User Score
6.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 504 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 77 out of 504
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. ConnieS.
    Mar 16, 2003
    2
    First off, I loved the first film because it played on the strength of it's young actors, beautiful scenery and managed to make a magic world seem... magical, not "buy me when you leave the theatre" Disney. On the other hand, The Chamber of Secrets leaves the trio of main characters with nothing to do but have a scary set of occurances happen to them. They do not solve mysteries, First off, I loved the first film because it played on the strength of it's young actors, beautiful scenery and managed to make a magic world seem... magical, not "buy me when you leave the theatre" Disney. On the other hand, The Chamber of Secrets leaves the trio of main characters with nothing to do but have a scary set of occurances happen to them. They do not solve mysteries, battle bullies or have an adventure; that is left to thier adult doppelgangers. Weasley's bravery (remember the chessboard), Harry's talent and heart, Hamaiady's smart pluck are gone, along with Malfoy's humanity as a bully. The teacher's protective guiadance and wisdom are replaced with handwringing or absence. I hope the third director sits down with children and actually makes a delightful classic, not a "darker, more adult" movie that fears of being called 'childish'. Expand
  2. CateA.
    Apr 20, 2003
    0
    WORST. MOVIE. EVER. A "kiddy-fied" version of J.K Rowling's spectacular novels.
  3. Feb 28, 2011
    8
    While it's not my favorite Harry Potter movie (that honor goes to "Order of the Phoenix"), seriously, what's with the low user score? It was just as good as the first one, and better then the third and sixth ones!
  4. Nov 22, 2010
    8
    As Harry attends his second year at Hogwarts, dark forces are at work. This dark intensity drives the entire movie, and Harry acknowledges that Voldemort and himself have a dark relationship. He knows that the Dark Lord wants to kill Harry. More secrets are unveiled as Harry tries to unlock the mystery of the chamber of secrets. The film matures slightly from the cute and frendlier 1stAs Harry attends his second year at Hogwarts, dark forces are at work. This dark intensity drives the entire movie, and Harry acknowledges that Voldemort and himself have a dark relationship. He knows that the Dark Lord wants to kill Harry. More secrets are unveiled as Harry tries to unlock the mystery of the chamber of secrets. The film matures slightly from the cute and frendlier 1st installment, and this deserves better ratings because there are more thrilling action sequences, which makes the film more intriguing. As I am watching, the film gets better and better with the final 40 minutes becoming the peak out of the entire movie. The ending has left me with a slight sadness, feeling sorry for Harry and what he has to go through, but I soon am thirsting for more. The character Gilderoy Lockhart I have a major issue with, mainly because it doesn't make the film as comforting as I would like it, but better directed and produced than the first. Expand
  5. Aug 9, 2011
    7
    This second installment is on the same level on the first one, also containing a few highlights of entertainment like Aragog and Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart
  6. Jan 28, 2012
    6
    The first hour (hour and a half max) of this film was amazing and it gave me high hopes but the moment the film got to the part where Harry finds out he is a parselmouth then it just got terrible and turned into a generic action film that completely ruined the first really enjoyable hour of the film.
  7. Sep 23, 2011
    6
    The movie isn't what you expect if you waited for a another marvelous Harry Potter film. However, it still has impressive visuals and and well made CGI creature...DOBY!!!!
  8. Dec 2, 2011
    7
    To be honest, I loved the first hour or so of the film but once it started getting into the whole situation of the Chamber of Secrets being opened - The film took a turn for the worst and it went from a great film to another corny and childish and pretty generic "hero saves the day" film. The acting is still solid but can be a little lacking at times from the younger cast members, OnceTo be honest, I loved the first hour or so of the film but once it started getting into the whole situation of the Chamber of Secrets being opened - The film took a turn for the worst and it went from a great film to another corny and childish and pretty generic "hero saves the day" film. The acting is still solid but can be a little lacking at times from the younger cast members, Once again they fail to use the experianced older cast members to their full potential.

    It was slightly better then the first film but not by much.
    Expand
  9. Apr 16, 2011
    10
    Well written, wonderfully cast, and flawlessly flowing, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets offers suspenseful thrills, honest emotion, and an obvious respect for JK Rowling's masterpiece.
  10. MLK
    Apr 20, 2003
    0
    "Chamber of Secrets" is one of the worst movies ever made. It's a film for audiences with a low attention span and the all the easily pleased.
