Harry Potter has a new bag of tricks in spellbinding 'Chamber of Secrets'

Even though much of the original novelty has worn off, the second Harry Potter movie, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets," emerges as a relatively strong sequel: one that's actually faster-paced and more chock-full of adventure than the original.

MOVIE REVIEW

HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS

DIRECTOR: Chris Columbus

CAST: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint

RUNNING TIME: 161 minutes

RATING: PG for scary moments, some creature violence and mild language

WHERE: Auburn Cinema 17, Bella Bottega, Crossroads, East Valley, Factoria, Galleria, Gateway 8, Grand Cinemas, Issaquah 9, Kirkland Parkplace, Longston, Majestic Bay, Metro, Monroe 12, Mountlake 9, Oak Tree, Parkway Plaza, Woodinville

GRADE: B+

More images in the photo gallery ...

It hardly stands alone. Its script takes a big risk and makes no effort to re-establish its characters or premise. So if you don't know quidditch from Diagon Alley, what a "muggle" is, or the mechanics of catching the Hogwarts Express, you could be hopelessly lost.

But since the last episode appeared only a year ago, and the fan base of the franchise is so large and dedicated, the filmmakers have perhaps rightly figured they could dispense with the usual tedious re-education and just leap right into the action.

Even more than last time, it's apparent here that, unlike the "Lord of the Rings" or "Star Wars" cycles, not much is going on beneath the surface of the Harry Potter stories. They're incorrigibly juvenile, and not the product of any original or well-thought-out mythology.

Yet that surface is so glossy and attractive that we don't immediately notice its lack of depth. In terms of acting, production values and special effects, this new journey to Harry's world represents state-of-the-art moviemaking at its most sumptuous.

Based on the second of the J.K. Rowling novels, the story follows the boy wizard through his second year at Hogwarts as the school is terrorized by a mysterious malevolent force that's out to paralyze students of less than pure wizard blood.

It turns out that this force emanates from a hidden "chamber of secrets" somewhere beneath the school. Harry's heritage and certain events of 50 years ago implicate him in the plot, and it's up to him and his two pals to solve the mystery and save the school.

As this leads the trio into one lavish action sequence after another, the film often gets bogged down, and finally wears out its welcome. Some of its plotting seems unnecessarily complex, and, at 19 minutes shy of three hours, it's too long (nine minutes longer than part one).

The script, by Steve Kloves, also suffers from the disease critic Gene Siskel used to call "sequel-itis" -- a certain feeling of being hastily contrived to cash in on a huge audience demand with a story that takes us through similar paces to a similar climax.

Some of the performances also suffer from the passage of time: the late Richard Harris looks like the dying man he was during filming; and Emma Watson has lost some of the confident youthful bloom that allowed her to virtually steal the first movie. (Puberty will do that to you.)

At the same time, Daniel Radcliffe is much more assured as Harry, the camaraderie between the three kid stars is stronger than before, and there's a handful of engaging new characters, including Jason Isaacs as Draco Malfoy's odious father and Kenneth Branagh as the school's flamboyantly fatuous Professor of Defense Against the Dark Arts.

Cinematographer Roger Pratt (replacing the original's John Seale), art director Stuart Craig, costume designer Lindy Hemming and composer John Williams have all contributed Oscar-worthy production values that dazzle the senses and combine to create a darker, creepier atmosphere.

POLL

Which is your favorite Harry Potter book?

3.0%

'The Sorcerer's Stone'/'The Philosopher's Stone'

2.7%

'The Chamber of Secrets'

14.9%

'The Prisoner of Azkaban'

12.6%

'The Goblet of Fire'

9.1%

I can't decide!

57.7%

Never read any of 'em

Total Votes: 2011

And the new special-effects creations -- a flying car, a phoenix, a humanoid tree and plants, a gigantic snake monster, an army of spiders, a squadron of flying pixies and one particularly endearing elf called Dobby -- are all marvelously conceived and executed, and fill the screen with an exhilarating air of magic and fantasy.

Best of all, the second Potter movie reunites its adult cast: Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, John Cleese, Alan Rickman, Julie Walters and others -- a veritable Who's Who of British actors that single-handedly elevates the proceedings out of the kid's movie genre into something special.

THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT HARRY

The "Coke-head" controversy lives. Fans who complained about soft-drink product placement in the first Harry movie are floating an e-petition to protest Coca-Cola's onscreen presence in "Chamber of Secrets." The petition, at www.saveharry.com, fumes that the deal making "sounds more like the 'Chamber of Commerce' than the "Chamber of Secrets!'"

The impresario of a 3-year-old Web site on "Harry Potter Facts and Fun" has folded his tent in disgust. "Wow, has the Harry Potter world changed," says the anonymous signoff at www.hpfactsandfun.com. Merchandising and film are overwhelming the greatness of the books, he writes, and J.K. Rowling is taking too long to cough up the next title. "While I want the fifth book to be a quality book, I'm quite tired of waiting. ... All things must eventually come to an end."

How scary is "Chamber of Secrets"? Director Chris Columbus has warned parents of the 7-and-under crowd to beware, and Warner Bros. reportedly worried the film would get a PG-13 rating. (It ended up at PG.) That would have been really scary for toy makers, who owe last year's half-billion-dollar Potter sales to the 7-11 crowd, reports Time magazine. The U.K. ratings board, meanwhile, ordered this warning: "Contains mild language and horror, and fantasy spiders."

Everyone's a critic. With Trekkie-like intensity, some online critics have painstakingly dissected each scene of the first film for goofs and internal inconsistencies. Example: "When the three children get past Fluffy because the harp is playing, as Fluffy wakes he dribbles on Ron's shoulder. However, when they fall down into the Devil's Snare, his shirt is completely dry." For more than you want to know, see www.movie-mistakes.com.

Everyone's still a critic. Weeks before "Chamber of Secrets" was even released, "Gypsy's Angry Nitpicks" appeared at www.harrypotterrealm.com. The site invites readers to view a picture gallery and film trailer before reading rants about how Dobby is "disgusting looking," "Daniel Radcliffe is moving into adolescence too quickly," and Tom Felton's hair is only slightly improved since the first movie when, "Egad, I nearly puked." Shee, guy, what do you do for fun?

Does size matter? The Harry Potter "Unofficial Fan Club" invites viewers to weigh the relative merits of wide-screen vs. full-screen DVDs. The site at http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd.htm, shows 20 film scenes with outlines indicating what you gain and lose with each format. You be the judge.

The late Richard Harris is irreplaceable, but so is Professor Dumbledore. Who will fill the role in upcoming films? The rumored front-runner is Harris' body double, Harry Robinson. He's the same age, 72, and can mimic Harris' voice, according to a widely reported story picked up from England's Sunday Mirror. No official word, however.

-- Cecelia Goodnow

Show times by movie

Show times by theater