Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) User Reviews

That bit of magic returns

[siit · 7/10 · 21 January 2006]

The second installment seems to carry on where the first left off. All previous characters return and then some!! The grandiose majesty of Harry Potter continues with new tricks, new delights and little treats that can be taken for granted. At times I find the Harry Potter world has so many wonderful things happening at the same time that you tend to overlook the smaller things (ergos the Weasley's residence and the great Hall) The Chamber of Secrets is a darker tail but is well within the tolerances of most children's ability to handle. The creatures are excellent, the overall story is easy enough to follow, though some aspects have to be explained to younger children.

What does get annoying is that constant overused Daniel Radcliffe cheesy smile. It wears on the sensibilities after a while like sharp finger nails scraping down a blackboard. Overall though, Chamber of Secrets is a solid good natured magical movie only slighter less pleasing than the first.

I want more!!!

[Cheese-18 · 8/10 · 9 November 2002]

Chris Columbus said he wanted to make a 2,5 hour movie that feels like 30 Minutes. Well, in my case he surely succeeded! I saw the movie as a member of the press and couldn't get enough of it. I would have gladly sat in the cinema for another two or three hours with a biiiig smile on my face.

Like part one, "chamber of secrets" stays true to the book. I don't know about you - but I HATE it when movie makers change the storylines, add or remove characters and do it for the "sake of the art". I think they do it because they are too lazy to create their own storys, so they rip off other peoples ideas and crush them to make it more comfortable... If a book is loved by millions of readers there must be a good reason for that. Chris Columbus has captured the essence of the book on screen. So, after "philosophers stone" he delivered again!

When reading the book I always envisioned Michael Crawford playing Gilderoy Lockhart. His broad smile and clumsiness à la Frank Spencer would have been perfect for the role. But instead we get to see Kenneth Branagh, so of course you won't see ME complain. The great find of the movie is Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy. In his short scenes onscreen he makes your blood freeze. And again: all the casting is brilliant. Every character just feels right - even if you imagined something different when you read the book. There also has been talk about the young actors getting older. Well, let me remind you that this also happens in the books. In every book Harry Potter and his friends are one year older. So there's no excuse to take the roles away from Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. I couldn't imagine someone else playing their parts.

Go see "the chamber of secrets". It's pure fun and excitement! And it will wet your appetite for more to come. Richard Harris couldn't have asked for a better movie and legacy to be remembered by.

Somehow manages to be funnier than the first!

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 21 April 2009]

I really liked the first movie, and I think I like this one more. It's certainly both darker and funnier than the first. This time though, Ron gets the most laughs("OK can we panic now?"). Here we get introduced to new characters, the standout being Kenneth Branagh, a Shakespeare veteran, who stole every scene as Gildaroy Lockhart. I loved it when he said "It's filthy down here," the whole cinema were in hysterics at that. Jason Isaacs was menacing too, and Dobby was hilarious with his constant head-banging. Daniel Radcliffe is audibly older here and it does work at its advantage. I thought 23 year old Christian Coulson as Riddle was very good indeed, though Riddle was much scarier in the book. Other scenes of comic relief were provided by Ron's parents, played respectably by Julie Walters and Mark Williams. However, there were still some frightening scenes, and the plot at times seemed to be convoluted. Richard Harris was surprisingly good, considering he was ailing quite visibly, and some months later he sadly died. This movie is fairly faithful to the source material, and manages to have a bit of humour too. All in all, a dark and funny movie. 8/10 Bethany Cox

A wonderful journey into a world where magic is, indeed, real.

[ivony · 9/10 · 17 May 2003]

Having three daughters I have a choice when a great book comes out: buy three of them (EXPENSIVE!!), force someone to wait until the other is done before they can read the book (sure, I enjoy breaking up fights!), or read it to them. I chose to read it to them so we could ALL enjoy it...and we did! Naturally, the kids were excited when the movie came out. However, when I saw the first Harry Potter, I was terrified it was going to be "butchered" like most "books to movies" are; but was pleasantly surprised by the relatively "stick to the book" script it displayed. Sure, some things were left out undoubtedly due to time constraints, but overall, it conveyed the story well.

Chamber of Secrets did this even better.

As an avid reader, I am quite hesitant to see my beloved books displayed on screen only to have the directors do them no justice. However, with both Harry Potter movies, the visuals were spectacular, the acting well done, and the characters almost perfectly matched. The set design for Diagon Alley and the Weasley house was fabulous! How wonderful to see these places come to life outside of our imaginations! This stays true for nearly every aspect of Hogwarts...from the greenhouse, to the moving staircases, the dorms and Dumbledore's office.

Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson do superb jobs of playing Harry, Ron, and Hermione. The movie undoubtedly draws you in and makes you forget that this isn't real...quite an acheivement!

Of course, not all moviegoers will enjoy this one. It is not for the die-hard action fan, the horror-only fans, or those that dislike a bit of magic, imagination, and fantasy. But for the rest of us, Chamber of Secrets accurately depicts what until now, only our imaginations could see. Children will love this for the wizardry and magic, the struggle between Harry and his foes, the friendships that abound, and the simple fun of it all; while adults will love it for bringing them back to a time when magic was, indeed, real.

All in all, I give this a 5 out of 5...fantastically done. Of course, I would have liked to see a bit more scenes from the book added, but I understand time restrictions. Great film and a definite must see!

