Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

This is topic Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000453

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 11-10-2002, 08:10 AM:

This film can be described in a few words, Absolutley Brillant!
Anyone who enjoyed the first chapter in Mr Potters school career will love this film, it is better in every aspect posible, Story is stong and keeps up the pace right from the start to the end.
The Visual effects are seemless with the live action and the sound design is out of this world.
For those who dont know the plot or hav not read the book it is based on the second year of Harry Potter's life at 'Hogwarts school for wichcraft and wizardary'. The Chamber of Secrets is a secret room built by one of the schools co-founders who left the school due to differnce's of opinions about who should be allowed into the school.
A monster trapped in the room which if released, will kill any 'Mudbloods'(wizards or wiches which have non magical parents), the kind of people that he thought shouldn't be in the school.

The cast is the same as in the first film with Daniel Radcliffe playing Harry Potter. In this film we also meet Ron's dad, 'Mr Weasley', who is more famous in the U.K. as being part of the 'Fast Show' comedy programme on T.V. (Suit You Sir!)

The film like the first film 'The Philosophers Stone' looks quiet grainy but sharp. Is this due to all the Computer effects?? But it is visually stunning to look at, all the detail in the castle mean's you see something different every time you view the film.
The soundtrack use's the stereo surround's to great effect and you get drawn into the action even more.

Overall it is a wonderfull film experince and everyone who views it comes out with bug grins on there faces!
10 out of 10, I look forward to see it LOTR II is going to be as good a sequel as this Harry Potter sequel is.

Darren Briggs

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-10-2002, 01:14 PM:

I don't know 'cos I haven't seen your Harry Potter print, but would guess that grainy, washed out contrast is a print issue. When the labs are printing 1,000 at a time the quality control goes down, it's as simple of that.

I saw two prints at two different venues (both of which take presentation seriously) of the Lord of the Rings film last year: one was crisp and sharp and dense, whilst the other looked like a bad 16mm. I was astonished at the difference in quality, but it was certainly there.

Posted by John Scott (Member # 520) on 11-10-2002, 10:48 PM:

I saw this at a manager screening a few weeks ago. The print I saw didn't have the graininess or washed out problems as mentioned above.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-11-2002, 12:26 PM:

Normally, a lab problem tends to affect a particular reel, rather than all reels of a print. At large labs, each reel is normally printed and processed individually, often on different days and on different printers and processing machines.

For one complete print to look really good, and another to look "like a bad 16mm" would require a consistent mistake across all reels, e.g., a printing error in making all the duplicate negatives. Not likely, since the distributor usually demands a "check print" to verify that the release prints match the approved answer print.

Are you sure the two venues both had the correct screen luminance and good lenses?

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-11-2002, 12:43 PM:

Kodak CineSite did much of the effects work for "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets":
here

Roger Pratt is the Cinematographer:
here

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 11-11-2002, 04:48 PM:

I use an Isco backing lens and a Schnieder anamorph, focus is pin sharp across the screen, and weve got the correct light as were a THX screen. Was it shot on Super 35? Many Super 35 films I screen seem to be grainy compared to genuine Scope photography.
Apart from the grain the film looks great.
And im probably being picky with the grain as I screen 70mm once a month and you get used to the superior quality. (
Shameless Plug= 'Lawrence of Arabia', 15th Dec)

Posted by Michael Harlow (Member # 1353) on 11-11-2002, 05:26 PM:

Our print of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was replaced on Friday morning by Warner Bros.

The DTS kept dropping out and most of the picture was either green or ginger ! The sound was very flat on Optical SR, the soundtrack again was green !

Needless to say the replacement print is excellent.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-11-2002, 07:44 PM:

I am betting that Darren is more picky when it comes to film grain, and his print vs. another print are no different in reality. It's no different than one person saying that the film is in perfect condition while another looks at it's condition in disgust.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-12-2002, 12:33 PM:

Michael Harlow wrote: "Our print of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was replaced on Friday morning by Warner Bros. The DTS kept dropping out and most of the picture was either green or ginger ! The sound was very flat on Optical SR, the soundtrack again was green ! Needless to say the replacement print is excellent."

