Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

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)

Compared to its predecessor, The Philosopher's Stone, the second Harry Potter is more action-packed, scarier and grimmer, but still aimed at a younger audience who will enjoy the naive touch that is still present. The plot is slightly better than the first installment, and on my very first viewing I was shocked by the conclusion. John Williams' score hasn't lost a note of its charm, and while some of the visual effects are still blatantly off-putting, it is a high standard for the year it was released. The main trio may be more jaded, but their performances are still evolving. The original ensemble is enriched with a couple of new faces, the most pleasing of which were Dobby and Gilderoy Lockhart. A slightly more mature sequel to the first part, which has something going for it, but still falls short of perfection. (17/06/2011)

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)

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. (11/07/2007)