I absolutely LOVED this movie

[chicamanticore · 17 November 2002]

This movie is way better than the first one, which everyone is saying because--let's face it--it's true. The three leads have grown into their characters, and their acting is loads better. I kept thinking during the first one, "Aw, look at these cute little kids playing Harry, Ron and Hermione." Now they ARE Harry, Ron and Hermione, though they still won't get any Oscar nods. All the new characters were absolutely wonderful. I was not disappointed at all with a single one, even Dobby. Now, I know a lot of people compare him to another CGI character, but he's not like that at all. I loved Dobby, even though when I saw him the trailers I thought I was going to hate him. Jason Isaacs as Malfoy was an absolute slime ball, and just so deliciously evil. Not bad looking, either, especially with his luscious long blonde hair. Bonnie Wright returned as Ginny Weasley, who had a much more important part and did an excellent job, I was very impressed. I'm tempted to go on about the lovely Christian Coulson as Tom Riddle, and Kenneth Branaugh, who embodies Gilderoy Lockhart on the screen, but this review has a word limit. Even if you are not a massive Harry Potter fan, you will find this movie very enjoyable. It's scary (spiders, snakes, and willows, oh my!) and incredibly funny, thanks to Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) and of course Kenneth Branaugh, the incredibly pompous new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. Back to the subject of the three leads, Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron), and Emma Watson (Hermione). They have grown quite a bit since the last film, though it's not a bad thing-Harry and his friends are supposed to grow too. Girls are starting to notice how good-looking Harry has become, and Ron, who is still adorable, and Hermione is becoming very pretty. I was pleased to see that her appearance was more like it was described in the books-she even had big teeth. Ron is finally taller than the other two like he's supposed to be, but that's most likely due to Rupert being older. I only had one disappointment as a major Potter fan-Sean Biggerstaff. While I believe he is absolutely dreamy and am in love with him, he just didn't come across as the mad, maniacal Wood we've grown to love. A consolation for some of the die-hard fans who might find the movie a little fast when they first see it-see it twice. The second time is so much more enjoyable, I can't tell you why, but you'll love it. I'd recommend this movie to anyone, from the scary gothic kid who sits next to me in fourth period to my work-a-holic father, it's great. I can't wait to see it again with my mother, who was away this weekend. I've already seen it twice, and it's only been out for three days. I can guarantee that you'll enjoy it, even if you didn't like the first one-which I personally find odd, but slightly understandable. Slightly. Go see Chamber of Secrets!

The story starts here!

[swright-3 · 10/10 · 10 November 2002]

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a huge step on from the first film. In the Philosophers stone we were introduced to the the world of Harry Potter and given a taster of what lies ahead.

In the Chamber of Secrets the main story line for the series of books really starts to be told. It is much darker and sinister than the first film and Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint give good performances and give us a glimpse of the fine actors they are becoming.

Kenneth Branagh and Jason Isaacs are perfectly cast as Gilderoy Lockhart and Lucius Malfoy and truly bring the characters from the book to life. Mark Williams as Arthur Weasley while under used in this film is going to be great in the next few as his character has more to do. The Cinematography is again superb and somehow the Quiddich game is better than in the first film.

A fine sequal to the first film and should dispel any notion that the first one was just a one hit wonder.

A firm 10 in my book.

Character palette and story drives me to read the books

[EVANOC · 7/10 · 1 December 2002]

A lot has been made about the pubescence of the three leads in this new Harry Potter installment and it is a bit disconcerting when Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) speak their first lines in those awkward cracks of pre-adolescence. However, their growing up, along with the physical blossoming of their friend Hermione (the perky and smart actress Emma Watson) seem mark a general growing up of the whole Harry Potter series. This one is more for grown-ups: the first one hooked the kid demographic and no doubt they will still be enraptured by "Chamber of Secrets." This is the film, however, that hopes to attract a whole new audience in the parents of those kids. It is darker and has more layers. The explanations about wizardry are less cursory and the acting seems stronger.

I have never read the books so I bring an outlook to the films that is free of personal bias toward the quality of the adaptation or the faithfulness to Rowling's words. One thing this film does do, that the first one did not, is it made me want to read the books. I was more drawn in, in a literary sense, to the world, to the stories, and particularly to the characters. Whereas the first film was a passable introduction to everything Harry Potter is about, this seems like a deeper riff on some of the same themes that the first one only glossed over.

However, I might not have enjoyed Chamber of Secrets as thoroughly if I had not first seen Sorcerer's Stone. It gave me (and Chris Columbus' production team) a framework that invited expansion. Without the background of the first film, I might not have been as emotionally invested in Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), or have understood the mechanics of "Quidditch," or even have cared about the tenuous future of Hogwarts School for Wizards.

In a word, the performances are "marvelous." I read somewhere that Rowling wrote with a Dickensian sense of character and that seems to carry over to the film. Robbie Coltrane as the affable Hagrid is still my favorite. Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman are woefully underused in this film but I can only hope they will resurface in the others; they can still steal their scenes with the tiniest pursing of the lips or eye flickers. (As a side note: Outside of Coltrane's Hagrid, I find Rickman's Professor Snape the most interesting and multi-layered character across both films). Richard Harris is suitably noble and wily in one of his last roles. And Kenneth Branagh, as the egomaniacal new Hogwarts professor and author of wizardry books, is perfectly cast and very funny. One thing this film does is allow room to explore these characters in a full sense and give the audience time to get under their skin.

