Chris Columbus
Harry Potter e la camera dei segreti

In light of the devastating and phenomenal success of the Harry Potter movie adaptation, I cannot help but review the best and most well-made of the film series. The film, directed by the "transparent" Chris Columbus and scripted by the meticulous and skilled Steve Kloves, retains the atmosphere, settings, costumes, and spirit of the book from which it is derived. Watching it again today brings me back to the not-too-distant yet somewhat faded period of the fantasy explosion in cinema. Because (this is a personal convention, think what you will) the blockbuster fantasy cinema was born in 2001, precisely with the cinema representation of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" and with the adaptation of another book: "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring."

"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" hits theaters the following year (2002), the year of "Matrix Reloaded," "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones," and naturally the second episode of "The Lord of the Rings" ("The Two Towers"), which leads the cine-fantasy scene. The director here learns from the mistakes of the first film and makes amends. The action develops very faithfully to the book, almost "photocopying" it, to the delight of fans and purists. The fantasy explosion is still underway, and this factor determines the almost expected success of the film. There is more action than in "The Philosopher's Stone" and more mystery. The atmospheres darken, the characters grow, places we once thought safe are now no longer so. Because Harry Potter and his friends must face a new dangerous threat, a monster that comes from the depths of the magical and wizardry school they attend: "Hogwarts." Between twists, magic, devices, and unpleasant but repairable surprises (thanks to Mandrake juice…), the mystery will be solved, and everyone will return to live happily ever after. The classic fairy tale retrieved ad hoc, yet distinguished from others for several reasons. My analysis will proceed through seven aspects (I love the number seven, what can I say…): Direction, Actors, Screenplay, Scenery and Costumes, Visual Effects, Editing, Music.

1. DIRECTION: Chris Columbus is a very skilled director with children and equally lively. His experience is entirely respectable (directing since 1987) and very solid. However, he suffers from a certain anonymity, which he somehow wanted to fill in this film. The camera movements are much more fluid, like a snake (which is the second protagonist of the film after all), more fluid than any other film he has made before. He then lets himself be carried away more with special effects, even if sometimes excessively (I will talk about this later). Apart from these minor flaws, Columbus's direction is rigorous and no-frills. Those who want to play it safe (without having auteur directors like Spielberg, by the way), choose Chris. And the results are good.
   
2. ACTORS: the kids are growing up, and it shows. Daniel especially. And if we talk about artistic interpretation, then the growth is truly immense. Rupert Grint is really good at expressions, and Emma Watson (if she had decent Italian dubbing) is in great shape. Daniel is still too inexpressive, though. The adults are always excellent and all strictly English. This was also the last film of the late Richard Harris (aka Professor Dumbledore), who died of cancer in 2003. A merit note goes to the excellent Kenneth Branagh, who plays with rhythm and zest the somewhat dandy fool of Professor Lockhart.
   
3. SCREENPLAY: Steve Kloves has been scripting for a long time and in this film, as in "The Philosopher's Stone," he promised himself and the book's author, Joanne Kathleen Rowling, that he would be faithful to the work. And so he was. Well done, Kloves, because you resisted the impulse of too many blockbuster film screenwriters to write a lousy screenplay hoping that the 50 million dollars spent on special effects would cover the countless holes.
   
4. SCENERY AND COSTUMES: if there's one thing I need to see in a Harry Potter film, it's the black cloak and the tie with the school emblem. Not low-waisted jeans and hoodies (as in the last two films). "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" possesses these essential requirements. So it passes. As for the sets, I cannot breathe a word of criticism. Once again, I am breathless. Very well done.
   
5. VISUAL EFFECTS: when George Lucas's ILM is involved in the special effects of any film, you have to bow and humble yourself. Jokes aside, in this film the technical part is truly superlative. Everything fits and works (except perhaps Dobby, who is a bit out of tune with the environment) and woe to those who contradict. You don't argue with the house that created PIXAR, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, non-linear digital video editing… it's history. That's it.
   
6. EDITING: this film flows a bit slowly on screen. The editing is not the fastest but thanks to the visual effects, it is very dynamic and fluid, majestic at the beginning and end. The most slowing factor is the film's length (158 mins) in my opinion.
   
7. MUSIC: John Williams is one of the few contemporary composers still active who can imagine unknown worlds before they are created and transfer them into a score. This is the same for Harry Potter. Williams, a great admirer of the saga, crafts a fresh and rich soundtrack. He introduces new themes and mixes them with those already heard in the first episode. A 100% satisfying result. I highly recommend purchasing the soundtrack on CD to all connoisseurs and music lovers.