The Seven-Year-Old and I spent the afternoon listing the differences between the book and the movie---not enough time in the shop on Knock-Turn Alley, no explanation of why the snake released during the duel had to be talked out of striking a particular student, no scene of Ginny Weasley trying to unburden herself of a deep secret, a nuance of the Dobby-freeing sock scene, etc.

Critics evaluating the movie in a vacuum vis a vis other flicks "don't get it".

Just curious: did both of your sons read Harry Potter, and did you? I never got around to it myself?

Julian Elson

Speaking as a Media Critic (tm), I thought the movie was very good. It broke two rules: The sequel was better than the original, and the movie was better than the book.

I don't know who these other critics are; everyone I've talked to and all the reviews I've read have been favorable. Of course, I tend not to read reviews of movies I haven't seen yet, so only started yesterday.

My take:

Unlike the first one, Chamber of Secrets was a movie, not a filmed book. I agree with most of the changes from the book (beginning much shorter, sliding past the sub-plot with Nearly Headless Nick ((despite it meaning less time for John Cleese)), shortening the ending and, most importantly, dropping clues to the plot during the course of the action and not saving them all until the end.) and like most of the additions (more spiders! nice visuals in the climax! ).

Good acting, too, as the kids faces (especially at the end) told a lot of the stories. Major exception: Brannagh as Lockhart wasn't unctuous enough.

And... I hope you stayed until after the credits...

While darker and ickier and not for kids too young to read (I suspect), this is a terrific movie only a few beats away from being great.

Seven-year-old and I read the first book together, alternating pages. He was then just learning to read.

We've both read books 2 and 3, and I'm waiting for him to finish book 4 so I can get my hands on it.

I can a data point, since I just saw it last night, with two friends of mine who had neither seen the first movie nor read any of the books:

They got Malfoy and his father right off (it was strongly visually telegraphed). They got Gilderoy Lockhart *immediately*. That must have been a fun role to play; I'll bet that the director had to control the hamminess, to keep that character from taking over the movie). Lackhart wearing gold, contrasted with the other professors' dark clothing, was excellent.

They got the house elf, as a chaotic troublemaker. They also made the comparison to Jar Jar Binks, and felt that Dobbey (sp?) was definitely better (I'm sure that everybody involved with planning those scenes was thinking about ol' JJ, and worrying).

I don't think that they got the significance of Nearly Headless Nick. I felt that that was badly handled; one scene of the boys greeting Nick before hand, combined with a comment among the professors after the petrification about what could affect a ghost, would have been better.

We and 7 and 11 year olds love the books, love the movies.

Have all been reading JRR Tolkien, waiting for the new treat.

The eight year old, the wife and I all enjoyed the movie a lot, and thought it did justice to the book and the world of Hogwarts. Hagrid (Robby or Ronny Coltrane?) remains a joy, and it was funny to see that the kid who plays Ron has grown a bit more (and his voice has deepened a bit more) than the others. The eight year old is becoming a connoisseur of Alan Rickman death scenes (there was not one in Chamber, of course, and I haven't let the 8 y-o see the Rasputin movie yet!), and it was a great joy to see Branagh and Rickman facing off.

I think movies like this (the Lord of the Rings series is similar) are taken in by a much more diverse audience than most movies, and each of these audiences bring something unique to the movie (and take away something unique as well) -- for this reason the quibbles of critics -- which I usually find useful in thinking about movies -- strike me more as technical exercises than as evaluations.

I haven't seen the movie, but I think critics in general don't like much movies that are merely entertaining; they want movies to express some deeper meaning, to have a more profound significance, so as perhaps to feel their profession means a little more than just issuing consumer reports.

"So why, then, do we have carping critics? I think the problem is that the kids (and I) are as interested in learning about the world in which Harry Potter lives as in following the plot itself--and that the critics are not."

The same reason Science Fiction is not understood! The environment is as (or more) interesting as the story itself. The Harry Potter books will generate another generation of SF addicts. Hurrah!