Chris Columbus has been called a tactless director and I can see where some of his scenes, particularly the action ones, are played so broadly that they lose all semblance of meaning. He is not particularly adept at handling the young actors, who come across as pretty bland and uninteresting (Rupert Grint as Ron is sort of annoying, overplaying the stuff that was likeable at first). Likewise, he is unable to invigorate some of the scenes (the car scenes, the spider scene, and even the final encounter between Harry and the Chamber of Secrets' monster) come off as overlong and particularly flat. The running time of 2 hours and 41 minutes is a bit exorbitant: To me it just suggests that Columbus doesn't have the necessary audacity to deviate too much from Rowling's source material. I know that he has to maintain a certain level of faithfulness to the books but, to be honest, what is exciting on the page does not always translate well onscreen. Perhaps Alfonso Cuaron, slated to direct the new film, will have a better, snappier sense of how to energize the action scenes without losing the obvious positives of sticking to the novels.

However, the movie did energize me enough to want to go and read the books. The scope, the palette of, yes, Dickensian characters, and the intertwining of stories makes me want to see how Rowling fits it all together. Then maybe I'll be able to talk more intelligently about faithfulness when Cuaron releases `Prisoner of Azkaban.' Maybe I'll undergo a massive reading program this holiday season.

The best Harry Potter film?

[hnt_dnl · 10/10 · 10 October 2009]

Not originally a fan of this series (really, not interested), I've got to say that I now see the widespread appeal of these Harry Potter movies! I actually first saw GOBLET OF FIRE (2005) when it premiered on cable the year after it's release and liked it enough to want to start watching this series. Then when ORDER OF THE PHOENIX (2007) came out 2 years later, I liked it, but it seemed to get really dark and serious more so than GoF and I really needed perspective in understanding the trajectory of these HP films. I went out and bought the 5-disc collection of SORCERER'S STONE, CHAMBER OF SECRETS, PRISONER OF AZBAKAN, GOBLET OF FIRE, and ORDER OF THE PHOENIX. It's apparent these films are purposefully getting darker as they move along, some staying very true to the source material, some taking liberties.

Of the 5-disc set, I actually think this film, CHAMBER OF SECRETS, may be the best! I still like the other 4 for different reasons, but here's some reasons why I rate this one so high:

*Daniel Radcliffe, as Harry Potter, improved immensely from the first film to this one! In SS, you could really tell the 12-year old youngster was a bit nervous and awestruck at having to carry the load of this franchise on his shoulders! Radcliffe, while adorably cute along with his co-stars Rupert Grint (Ron) and Emma Watson (Hermione) in SS, really needed to step it up in CoS and he did in spades! In CoS, 13-year old Radcliffe obviously established that he IS Harry Potter!

*The film's length is not a bother! When a film this long (over 2 1/2 hours?) can sustain itself and hold your attention without ever devolving into boredom or tedium, that is saying something! Especially when it's led by 3 kids! Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson deserve all praise!

*Kenneth Branagh's delightfully fun performance as new Defense Against the Dark Arts Prof. Gilderoy Lockhart! This is the role that gets changed from film to film and Branagh's Lockhart is probably the best!

*Christian Coulson as 16-year old Tom Riddle! This young actor was my favorite villain in all the films, even over Voldemort!...Uh, don't worry, I know what the big surprise was at the climax! Still, young Riddle was such an elegant, charming, devious, cold sort that I couldn't help but be enthralled by his commanding presence.

*The climactic showdown between Harry and Tom was suspenseful and epic! Who'd have thought a scene between two teenagers would be as involving, deep, and exciting as any showdown between two adults? And they used words as weapons just as much as action and never sounded preachy or boring! An accomplishment indeed!

*Of course, the adult cast the late great Richard Harris (Prof. Dumbledore, played by Michael Gambon in the later films), Maggie Smith (Prof. McGonagall), Alan Rickman (Prof. Snape), and Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) carry their loads in professional, brilliant fashion and allow the young actors to have their shining moments. Jason Isaacs was a great addition as Lucius Malfoy, a new foil for Harry Potter and the father of little Draco Malfoy (reliably malevolent Tom Felton, who has played the role since the beginning with his contemporaries Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson).

*Moaning Myrtle! Special mention also goes to Shirley Henderson as the newly introduced character in this film. A great comic relief (but still essential to the plot) character!

CoS is the one Harry Potter film where one can say that it follows the source material AND does not bore the viewer!

OK, but I think for fans only

[funkyfry · 6/10 · 13 August 2007]

"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is, unfortunately, not one of the best Harry Potter movies despite (or perhaps because of) sticking relatively closely to J.K. Rowling's original novel (IMHO one of the better in the series). Some parts feel overlong and others too short, and there are signs that director Chris Columbus was growing fatigued in his second (and final) entry in the series.

Overall I think we have a good fantasy film here. Other than Rupert Grint's Ron (Grint's whole range of facial expressions seem to consist of scrunching up his face in a Spielbergian "ewwwww" pose) the young actors were growing well into their roles, and the new adult performers are excellent. Kenneth Branagh is well-cast as the pompous celebrity wizard Guilderoy Lockhart, hired as the kids' second "Defense Against the Dark Arts" professor. The particular standout here is new cast member Jason Isaacs, who is the very image of petty evil as Lucius, the father of Potter's nemesis Draco Malfoy. Some parents might feel Lucius' treatment of servant, the house-elf Dobby, is overly harsh but it introduces an important theme for the series. Contrary to what I'm tempted to think the film producers would like, "Harry Potter" isn't just an action-fantasy story. This story introduces the important concept of "mud-bloods" (wizards with one or more non-wizard parent) and the theme of prejudice and bigotry shown by "pure-blood" wizards towards them.

