Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

While sticking to his usual understated style, this time Columbus has a tremendous foothold in the original book which is one of the best (and best that works independently) of the series. Moreover, he “darkened" the atmosphere, and thanks to the well-cast duo of Branagh/Isaacs, he manages to partially correct the impression of the central trio which the camera closely follows the whole time, and who are still more like cute mannequins than real lead actors. It is still a mere illustration of the original, but this time at least a well made illustration which the extended version does no harm to (but nor does it add anything positive). Which is not to say I can't imagine it being cut down significantly. And even though it worked out for Columbus this time, thanks god for Cuarón next time! OST score: 3/5 (21/11/2010)

Chris Columbus’s film is a bit better than The Philosopher's Stone and has better visual effects (though far from perfect), but the greatly exaggerated running time and the weak lead actor, who started to bore me after about thirty minutes, bring it down to mediocrity. If it weren't for the brilliant Kenneth Branagh and Jason Isaacs, it probably would have been even worse. (13/12/2002)

Well, this is definitely more watchable than The Philosopher's Stone... The atmosphere is a few shades darker, with the story thrown into a kind of Gothic gloomy and mysterious garb. For the first 40 minutes, I kind of yawned through the shower of digital effects and purely illustrative films that didn't do much for me as a non-reader of the books, but during the rest of the runtime it was a much fresher experience. It's just too bad that Columbus can't give the film more charm and poetry than the visual effects and artwork give it. And, of course, the actors, of whom I was most pleased by the eccentric egotist Kenneth Branagh... Unfortunately, the director is a routinist in every way, the author is every inch a conservative and a loner, which may benefit the film as a book illustration, but not the film as a film... Some scenes have a huge charge in them, which Columbus zeroes out with unruly and mechanical direction without a hint of invention (e.g., the spider scene in the Forbidden Forest) and sometimes it would benefit the film more to cling to the storyline and not overwhelm the viewer with details as much. In the end it's quite amusing, though quite stretched, and it's nice-looking, but it lacks more pronounced poetics... There is something good waiting in there, and when a handy director wakes it up... well, let's wait for the next films. (13/06/2004)

Except for the overly annoying Dobby, who I didn't even like in the book, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is better than the first installment in every way. First of all, it is more entertaining, but also the stunts and action scenes have improved (the Quidditch has finally got some pizzazz), the plot is more interesting with "something/someone" threatening the students' lives, and the visit to Aragog's house is pleasantly scary. Again, I have no complaints about the child actors (okay, okay, Rupert Grint makes too many faces, I admit), and of the adults, I was impressed by Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart. And needless to say, every sentence and every glance of Rickman's Snape and Isaacs' Malfoy is also worth it. (07/09/2015)

The fairy-tale-like look of the first two films suits me, just as it suits me in the first two books. Such a form could be seen in a modern fairy tale, which "Harry Potter" actually was before it turned into a thriller for teenagers, which it actually is. Chris Columbus doesn't surprise with anything, he does his thing, but it's enough. However, it is visible that for the following films, this was a completely different starting point and a lot has changed since then. (28/01/2014)