Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

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)

While sticking to his usual understated style, this time Columbus has a tremendous foothold in the original book which is one of the best (and best that works independently) of the series. Moreover, he “darkened" the atmosphere, and thanks to the well-cast duo of Branagh/Isaacs, he manages to partially correct the impression of the central trio which the camera closely follows the whole time, and who are still more like cute mannequins than real lead actors. It is still a mere illustration of the original, but this time at least a well made illustration which the extended version does no harm to (but nor does it add anything positive). Which is not to say I can't imagine it being cut down significantly. And even though it worked out for Columbus this time, thanks god for Cuarón next time! OST score: 3/5 (21/11/2010)

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)

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. (12/07/2007)