Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)