2002)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is a vast improvement over the awkward, toothless first "Harry Potter" film. This one is livelier, more focused and has a little charm but it still suffers due
to a fairly bland leading hero. 

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), the little wizard that could, is back at the Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry for his sophomore year with his old schoolmates, the smart Hermione (Emma Watson) and the red-haired Ron (Rupert Grint), who manages to carry a faulty wand. We still have the crusty old Professor Dumbledore (Richard Harris, in his last role), the absolute Professor McGonogall (Maggie Smith), and the stern Professor Snape (Alan Rickman). A newbie arrives at Hogwarts as one of the most memorable characters in the film, the allegedly droll, conceited Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh), who spends more time promoting his book "Magical Me" than teaching his students the dark arts.

Something wicked is happening at Hogwarts, however. There is a chamber of secrets in the school's corridors, a chamber that can't be easily opened. A malevolent spirit exists that puts some students in a "petrified" state, a state of frozen shock. Something dark and mysterious resides in the school but who's behind it? Any of the professors? Perhaps Harry's nemesis, Draco (Tom Felton) or his father, Lucius (a superb Jason Issacs)? Or does the house elf, Dobby, know more than he's letting on? Can Harry Potter save the day and arrive at the truth with Hermione and Ron? Naturally.

For scenes of incredible effects and magic, there is a flying car, a slaying giant snake, animated portraits and newspapers, nasty spiders, another Quidditch match that is as spellbinding as the original, cloaks that make one invisible, giants, malicious trees, and much more.

What the film lacks is a distinctive personality. As directed by Christopher Columbus, the movie still has an air of indifference, though it is darker and richer than what we have seen before. The problem may be linked to Daniel Radcliffe who doesn't have much in the way of charisma to hook us in as Harry Potter - he is appropriately wild-eyed but not much more (he seems more alive when in jeopardy). The supporting cast is far more animated, including Branagh's scene-stealing role and the quirky Dobby,
who is the most agitated elf I've seen in some time.

I liked what I saw in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" and I enjoyed it (though be warned that the movie is two hours and forty minutes long). I am just hoping that in future installments (we have at least five more to go), Harry grows up a little and develops an interest in things besides magic. After all, he may be a wizard but he is only human.