Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

The Chamber of Secrets takes what was in The Sorcerer's Stone and makes it a bit deeper, darker, and ultimately better.

The story here flows much, much better than last time. Whereas The Sorcerer's Stone was jumpy and jumbled as it flowed from start to finish, this movie feels more appropriately suited for film, and is much easier to sink into.

While The Sorcerer's Stone had some very dark moments, it retained a somewhat lighthearted tone that didn't always match the action.  The Chamber of Secrets, however, manages to blend its tone and subject matter much better.  While death was often mentioned in the previous film, here we actually see a bit of bloody on-screen violence.

The visual effects in this film are much better than in the last, but are still far from perfect.  The Quidditch match is less embarassing to watch, but it's not great either.  The spiders go back and forth from looking obviously fake to rather impressively realistic.  The Basilisk itself looks near-perfect, but the difference between the CG model and the real-life animatronic model is very obvious.  I'm actually not sure which model is inferior; it could be that the CG model doesn't correctly reflect light, or it could be that the fake skin on the animatronic model isn't as realistic as it should be.  Either way, both models look amazing on their own; they're just distractingly different.

The set design is amazing. The Chamber of Secrets itself looks completely real; it simultaneously scares the audience and piques their curiosity.

The acting in this film has also improved over the last one.  The child actors are less awkward, and it helps a bit.  Jason Isaacs' portrayal of Lucius Malfoy is masterful; he's the very model of a great villain.

John Williams' musical score is catchy to be sure, but it also feels extremely similar to his other works.  The Quidditch match's score sounds almost identical to the generic action music heard in the Star Wars prequels, and many of the themes that are meant to evoke "the majesty and wonder" of Harry's magical world sound very much like themes from Jurassic Park and E.T. While there's nothing wrong with The Chamber of Secrets's musical score when examined on its own, it sounds so similar to other soundtracks that it's distracting for a fantasy-genre soundtrack geek like myself.

This chapter in the Harry Potter series initially seems to be a self-contained adventure, where nothing is lost or gained, and everything merely returns to the status quo at the end. A singular evil rose, and Harry defeated it. Were someone to judge the entire series based on the first two books/films, they might assume that it was nothing more than a series of magical mystery stories for children, rather than what it truly is: a deeply-woven mythology filled with realistically developing characters and wonderful storytelling.

However, future Potter books/films refer back to The Chamber of Secrets, revealing how the specific events here are, in fact, of immense importance. Repeat viewings, in light of the sequels, are much more entertaining.

Honestly, there's not much to say about this film that wasn't already said about the first.  The acting is better, the special effects are better, and the story gets a tad darker. Certain elements work extremely well in film form, notably the Basilisk battle and certain lines of well-said dialogue.  These little bits of fun elevate the film above its predecessor, and set the bar just a bit higher for the series as a whole.

7/10

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

This film is the very definition of a straight book-to-screen translation, for better or for worse.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone follows the original children’s novel very closely, perhaps to a fault. The film covers nearly every single aspect of the book, leaving very little out. Unfortunately, this means that the movie is crammed full at two and a half hours, but still feels as though it's rushing in order to cover everything. The dramatic pace of the movie is a bit off because of this, sometimes making the film feel a little bit like a childrens' roller coaster rather than a well-rounded story.

However, the casting here is completely flawless. Good child actors are seemingly non-existent, yet the lead three characters are played perfectly by Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint.

The visual effects go back and forth between astounding and disgusting. All of the “solid” objects look amazing. Hogwarts castle looks completely real, as do all of the other environments. The makeup on the goblins is particularly good; they look like evil, pale-faced Yodas. The attention to detail in the film's visuals overall is practically unmatched. When it comes to the CGI, however, it's an entirely different matter. Almost every time a CG monster or human is shown, it looks obviously fake and cartoonish. Because CG creatures are the focus of many important scenes in the film, this can be extremely distracting.
On the other hand, the whimsical and kid-friendly tone of the movie counters this somewhat. After all, when you have eleven-year-old wizards using tiny wands to battle a slimy mountain troll, realism takes a slight dive. It would have been nice to have real-looking CG effects, but the movie isn't ruined because of the bad ones.

The music is almost astoundingly good. John Williams has apparently not yet lost his touch, managing to craft musical themes that reflect the mystery, wonder, and excitement of Harry’s strange magical world.

An odd thing about the film is its constantly contrasting tone and subject matter. While the film has the whimsical quality of a five-year-old’s brain, the events in the story are far more mature. Voldemort is said to have murdered Harry’s parents, and drinks a slain unicorn’s blood on-screen. Later, Harry purposely uses powerful magic to defend himself, burning his attacker down to ashes. As if that wasn’t enough, Ron occasionally throws out a “damn” or “hell.” While it’s nice to see the film not dodge the book’s more mature content, it does make one occasionally wonder who the target audience is.

The most important part of this film, however, is the manner in which it uses the character of Harry to bring us into this new magical world. He, like Luke Skywalker before him, is the young, ordinary hero who is transported from his grounded reality into a fantastical adventure. There's a sense of wish fulfillment in The Sorcerer's Stone: that dream of taking the Hogwarts Express and being swept way to a land of wonder and excitement.