Other than that there's not that much to talk about. There's more Quiddich, more mystery and intrigue. This story has quite a few more horrific elements than the first, ranging from giant spiders to a spell that makes Ron vomit slugs. Hermione (Emma Watson) disappears for much of the film's running time under an evil spell, requiring Ron and Harry to think for themselves for once. The ending feels like a generic action scene in any Hollywood film, failing to capture the magic that the book did. Of course some of this is just the fault of actually being too close to the book. Dumbledore's phoenix clawing out the basilisk's eyes is an exciting concept but as a CGI on screen (particularly since they chose to make the phoenix awfully small) it just looks silly.

One last word on the Gambon vs. Harris as Dumbledore controversy. Honestly as much as I respect Harris I just think he looked tired in this film and failed to capture the kind of energy that Dumbledore needs to have. Harris probably would have been an excellent Dumbledore if he had been healthy… he's got all the screen presence that you need but none of the humor at this point in his career. I saw the first 4 movies before reading the books, and at first I felt Gambon was getting too goofy, losing the gravitas of the character. But after reading through the books I see that Gambon's performance is actually closer to what Rowling wrote. Harris' wizard is a bit more of a generic wise authority figure, where Gambon catches more of the particular side of Dumbledore that is sometimes wreckless and can be disarmingly whimsical – traits that make him seem less "authoritative" but certainly more human, and are of increasing importance in the 6th and 7th books.

All in all, I would argue that this film (like most of the others in the series) functions very well as a companion to the book but not so well as a stand-alone film for those who haven't read the series. Speaking as one who has seen the film both before and after reading the books I guess I should know. It's not a bad film, especially for those familiar with the details of the story that are left out which add depth (but which are not contradicted by the film for the most part), but it was a wise choice of the producers to hire a new director for the 3rd (and IMHO best so far).

Back to school, Mr. Potter: a superior second installment

[MaxBorg89 · 8/10 · 20 November 2005]

Having done a good job with the first Harry Potter flick, one shouldn't be surprised Chris Columbus was asked to direct the sequel as well. And the second film actually improves on its predecessor, getting a little edgier and less children-friendly (two factors that raise exponentially with each new installment), even though it does repeat an old mistake in certain places.

So, what about the plot? Well, it's Harry's (Daniel Radcliffe) second year at Hogwarts, and everything should be fine, given he defeated Voldemort in the previous film and there are no other threats lurking in the magical world. Or are there? A mysterious house elf named Dobby seems to think so, as he repeatedly tries to prevent Harry from returning to school and keeps asking him to leave when students start being attacked by a supernatural, unknown foe. All this seems to be connected to the Chamber of Secrets, but that isn't of much help, especially considering the new Defense against the Dark Arts teacher, famous writer Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh), is a complete idiot.

Darker and faster, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets repeats the Philosopher's Stone's mistake of being slightly too faithful to the literary source, but Columbus manages to compensate this flaw with better visuals, some really creepy set-ups and improved acting from the younger cast members (Emma Watson in particular). He has also made interesting choices when it comes to the new faces in the adult group: Branagh is very, very funny as the ego-fueled Lockhart (a role originally intended for Hugh Grant), but the most interesting addition is Jason Isaacs (whom I can't wait to see again in the fourth film) as Lucius Malfoy, an intriguingly sinister wizard who is as racist and arrogant as his son, Harry's arch-nemesis Draco. As for Dobby, a CG creature voiced by Toby Jones, he is interesting at first but rapidly becomes annoying, his masochistic antics being repetitive and a little dull.

Finally, a special mention for Chamber's best element: Richard Harris, who sadly passed away a few weeks before the movie's premiere. He was, and is, incredibly good as headmaster Dumbledore and despite a worthy replacement (Michael Gambon), in the purists' hearts he will always be the one and only greatest wizard of all time.

Verdict: good, but they could have done better. Thankfully, they did with number three...

More Uninspired Magic from Chris Columbus

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 8 October 2010]

"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is more of the same from Chris Columbus, the man who brought the first Harry Potter book to film: dutifully committed to pleasing fans of the book resulting in completely uninspired filmmaking.

Though if Columbus had to direct any of the Potter films, I'm glad he was assigned the first two, before the series turned dark. Columbus's style fits the bubble-gum kiddie movie tone of the first two books, but would have been completely mismatched with the later installments.

The fun of all the Harry Potter movies lies in seeing what big-time British talent will pop up as the various adult characters, and in this one it's Kenneth Branagh as the preening Gilderoy Lockhart who gets most of the fun.

Grade: B

The Chamber of Secrets has been opened at long last!!!!

[Aberlass · 8/10 · 8 November 2002]

Lessons learned since the 1st film! Clearly this film was edited at script stage rather than the cutting room floor stage!! This story reads as film narrative, rather than a book illustration, which was the big mistake of the 1st film. Anyone can watch this film and follow it without knowing the book. The 1st hour is pure laugh out loud fun (the adults in my Cinema audience were shouting with laughter!). The last hour is scary, wand dropping tension.

