Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

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. (14/12/2002)

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)

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)

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)

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)