Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

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)

Somewhat more mature, darker, and overall better than the first installment, and the silly cuteness and childishness are also on the decline, for which we thank both the author of the source material and the slightly older main characters. The visual effects are noticeably more elaborate, too – the sequence with the enchanted balloon is captivating. Perhaps only Williams's music is somewhat unimpressive and in most passages essentially copies the first part. The Chamber of Secrets is much more colorful and emotionally charged than its predecessor. Its massive running time is far from being an issue, contrary to what one might think, and despite it being nearly three hours long, the I rarely felt bored throughout the entire screening. Truly a significant upgrade. (31/07/2006)

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)

At 160 minutes, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is just too long. It’s brilliantly filmed, the characters haven’t lost any of their charm and the darker approach suits the film, but it still seems more routine and static. As a fan of J.K. Rowling, I was definitely excited to see it. But as an impartial viewer, I missed having a remote control with a rewind button in places. (12/12/2002)

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)