IMDb user comments for
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 78:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

780 comments in total

---

54 out of 79 people found the following comment useful :-
A great sequel!, 10 November 2002
Author: cp74 from Ohio

If you liked the first one then you're going to love this! There's a darker atmosphere this time around and more characters are introduced including Gilderoy Lockhart (hilariously played by Kenneth Branagh), Draco Malfoy's father, Lucius (a great performance by Jason Isaacs, exactly how I imagined the character from the books!), Ron's father, Arthur, and the mysterious Dobby the house elf (fortunately he isn't anywhere near as annoying as other CG characters in other movies, but I won't name any names... *cough*JarJarBinks*cough*)

The movie sticks closely to the novel, but as in the last movie we miss some of those scenes where we start to learn a little more about the characters, especially the hate-hate relationship between Harry and Professor Snape (who was seriously underused in this movie!)

All in all it's definitely worth checking out, the running time of 160 minutes may seem a little long but it doesn't seem that long when you're watching it. By the way, whatever you do DO NOT leave until the credits have ended, otherwise you'll miss a little extra treat...

---

45 out of 67 people found the following comment useful :-
I want more!!!, 9 November 2002

Author: Cheese-18 from St. Gallen, Switzerland

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.

---

38 out of 56 people found the following comment useful :-
Not the target of this movie...but still enjoyable., 8 November 2002

Author: aussie-21 from Glasgow, Scotland

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.

---

32 out of 47 people found the following comment useful :-
Character palette and story drives me to read the books, 1 December 2002

Author: EVANOC (eto201@nyu.edu) from New York, NY

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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.

---

41 out of 65 people found the following comment useful :-
The Chamber of Secrets has been opened at long last!!!!, 8 November 2002

Author: Aberlass from Scotland

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!

---

19 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
Darker fantasy than the first Potter film...brisk despite its length..., 20 June 2003
Author: Neil Doyle from U.S.A.

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.

---

21 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
Back to school, Mr. Potter: a superior second installment, 20 November 2005

Author: Max_cinefilo89 from Italy

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...

---

18 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
Stop knocking this masterpiece, 19 November 2002

Author: Joanna (thinkinfairytales@lycos.co.uk) from EnglNS

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is superb, and don't listen to those narrow-minded critics who claim otherwise. Those who said it is superior to the first film are right: Philosopher's Stone was wonderful but the sequel does for Harry Potter what the Empire Strikes Back did for Star Wars - elevate it to a higher level where it will be regarded as a masterpiece in it's own right.

The plot is tighter and 'cleaner' then the first film, and runs along at a pace brisk enough to sweep the two-hours away with the wave of a wand. The acting from Daniel Radcliffe was criticised by some in the first film and still others are bleating on about him now. Give it a rest, say I. He was excellent.

Hogwarts itself really comes to life, largely due to the camera shots sweeping in through a window or over the castle - it feels a lot more 'rounded' and the Quidditch match benefits from a makeover and improved SFX.

Unlike some other fantasy films the CGI is not over used and doesn't smother the screen.

If you've read other reviews you'll know Kenneth Branagh is wonderful as Lockhart (and you have to stay to the end credits to see what happens to him)Jason Isaacs is great as Lucius Malfoy, and overall the film is scarier and darker then the first film, and there is a very touching moment involving Hermione and Ron which was performed with wonderful understatement by Rupert and Emma.

Throughout the whole 2 hours I don't think I stopped smiling. The Whomping Willow, the flying car, the duel between Draco and Harry - every scene was a joy to behold.

To those critics who keep on comparing Potter to Lord of the Rings and finding the former wanting (one person even laughingly suggested Christopher Columbus was ripping it off)bear in mind that Philospher's Stone is the second biggest film of all time behind Titanic - beating Rings. I use this only to illustrate the popularity and success of Harry Potter, as so many people seem to find it inferior. I for one was left cold by Rings and was thoroughly bored by it - it was the least magical fantasy film I had ever seen. Give me Harry Potter any day.

Anyone who rates this film poorly (comparing it to Rings no doubt as they always do) has no sense of adventure, no sense of humour, and -most importantly - no sense of wonder.

So put that in your cauldron and boil it!

---

13 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Entertaining, And Ranks Somewhere In The Middle Of The HP Films, 13 February 2007

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from Lockport, NY, United States

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.

---

24 out of 43 people found the following comment useful :-
The story starts here!, 10 November 2002

Author: (swright-3) from Reading, England

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 78:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history