Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

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. (06/12/2004)

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)

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. (12/13/2002)

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. (07/11/2007)

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. (07/31/2006)