By your descripton, the first print was likely bad due to a lab problem. Since both picture and soundtrack were off-color, I suspect a problem with the processing solutions that day.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-16-2002, 01:34 PM:

I watched "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" at the Carmike 8 theater in Lawton (Screen #4, THX, DTS-6). This sequel is just about as good as the first film in the series, although I'm not sure what many parents will think of the darker tone with this film. Really young kids might get really frightened by some of the sequences. The scene in the Dark Woods with all those big spiders was really pretty creepy.

There were no DTS dropouts on the show I saw, and the overall sound quality was really pretty good. Lots of surround activity. About the only complaints I would have with the track is I thought there could have been a little more sub-bass on the bottom end. And I could have done without those plants screeching. Jeez! The sound quality on that was crystal clear, but the audio effect itself was very unpleasant is not something I want to be hearing at high volume across the front mains and spread across the surrounds. I had to plug my ears! Hehe, maybe that was the point of the scene. Still unsettling nonetheless.

The complaints about Super35 and visible film grain can be repeated here. I think this film would have looked better had it been shot anamorphic. The CGI scenes were pretty clean looking due to digital intermediate steps. The regular live action shots were a bit compromised. I'm sure Warner Bros. has their eye on separate fullscreen ("foolscreen") and widescreen DVD releases next spring. That's really where the tyranny of Super35 sets in.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-18-2002, 11:09 AM:

11/17/2002, 11:55AM, Regal Cinema World 8, Eugene OR, #3, probably SDDS. Attendance about 200. Slightly out of focus for the entire 3 hours. [Mad]

Reel 2 (I think it was 2) had a 5-second section during the screeching-mandrake scene that suddenly turned green and the digital sound dropped out, with the volume dropping by at least half for the duration of the green. [Eek!]

That reel really should be replaced. Except for that 1 major dropout the sound was outstanding. Overall image quality (ignoring the focus & brief discoloration issues) seemed only OK: grainy and just not top-notch.

I have to say I liked this more than the first one. They didn't have to tell a lot of back-story this time, so they were able to spend much more time on developing the main story. The special effects are mostly first-rate (sometimes brilliant). The kid actors carry this long film very well. Of course the adult actors like Kenneth Brannagh (sp) etc. are all great too. Considering this ran 3 hours, the audience full of children seemed enthralled with it from start to end. Sometimes there were murmurs about cool things they recognized from the book.

The trailer for "Kangaroo Jack" got a lot of laughs.

All in all an excellent film and well worth seeing in a theater. [thumbsup]

Or is that "theatre". I wonder though how this got a PG and not a PG-13. There are some intense scenes.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-19-2002, 07:04 AM:

David Stambaugh wrote: "Reel 2 (I think it was 2) had a 5-second section during the screeching-mandrake scene that suddenly turned green and the digital sound dropped out, with the volume dropping by at least half for the duration of the green. That reel really should be replaced."

Your description sounds like a few feet of film may have been accidently fogged by excessive exposure to the darkroom "safelight", likely near a lab splice. Typical safelight fog is cyan-blue in color, and would affect both picture and sound like you describe.

Here's a SMPTE paper I wrote about proper darkroom illumination:

Shedding Light on Darkroom Illumination

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-19-2002, 10:51 AM:

There could have been a lab splice there that I missed. The audio dropout was so sudden it might have distracted me. [Wink]

I forgot to mention: The theater didn't have any HP2 mylar graphics for the box office or the auditorium entrances. They had to use hand-made signs. [Confused]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-19-2002, 11:52 AM:

I had a print of Austin Powers in Goldmember that had the exact same thing. It was right after a lab splice, the film was cyan-blue and the audio was at about half. It definetely looked like fogged film... about 20 feet of it.

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 12-05-2002, 06:31 AM:

I didn't enjoy this film a great deal, i'm sure the book was great(haven't read any), but the film just seemed to plod along with very little effort.
The only person on screen who interested me was kenneth branaugh, he certainly had a good time in his role, all the others seemed so restrained in their characters that they all just became part of the scenery.
I only saw the first film when it came out on DVD and i did enjoy it, so i came into this film wanting to see it and did my best not have high expectations, i sat through the first two thirds just staring at the screen, then it came to me that i wasn't enjoying it, i'm not here to poo-poo on it, just to say not for me [sleep]

Also had those annoying drop outs to analogue at every reel change [Frown]

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 12-05-2002, 03:31 PM:

Very Important point I have to make.

Now when Lucas created Jar Jar Binks and everyone hated the character, I didn't mind, I was happy.

