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)

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)

Still too long and conceptually the same as the first one, but this time properly atmospheric and more original in the staging of the climactic scenes (the passage with the giant spiders is simply amazing, likewise, for its time, the fight with the basilisk). Plus, well-developed characters and a very skilled straddling between a very dark film and an innocent fairy tale for children. Of course, needless to say, had it stayed exclusively on the dark side, it would have been awesome, but that’s understandably impossible... 80% (02/05/2017)

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)

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)