Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Better than the first one in every aspect, much darker and therefore much closer to my tastes. Radcliffe as Potter is once again dreadfully plankish, the actors playing Ron and Hermione are better, they are undeniably talented. Some of the scenes are so scary that little kids must get the creeps. For example, as an arachnophobe, I barely made it through the scene with the spiders. And back to Radcliff, I’m surprised they gave such a big role to a wooden actor like him. But when I see that one of the producers just happens to be called Radcliffe, I'm wonder if there wasn’t some nepotism involved. Anyway, in conclusion, I would just like to add that my desire for the Nimbus 2000 has passed. Now I want the Nimbus 2001, it’s supposed to have better aerodinamics. (22/06/2003)

Columbus took on a task of gigantic proportions. Not only did he have to follow up on the success of the first film without repeating it, but he also had to adapt a book that holds the most ambiguous position in the entire series. It serves only to bring the reader (in this case, the viewer) closer to the characters and to create a strong connection with them for the future installments. The Philosopher's Stone introduced the heroes, The Chamber of Secrets and The Prisoner of Azkaban bring crucial parts of the mythology and key chapters of the entire history of the wizarding world. That's why I admire the director for handling everything with grace, even though he basically allowed the book to be almost entirely re-written into a screenplay without rushing it. With all the scenes that are typical for the Potter series and that may seem unnecessarily drawn-out to regular viewers, such as the Dursleys' introduction or Dobby's repeated hysterics, many creators would have stumbled and ended up with an unwatchable bore. Chris Columbus has heard countless complaints after the release of the film, calling him a mere people-pleaser who made a harmless family spectacle without atmosphere, but in reality, he created two films that the series desperately needed and laid the groundwork for Cuaron and others to experiment as they pleased. (12/07/2007)

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)

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)

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)