But Nobby *shudders*. I don't know what words to use to express... The 'thing' must die within the first 7 minutes of the next film. It must.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 12-05-2002, 05:34 PM:

I have to agree about "Nobby"... oops, actually "Dobby". His presence was an irritating way to begin the film, which only began to recover and pick up after the first 40 minutes.

I also agree that the image was again soft, though the print I saw at the Chinese in Hollywood, while not EK, was generally quite acceptable. I thought some of the CG was bad, such as the flying car shots and in particular the one where it touches down after the Weasley brothers rescue Harry.

Otherwise, the story was pretty exciting and engaging, giving all the main young characters a chance to contribute something. However, toward the end when the plot got a little confusing (OK, even I got confused... why did Voldemort come up again? I thought we were talking about the heir of Slytherin), the expository dialogue really came on heavily ("Well, your phoenix may have *blinded* my snake just now, but he can still smell you!!", etc. etc.). There were also some deus ex machina moments such as Harry's fatal wound healing. Reminded me of some of the anime I've seen.

This was the first movie I saw at the Chinese in Hollywood. The interior was nice, not tacky at all like I was expecting. Sound was very good. The EX channel was flaunted quite a few times. The only problem was a handful of split-second digital dropouts to silence in one reel, one lasting a good seven seconds! I tried to explain to a manager afterward that dropouts to silence indicate something is very wrong, but all she could say was that they were aware of the problem and would be getting a replacement reel soon. It's pretty sad if even the Chinese can't get a replacement reel by the next showing....

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-05-2002, 10:41 PM:

Voldemort IS the heir of Slytherin. BTW, how come you live in El Pueblo De Nuestra Senora La Reyna De Los Angeles De Porciuncula but have never been to the Chinese before?

Posted by Betsie Beadling (Member # 591) on 12-06-2002, 08:13 AM:

Dobbys Cool
He's Not Annoying [thumbsup]

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 12-06-2002, 01:19 PM:

Betsie,

You forgot the [Wink]

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 12-06-2002, 06:16 PM:

Michael,

So if Voldemort is heir of Slytherin, where did Tom Riddle come from and why did he claim that "I am Voldemort"? And why was it Lucius Malfoy who slipped Riddle's diary into the little Weasley girl's basket? OK, I should stop watching movies and just stick to projection.

And the reason I've never been to the Chinese is that, up until this year, I lived in sunny Hawaii where I worked at the now-closed Waikiki Theatres.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-06-2002, 11:01 PM:

It has been some time since I read the book - yes, I confess I have read all the books even though when a friend gave me the first volume, I thought, if everyone says they are good they can`t be good! I think they are fantastic and I even read the 2nd and 3rd on one weekend.
Anyway, if I remember correctly, Tom Riddle is the heir of Slytherin and he conserved his mind or his memories in the diary to reappear later after his first attempt to unleash the horrors of the chamber of secrets on those magicians who are not of pure blood ("Muggle-borns") failed.
Just before the first book begins, he has reappeared as Voldemort and tries to kill the infant Harry as he thinks that he will be too powerful when grown up but fails to do so because Harry`s mother sacrifices herself for the life of her baby.
The Malfoys are a family of pure-blood wizards who where among Voldemort`s followers but where pardoned after his downfall because they are very influential and maintained that they had been bewitched by V. One aspect of the books I like very much is that while they deal with magic, they are very "realistic" in their treatment of such themes as tolerance, envy, or political influence.
By the way, Dobby is supposed to be an irritating character because he keeps getting Harry into big trouble.

The comparison with J.J.Binks is an interesting one as I think the new "episodes" failed completely where H.P. was tremendously successful - in creating a complex world in which kids and also adults can immerse themselves. This comparison is even more interesting when one sees that the new Star Wars movies suffer from being so obviously and simplistically tailored to children`s tastes or what marketing sees as children`s tastes. That is why they fail to fascinate as the original Star Wars movies did.
The mythological and tragic aspects of Episodes 4-6 were what made the movies so powerful. It is interesting to see how successful H.P. is exactly because the books are so dark and tragic in places that at first I couldn`t believe that what I was reading was indeed a book for younger people. Marketing strategists would never have allowed such strong stuff to be published for kids, and yet that is exactly what they need: A rich and complex world which has elements of tragic and suffering as well as uplifting and light elements. That is what Episode 4-6 gave us when we were kids, that is what H.P. is giving kids now, and that is where Episodes 1 and 2 failed miserably.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 12-13-2002, 09:27 AM:

I had a hard time staying awake durring the first half. I'll have to see it again. The parts that I saw seemed to have a fair amount of gratuitous scenes. Maybe when I see all of it I will figure out what it all meant

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 12-22-2002, 04:56 PM:

AMC Hamilton 24, Hamilton NJ, 12/22, noon matinee. Hall #19, attendance approx. 20-25.

