Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

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)

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)

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)

Chris 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. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone introduced the heroes, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 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 in the screenplay without rushing it. Many creators would have stumbled with all the scenes that are typical of the Harry Potter series and that may seem unnecessarily drawn-out to regular viewers, such as the introduction of the Dursleys or Dobby's repeated hysterics, and would have ended up with an unwatchable bore. Chris Columbus heard countless complaints after the release of the film, calling him a mere people-pleaser who made a harmless family spectacle with no atmosphere, but in reality, he created two films that the series desperately needed and laid the groundwork for Alfonso Cuaron and others to experiment as they pleased. (11/07/2007)

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. (13/12/2002)