All in all, this film has a slightly jumpy narrative structure and sometimes-shoddy visual effects, but everything else is of the highest quality. The entire experience is slightly shallow, but it works well enough as an audiovisual spectacle that it's absolutely worth watching. While The Sorcerer’s Stone definitely works better as a book, it functions just fine as a film.

6/10

X-Men

In the not-too-distant future, a small number of humans have spontaneously developed a genetic mutation causing them to manifest random types of powerful abilities. These "mutants," despite being an infinitesimal minority within the human population, are viewed by much of mankind as a dangerous threat. US Senator Robert Kelly has created the Mutant Registration Act, which will force mutants to expose themselves to the public—thereby exposing themselves to the entire world's dangerous hatred. It seems that a war between humans and mutants is inevitable, and many are already arming for war. Some mutants, such as the villainous Magneto, have chosen to use their powers to preemptively strike against humanity, while other mutants—the X-Men, led by Professor Charles Xavier—have chosen to fight against violent mutants to protect the very humans who hate and fear them.

X-Men is rather unique among comic book films. At the time of its release in 2000, no other superhero film had truly attempted this level of grounded realism before. Some might point to 1998's Blade in that regard, but Blade has the advantage of being a horror fantasy film moreso than an obvious superhero movie. X-Men, on the other hand, presented an entirely new way of viewing the world of super-powered humans.

The character of Logan/Wolverine, played by Hugh Jackman, owns this film. He feels genuinely tough, believably rough-edged, yet very human. His cynical and disbelieving reactions to the somewhat outlandish circumstances surrounding the X-Men and their bizarre world allow for a certain degree of plausibility in what would otherwise seem like a silly story.

Magneto is one of the best comic book villains of all time, and he's played wonderfully here. He comes off not as a mustache-twirling evil-for-the-sake-of-evil villain, but rather someone with understandable motivations. Magneto is not entirely wrong in his beliefs—indeed, mutantkind is an oppressed minority that desperately needs support. However, the fact that he chooses to act through violence ironically makes him every bit as hateful and cruel as any human.

While Magneto is a greatly-realized character, all of the other villains in the movie are useless. The shape-shifting Mystique is mildly interesting and appears to have some type of character, but Toad and Sabretooth have no bearing on the story whatsoever. They are literally there just so the heroes have someone to fight, and they end up being more annoying than interesting.

The production values, overall, are very uneven. The directing, acting, and cinematography, especially in the film's first half, are excellent. However, the special effects are a little bit dodgy. The CGI is painfully 90s-esque, to the point why one wonders why they even decided to use CGI if it was going to look that bad. It doesn't diminish the overall film too badly, but it is a problem. Similarly, there's some bizarre bits of the film that seem incredibly cartoonish and out of step with the rest of the movie's dark tone.

It's truly remarkable how reverent to the source material this film is. For a fan of the X-Men books, watching this movie feels a little like stepping into a strange place where dreams become real. On the other hand, there are several major moments in the film—notably involving the silly-looking CGI and cheap stuntwork—that take it into a more cartoonish and less compelling area.

In the end, X-Men is a mostly well-done first attempt with the X-Men franchise, and sets a certain standard of grounded reality for superhero films to follow. It's not particularly epic or jaw-dropping, but it simply works.

6/10

Aladdin

Most of the Disney Renaissance films hold up surprisingly well in retrospect.  Aladdin is not one of them.  Aladdin is by no means a bad film; it's very good.  Certain shortcomings, however, keep it from achieving "masterpiece" status.

Aladdin continues Beauty and the Beast's tradition of diving deep into the culture of the tale.  The Islamic culture of the Middle-East is represented here, complete with multiple mentions of "Allah" and direct references to the oft-harsh laws of the Middle-East.  It doesn't feel quite natural, though, especially since the heroes all speak in an American accent and use American mannerisms, while most of the other characters (including the "evil" ones) have Arab accents and mannerisms. While Disney's intentions were undoubtedly honest and good, they ended up getting themselves into trouble.

One highly noticeable change from the previous film is that the fictional world represented by Aladdin is slightly anachronistic.  Characters make many references to modern pop culture, allowing for numerous jokes at the expense of the film's artistic integrity.

Indeed, Aladdin seems to be focused on being a "thrillride" more than anything else.  Adventure--and the pursuit thereof--seems to be at the heart of the film's message.  While this is certainly a universal human theme, it may not necessarily be a good one.  Whereas The Little Mermaid centered on the pursuit of dreams, and Beauty and the Beast depicted "the most beautiful love story ever told," Aladdin seems to focus on the alleviation of boredom.  As with nearly all Disney films of this type, there are strong themes of romance and dream-chasing, but the "adventure" theme is at Aladdin's forefront.  This, unfortunately, makes the entire film seem somewhat shallow.

The animation is slightly more simplified here than in previous films.  While Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid had a more detailed approach, Aladdin has a much more fluid style.  Additionally, the brief CG elements that were seen in past films have now been applied much more heavily.  While it allows for more movement-based "camera angles," it doesn't look all that great.  Certain elements look just fine--like the tiger-head of the Cave of Wonders--but others look obvious and out-of-place.

It seems that while Disney was attempting to make their previous two films into high art, their approach for Aladdin was to have a compelling joyride.  That doesn't mean that Aladdin isn't good, or that it doesn't fit in with the pantheon of Disney animated films; it just means that it's not amazing.