The problem is: how do we convince muggles put-off by the 1st film to go see this one? Why should they give this one a chance? Answer: If you know someone who likes Fun, make them see this film! This film is not about 'Oscars' & Acting, despite the fabulous performances by all the adults, it is about enjoying the overall effect of the film, this being to give the viewer a long lasting buzz. Brilliant! The staging is very theatrical in it's minimalism, yet extravagantly arty in visual specifics. In the not to distant future I see fans going to a regular weekend slot at their local cinema for Audience Participation fun. Wands, swords, sorting hat, spiders, mandrakes & crucial ear muffs as standard props! Lots of gaps for us to shout out funny quips. A Rocky Horror Show Audience Participation Show for kids! Long overdue.

My Rating: 8/10. Not a masterpiece of cinematic potential, but such jolly good fun that no one should be denied the joy of a "Bloody Marvelous" frolic. A film for the child within us adults. Go see it with a predominantly adult audience if you want to experience the real buzz of unfettered emotion. Only three children were present at the Preview I witnessed and they were silently spellbound whereas the adults evoked emotion noisily throughout and then stood up, cheered and applauded at the end! I shall never forget this truly magical experience.

Richard Harris you can not be replaced, you will always be Dumbledore, and hence Omnipresent. Thank you for the fantastic finale to a wonderful life that you gave us. Thank you. And Thank you JK & Chris. You did it, the Chamber is well & truly open now!

Slowly But Surely The Details Unravel

[zkonedog · 7/10 · 4 March 2017]

The first Harry Potter film, "Sorcerer's Stone", set the groundwork for the wizarding universe and the Potter characters. This second film, "Chamber of Secrets", slowly continues to unravel the narrative (with a lot of hi-jinx thrown in as well).

For a basic plot summary, "Chamber of Secrets" begins with Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) being warned by Dobby (a house elf) not to return to Hogwarts for his second year. Not heeding the warnings, Harry does indeed return to his wizarding school and reunites with friends Hermoine (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint). Not long into the year, however, Harry and co. discover that a secret chamber does indeed exist in the bowels of Hogwarts, housing a monster hungry for the non-wizard blood of the young Hogwart-ians.

The positives of this movie are that (with a few exceptions) it remains very faithful to the novel. It also is still a visual treat and contains some interesting special effects. The entire first half of the film contains a lot of what I would call "hi-jinx" (or adventurous material), which lends itself to a lot of fantastic visuals based on the crazy characters imagined in the novel.

Another interesting little track to follow in these films is that the main actors continue to improve on their performances as they age. Radcliffe, Watson, & Grint were all quite young when the series began, so to see them mature as actors on the big screen is a treat. Of course, the auxiliary cast is tremendous again, with Kenneth Branagh (as Professor Lockhart) particularly engaging.

The only reason I give this film four stars compared to the original's five is that I'm still waiting for the narrative to shift into high gear. I'm probably not being all that objective here. but the primary plots so far have been very conducive to the age of the main protagonists. As the characters age, however, I have been told that the stories mature a bit and really begin to take off.

Do not be alarmed, however, as this is still a great, entertaining film.

You're bland, Harry...

[cosmic_quest · 5/10 · 2 April 2006]

The second in the Harry Potter franchise, 'Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets' was clearly intended for small children. While this approach did work with 'The Philosopher's Stone' as the happy, Disney -esque atmosphere reflected Harry's idealism of a wizarding world that was perfect, a slightly moody and mature tone would have been far more suitable for CoS since this is when our Boy Who Lived starts to realise the darker side of being a wizard and being a hero. In this film, twelve-year-old Harry is now in his Second Year at Hogwarts when the school is subjected to mysterious attacks that leave Muggleborn students incapacitated. Harry, Ron and Hermione quickly learn a creature is stalking the school, a monster that lives in a secret chamber and was once responsible for the death of a child.

The quality of the child acting still leaves much to desired, with Rupert Grint and Tom Felton shining out above their weaker contemporaries. It is left to the adult cast to provide the solid performances, which they do to a marvellous degree. Maggie Smith as McGonagall and Alan Rickman as Snape seem born to play their roles, bringing their characters to life in a way the child actors just can't do. Kenneth Branagh is a treat as the conceited, campy Lockhart and the scenes where he and Rickman's Snape play each other off are the best in the film. Jason Issacs also deserves a mention since he was deliciously evil as Lucius Malfoy. He and Tom Felton not only look like father and son but in a minute-long scene they were able to portray Draco's hero-worship of his father and Lucius' impatience with his son.

The main problem with the film is that it has been produced in a very dull, bland manner. Instead of focusing on Harry's uncomfortable realisation that the wizarding world has problems and his shock at how quickly the school turn against him at the barest of evidence, scriptwriter Steve Kloves and director Chris Columbus seem intent on making the film a magical version of an Enid Blyton boarding school where kids merrily skip around solving problems. The vain attempts to make the film threatening, such as the overly-long flying car scene (as if anyone thought Harry was going to fall out) and the trudge through the Forbidden Forest, are flat and weak. The final battle between Harry and his unmasked enemy are also lacklustre with no spontaneity and drag on for too long. Character development hasn't improved much either with Ron continuing to be dumbed down for comic relief while we have Hermione getting Ron and Dumbledore's lines (and in the case of the latter, it just sounds odd hearing words of wisdom said by an powerful, elderly wizard in the book being uttered by a child of twelve in the film).