No digital sound [Embarrassed]

-- the SDDS dropped out during the 2nd advert in the preshow and the booth never checked to see if the SDDS was working. The analog SR track was as flat as Michael Harlow said.

When Harry got surrounded by the spiders I half-expected him to say "Get back you eight leg-ged freeeeeeeeaks!"

Good if you're a Harry P. fan, passable if you're not.

Another booth misstep: The attached trailer for Kangaroo Jack ran first instead of last -- with all the black included at the end. I got to hear the first 1 1/2 seconds of the R1 soundtrack before the second trailer.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-22-2002, 06:52 PM:

quote:
No digital sound -- the SDDS dropped out during the 2nd advert in the preshow and the booth never checked to see if the SDDS was working. The analog SR track was as flat as Michael Harlow said.

I have never seen any of the digital formats drop out completely and never come back - except of course if the unit itself failed. Maybe they had dts and forgot to load the discs?
Or did the print have the same severe optical quality problems that Mr Harlow described.
I don`t know about the US, but here in Germany Warner Bros. has delivered mostly excellent prints during the last couple of years.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-28-2003, 07:13 AM:

Harry Potter 2 is number three of all time
Warner Bros International has reported that Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets has grossed $568.2m in international territories, surpassing Jurassic Park to become the third biggest grossing international hit ever.

http://www.screendaily.com/story.asp?storyid=10970

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-28-2003, 03:47 PM:

It would be interesting to know how much each film made with the numbers calibrated to reflect the change of the currency value of the time. Somebody told me that Star Wars was still no. 1 when inflation is taken into account but I have no idea if that is true.

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 01-30-2003, 01:49 AM:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/

Figures figures & more figures.
Though this still has HP 2 @ #6 as 26 jan

Gone with the wind is # 1 adjusted

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 01-30-2003, 11:31 AM:

David that site rocked. Great site. [Big Grin]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-30-2003, 03:31 PM:

I found what I was looking for in the "adjusted for inflation" section. So "Gone With The Wind" is No.1 and "Star Wars" is No.2.
Of course the rankings depend on how exact the inflation can be calculated. The most precise way to compare the success of movies would probably be by the number of tickets sold.
I don`t like this "this movie had the biggest opening weekend of all times" which you continuously hear today because the movies hit thousands of theaters at the same time and the theaters themselves don`t profit much from the success. Of course that is how it is today where cinema is seen only as a transitory stage before the video/TV marketing.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-30-2003, 07:16 PM:

quote:
I found what I was looking for in the "adjusted for inflation" section. So "Gone With The Wind" is No.1 and "Star Wars" is No.2.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I find these adjusted lists soewhat circumspect. Because they usually are made by taking either box-office gross or the value of the dollar for a given year. The first method is flawed because they apply the average ticket price of the given year, ignoring the fact that some of these films were sold at WAY higher admission (case in point. The ticket price for a specific theatre I found had a 40 cent high in 1939. GWTW tickets at the same theatre were 1.75 top. The highest A movies often were sold at special advance "popular" prices. Even in the 70's, there are many examples for charging different rates for different films. For example, a theatre I'm familiar with charged a $3.00 for 4 of their screens. But for Kramer vs Kramer and Tootsie, admission was 4 general, 5 loge. Today, of course, all movies generally chatge the same for the theatre complex.

The second method is also poor, because for many years in the late 50's through the mid seventies, there was little upward growth of admission prices. They did not keep up with inflation out of fear of further eroding audiences. Of course, lately, it seems every time I go to a theatre, the admission is upped 25 cents!

Of course, I like the idea of reporting actual attendance. My guess is the industry didn't actually keep accurate records of this over the years, though, at least until relativley recently. Also, you probably have to takew into account the larger population as well.