CoS also drops a number of points, in my mind, for the crass, cheesy overly-sentimentality of the ending. Steve Kloves must have been in Hollywood saccharine mode when he thought that pupils in British high schools would honestly clap for teachers (especially ones who have done nothing to warrant such praise) and kids hugging teachers in front of everyone. Harry would have been beaten up and bullied for being a boy of twelve who cuddles into his teacher like a wimpy little girl. And the preceding scene where Lucius confronts Harry was also cavity-inducing with the modest hero of the novels coming across as an arrogant, smug little brat. Kloves not only needs to re-read the book but he should spend more time with real kids at high school if this is how he thinks they conduct themselves.

While CoS was enjoyable enough, it was still a mediocre take of the novel. It was evident that it was produced to keep little kids happy rather than a love for the series or to please the actual fans. I did like it but I still feel so envious of the LotR fans who get an epic film trilogy that matches up to the excellence of books and I wonder if HP will ever be that great.

Darker fantasy than the first Potter film...brisk despite its length...

[Doylenf · 20 June 2003]

Prepare yourself for a darker fantasy this time with some harrowing and scary special effects. Apparently J.K. Rowling has hit upon the fact that kids love to be scared stiff along with being entertained by touches of humor and excitement--although I think her imagination works overtime on scenes like the vomiting fit for Ron, one of the more tasteless sequences.

And apparently the makers of this Potter film have met the challenge of providing spiders and snakes that are hideous enough to have Ron and the audience in a fit of hysterics. It's all here--the main events anyway of the Rowling book--and for extra measure they've given a much needed humorous role to Kenneth Branagh who has great fun with his role as the self-loving Gilderoy Lockhart. The only real drawback is that Maggie Smith has very little to do--but the main chores belong to Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint who continue to charm as the three leads. Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy has a commanding presence and an amusingly wicked final scene involving the computer created Dobby who steals every scene he's in.

Should keep Potter fans happy--and for a movie two-and-a-half hours long it moves along at a brisk pace from one adventure to another with what by now appears to be mechanical skill, thanks to artful direction by Chris Columbus who knows how to keep this sort of thing moving. John Williams' perky score is a distinct help.

Not the target of this movie...but still enjoyable.

[aussie-21 · 8/10 · 8 November 2002]

Not being a fan of the Harry Potter Movies, I toddled along to the first showing of this movie at my local UGC Cinema and sat down and thirly enjoyed this movie, but not in the way that I would enjoy something like the Lord of The Rings or Spider-Man. Of course Harry Potter's target audience is of a younger age so I can see how I might not have enjoyed it as much as a slightly younger audience, but to say the least it is a lot better than some of the crap that is fizzled out these days.

Crap this is not and a year on the main characters are a lot older, taller and voices broken. Many of the original cast return and a few new characters appear in this such as Kenneth Branagh and Jason Isaacs. Kenneth Branagh plays a wonderful part of Gilderoy Lockhart who seems to think he's adored by all and quite frankly he is adored by women for his charm and bravery. He was one of the better bits in the movie as was Jason Isaacs who played Lucius Malfoy father of Draco. Jason sports a nice long wig and plays the evil father/villian down to a T. He plays it much like his villian in The Patriot. I was sometimes phased by Rupert Grint's "Ron". He isn't that great an actor, but he could play his part satisfactory. He could have done better, but then again I have not read the book so I would not know how Ron would have behaved. I guess the scenes he played a scary person (which was quite a lot) in weren't convincing enough for me, but kids should get a good laugh out of him more than I did. I suppose you can't hold it against the kids who aren't up to par because they're just young and learning the actors trade, but for those who play their part well they should get a pat in the back.

The SFX were impressive, especally the character of Dobby. He was well great. I couldnt tell he was CG by his bad creation, but through the fact there was no way they could have done it otherwise. In fact the CG character of Dobby is very similar looking to Gollum in Lord of The Rings and the CG Asgard in television series Stargate SG-1 (speaking of textures) which which speaks well for Stargate SG-1 if it can do just as good as a top movie like this...and top it is. The CG Spiders were incredibly creepy and realistic looking. Not being too scared of Spiders, they kind of made me jump. I felt by body tense up as the gave case to Harry and Ron, which is a good thing because not often do I find myself doing this in movies. The person I had sat beside seemed pretty scared of the spiders as well.

John Williams score was very much like his original score with old themes returning and some of the music sounding like music from his Indiana Jones scores. I found myself whistling the main theme of Harry Potter for most of the night and on occasion not realizing I was doing it until someone else pointed it out to me.

This movie certainly had better action sequences and a lot more action geared than The 1st Potter movie. I found myself clenching up at points as they were really tense. The story wasn't too difficult to understand from a non-potter-fan point of view and the film was a lot shorter than I expected. I had thought it ran for three hours when it was more like 2 1/2. In some cases I found that you had to have seen the 1st movie to understand some of what was going on, but that was mainly due to the back story of he who shall not be uttered and some of the gags. The only thing that annoyed me was that the cues in the Foyer were too long and I couldnt get an ice cream and there was some little toddler crying down the front row for a few minutes mid-way. Why bring a toddler who's going forget about the film by next week? You may ask this yourself.

If you're not a mad-potter-fan then I would suggest you wait a few weeks so that you're not over run with humans who stand 4 feet tall...ie. CHILDREN! (I'm not talking about Dwarves)

I'd give it 8.5/10. But I am not a huge fan of these movies and I am not the target audience. That's a good thing in case you were wondering.

A lot of fun

[callie_af · 9/10 · 15 January 2021]

I love how close to the book the film actually is, and the sense of magic and wonder. It's a great children's fairytale.

Star rating: 4 out of 5

[jennifer_litchfield · 7/10 · 16 July 2003]

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is much darker and more insidious in nature than 2001's Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. This is not meant as a criticism; indeed, it is partly due to the undercurrent of menace, that this second filmic journey into the wizarding world surpasses its predecessor in terms of quality, enjoyment and heart-in-your-mouth scares. While it is funny and light-hearted in places, it doesn't gloss over the unpleasant aspects of life, and deals with racism in particular.

It is Harry's second year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, but owing to a blocked up wizarding portal, a flying Ford Anglia, and a whomping willow, the beginning of the term is far from ideal. Then Harry begins to hear voices in the walls of the school; voices that no one else is aware of. It would seem that the fabled Chamber of Secrets has been opened, and that the horror residing within has been unleashed upon the students.

It is nice to see how the young actors have developed their roles, although Ron's (Rupert Grint) slightly overdone comedic style would perhaps be more suited to stage performance. The real stars of the film however, are not the actors, but the wonderful and intricately detailed sets. From Hogwarts' gothic cathedral, to the glorious muddle of the Weasley household (complete with self-washing dishes and self-knitting jumpers), to the grime and nastiness of Knockturn Alley, the built sets are far more impressive than the CGI wizardry. In particular, the Quidditch match takes far too long and isn't really all that exciting. Having said that though, the computer-animated outsize spider sequence will likely scare the socks off small children, and probably even some parents as well!

Entertaining, And Ranks Somewhere In The Middle Of The HP Films

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 13 February 2007]

I thought this was better than the first Harry Potter movie because it didn't overdo the action scenes as the first film did, and the special-effects were better. It's not "Lord Of The Rings," of course, but it's still decent entertainment, even for us older folks. It got even better with the third installment, which has been my personal favorite of the four I've seen now.

I don't buy into all the occult baloney and black magic stuff, just enjoying the special-effects that go with it with these stories. It also was interesting to see how the three young stars - Daniel Radcliff ("Harry"), Emma Watson ("Hermione") and Rupert Grint ("Ron") have physically matured since the first movie. All of a sudden, the boys have reached puberty and their voices are changing. "Ron" squeaks half the time he talks!

As with many modern-day, big-budget films, the visuals, the special-effects and the surround sound are all astounding. Definitely entertaining for all ages with no worries about language.

OK, but not great

[grantss · 6/10 · 26 January 2014]

The first Harry Potter was interesting, and good fun. Much of this was due to the novelty of it all. The first Harry Potter introduced us to the characters and concepts of the series.

This, the second, uses that template and provides another plot. The plot is fairly mundane and overwrought. At nearly three hours it is ridiculously long for a linear plot-driven kid's adventure story.

This is all said, there is a momentum that keeps it going. There are some new concepts and characters. All this is enough to make it marginally likable (hence the 3/5).

High points for me are the acting of Kenneth Branagh and Alan Rickman, and their characters' rivalry.

The worry is that if the Harry Potter series has run out of steam this much since the first movie, what will the eighth movie be like?

A good follow up to Potters first outing

[mjw2305 · 8/10 · 22 January 2005]

With all the Character's in place and the world of Hogwarts so well established in the first movie, we get to concentrate more on the story this time around, and consequently, the story is has a little more substance to it.

This time Harry is hearing strange voices around Hogwarts (These scenes are very well done, pretty eerie). Together with his friends he must find the reason for the mysterious Petrification of the residents of Hogwarts. After an Encounter with Aragog (A giant Spider) and a revelation that he is a Parsel Tongue (He can Talk to snakes) leading a lot of the students and Staff to believe Harry himself is causing these disturbances. He Finally Locates the Chamber of Secrets, a supposedly mythical Chamber hidden within the School. It is here he encounters the basilisk (a giant snake) for the final battle (a great scene.)

Harrys second adventure is slightly better than his first, and at last we can see his potential.

8/10

A slight decrease in quality

[Horst_In_Translation · 6/10 · 5 January 2015]

This film is the second entry in the hyper-successful Harry Potter franchise. In terms of box office, it became number 4 of the year 12 years ago. Like the first, it was directed by Chris Columbus ("Mrs. Doubtfire", "The Goonies", "Home Alone"), who did not return for film number 3, and written by Steve Kloves based on a Rowling novel. Kloves kept writing for all the films that followed afterward. Just like for Columbus, this was also the last performance for Richard Harris. The actor who portrayed Albus Dumbledore died not much later. "The Chamber of Secrets" included some creative inclusions of new characters and story lines, but it also fell flat on developing on some of the parts from the first film. Very early on we are introduced to Gobby, an interesting character and the Potter equivalent to Gollum from "Lord of the Rings". You could almost say that this film has a message against racism with the victims here being Mudbloods. Fittingly, Malfoy's dad who is also new in the movie has an equally Arian look as his son. The Slytherin house is the one who is against letting Mudbloods (children with magic abilities from non-magic parents) into Hogwarts. At the one scene with the new Defence against the Dark Arts teacher (Kenneth Branagh, one of the more forgettable) and Snape I was wondering why they would support the Potter-Malfoy rivalry by letting them fight against each other. I don't expect good teachers to do that. This film is maybe the one that tells us most about the Malfoy dynasty, also about Hagrid and about the history of the different houses, well actually mostly about Slytherin. Too bad the other houses except that and Gryffindor are rarely mentioned. I bet they have some nice stories too.

I was not too big on Moaning Myrtle, who did not add something really interesting to the story for me and same goes for the way they travel by a flying car instead of the train this time. Good job to the car though for rescuing the boys from the spider invasion. Man these spiders were creepy (another "Lord of the Rings" parallel). And Ron's face expressions there were simply priceless. We get to find out a bit more about the Weasleys and especially Ginny plays a bigger role here and gets slowly introduced as a love interest to Harry's character with how she was talking about him all the time during the holidays and how Harry is the one who has to save her in the end in a 1 vs 1 battle again just like in the first film. Okay, this one also has a giant snake, which makes things tougher for little Harry. Then there was this part where the boys transformed into two boys from Slytherin, which was basically a good idea, but the way they constantly kept almost revealing themselves by accident made it a bit ridiculous sadly. For most of the film, Potter is hearing strange voices and wonders if Gryffindor was really the right choice for him, a bit of an identity crisis? A lot of it is also about his ability to speak with snakes as this was an ability the creator of Slytherin possessed as well.

The film is very long, runs for 160 minutes and I believe they certainly could have cut 15 or more minutes and it would not have hurt the film, maybe even helped it. For example the Quidditch game did not add anything for me apart from another random way of Malfoy and Potter going against each other with the usual outcome. I personally felt the film came a bit short compared to the first and also the third (the two best films in my opinion), but it is nonetheless worth a watch and be it only to see the development of characters. Many people may have felt the same as this is one of 2 Potter films that did not score any Academy Award nominations. It got a couple noms for its visual/technical work at the BAFTAs though. However, it has still its funny moments, like Hermione's face expression when she hears the exams are canceled and everybody else is cheering or also the letter to Ron from his family. Lots of cute little details included here again. Only the main plot was not so good this time. Recommended.

Zooms Along

[Niv-1 · 9/10 · 24 June 2003]

Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets is the type of movie that will be around forever. So far the two Harry Potter movies have been excellent movies in which spirit of the books by JK Rowling has been captured and expanded upon.

Chamber of Secrets is about Harry Potter's (Daniel Radcliffe) second year in Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry and something is attacking the students. The fact that these students are of mixed parentage, one being a muggle(non-magical and the other being a witch or wizard) leads to a very unstable environment at Hogwarts.

Directed by Chris Columbus and written by Steve Kloves this movie packed with the details that Rowling weaves throughout her book. The score by John Williams is excellent and well suited to the movie. Roger Pratt's cinematography is amazing. There is flashback to an earlier time at Hogwarts by way of a magical Diary that is brilliantly lit and shot in a sepia tone that looks just like the color of old paper.

Kenneth Branagh gives a great performance that should have gotten more attention at award time. Jason Isaacs owns the role of the villainous Lucius Malfoy. His costuming and look are very well matched with that of Draco Malfoy, a nemesis of Harry's. Shirley Henderson as a ghost is also very good and steals her scenes. Returnees Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, and in particular the late Richard Harris as Dumbledore are very good. Christian Coulson does a good job as the mysterious Tom Riddle.

Daniel Radcliffe Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) are very good in this movie and have their characters down. Watson in particular is excellent.

Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets in an underrated movie that is a must see.

The Chamber of Secrets has opened...

[Lady_Targaryen · 7/10 · 1 December 2005]

The worst of all the Harry Potter movies. This is my opinion about ''Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets''. This is the movie of the second book, which is also the weaker of all books written by J.K. Rowlling. I hated some things in the movie that became awful but in the book are exciting:Dolby and the Basilisk for example, are too digital. I like special effects a lot, but they need to be convincing. I mean, in a movie like Shrek,no problem about the reality thing, but in a movie with real people, the Basilisk and Dolby should have other consistence.A sad thing to comment is that Richard Harris, a great actor and also the best Dumbledore, died.

has its moments, but by far the least memorable of the films so far

[Quinoa1984 · 5/10 · 15 July 2007]

Maybe it was keeping on Chris Columbus as director- he helmed the first Harry Potter and did an OK, if not that terrific, job at it- or in making it about as long as possible (whether or not everything in the book, as someone who's seen the films but not read the books, I can't say, though it feels like they crammed it all), or in making it a wee bit too corny, but Chamber of Secrets is a bulky kids movie. It has an appeal for the whole family, as does the first one, and it has some charm and excitement in its Quiddich battle scenes, but it isn't really always the sort of material that might stay with you long after it's over (unless, of course, you're a hardcore fan). It works at best in the form of the atypical sequel: same characters that like Potter just as much- his closest friends Ron and Hermonie- and those that don't like Snape and Malfoy.

Although the film/story does set up "he-who-mus-not-be-named" in a good and ambiguous way, this is more in hindsight of the more recent Potter stories, where that is made much more clear and sinister. It does have some rousing bits in there, as I recall, John Cleese is particularly good as Nearly Headless Nick (basically plopping a Monty Python performer in the midst of it all, which is the case) and there's always Richard Harris as Dumbledore (I still prefer him over Gambon, even though the latter is still good). But a lot of it seems much too cliché, even coming from the decent lot of Rowling subversions, and the whole bits with the character Dobby is just really cheesy. In short, it's the only one of the Potter movies I don't have a desire to see too soon, and if I ever do read the books I only anticipate it can only go up from here in quality.