  11. SamanthaJ.
    Apr 20, 2003
    0
    Simply all over the place. No scene really connected to the ones around it. All we get is a narrative mess of cliched characters and pathetic acting. Try to watch a fantasy movie with story like "Lord of the Rings" or even pick out the old "Star Wars" trilogy. Don't waste any time watching this lumbering bore of a fantasy.
  12. WayneS.
    Apr 20, 2003
    0
    Chris Columbus: Go back to the cupboard under the stairs. These movies are terrible! Hopefully Alfonso Cuaron will save this doomed series (I have high hopes for him!!!) Watch Lord of the Rings instead.
  13. LenH.
    Apr 20, 2003
    0
    An empty, big-budget movie with a story that goes nowhere. I'm surprised at all the glowing reviews here. I admit, the books are good, but these movie versions are worse than worse. Story and character development has taken a backseat to cram as many special effects scenes in as possible.
  14. NeilP.
    Apr 20, 2003
    0
    What crap! The people who made this movie should get out of Hollywood once in a while... It's bad enough that they substitute medleys for full musical numbers... but they use the WORST of pop music to do it. Oy, what a waste of time.
  15. HuLinT.
    Nov 15, 2002
    9
    HPCoS is generally an improvement over the first movie. With less lengthy dialogue and expository compared to the first movie, it is a much more fast-paced and action-packed movie, certain to thrill audiences of all ages. Quite obviously, the movie does not follow the book religiously, and in doing so, improved upon the spider scene and basilisk scene tremendously. The action sequences HPCoS is generally an improvement over the first movie. With less lengthy dialogue and expository compared to the first movie, it is a much more fast-paced and action-packed movie, certain to thrill audiences of all ages. Quite obviously, the movie does not follow the book religiously, and in doing so, improved upon the spider scene and basilisk scene tremendously. The action sequences are intense, gripping, and definitely hold the audience's attention, without any overly-frightening scenes which may scare kids. One thing to commend is the appropriate use of humour in the show, which is done very well - I believe I was laughing most of the show, even though some of the 'jokes' had been used before in the book. This also brings me to my next point - the acting. The trio's acting has definitely improved, particularly Daniel Radcliffe. Lucius Malfoy was also portrayed sufficiently dangerous, evil and dark without overly doing it. However, there were points in the movie which were particularly boring, especially portions which followed the book very religiously i.e. the scene in Hagrid's hut where he is taken to Azkaban. This slows down the tempo of the show greatly. HPCoS is defintely an excellent movie and I recommend it to everyone of all ages - it will defintely not fail to entertain. Expand
  16. RobertH
    Nov 17, 2002
    2
    Michelle P. thank you for your review. Overall, personally, I found the second installment tedious and boring. However, I did want to clarify something you may not have been aware of. Richard Harris was one of the greatest actors of his generation. He was dragged into doing the Harry Potter trilogy kicking and screaming by his granddaughter. During the shooting of this latest movie he Michelle P. thank you for your review. Overall, personally, I found the second installment tedious and boring. However, I did want to clarify something you may not have been aware of. Richard Harris was one of the greatest actors of his generation. He was dragged into doing the Harry Potter trilogy kicking and screaming by his granddaughter. During the shooting of this latest movie he knew he had a terminal condition and was going to die. Depite this fact, he made this work his legacy for his granddaughter. If you ever have the opportunity to see his other movies, you will learn that he was truly a great actor. As I said, I am certain that you did not know he had died a few weeks ago. Expand
  17. Elliott
    Dec 23, 2002
    3
    A reviewer below noted this as being brilliant, followed by the notion that it's "a great movie. duh." This film is superficial in its sense of style, grace, substance, characterization (which it almost totally lacks); nearly every element of the film seems contrived. Not since the first film have I sat so long in the theater waiting for something to happen, when all we get is a A reviewer below noted this as being brilliant, followed by the notion that it's "a great movie. duh." This film is superficial in its sense of style, grace, substance, characterization (which it almost totally lacks); nearly every element of the film seems contrived. Not since the first film have I sat so long in the theater waiting for something to happen, when all we get is a barrage of dazzling effects and incoherent magical garbage that attempts to weave together a story. The acting is notably putrid, the screenplay is choppy beyond belief, thus doing an incredible disservice to the extremely popular novels. True, this may not matter in a children's film, but the plot is so ill-conceived and the characters are so underdeveloped that anybody who hasn't read the novels will fell lost. Much like A.I., The Chamber of Secrets is too bizarre and hard to follow for children and for parents it is a fantastical heap of garbage with some truly incredibly special effects. Pass. Pass. Pass. Expand
  18. Abby
    Nov 27, 2002
    3
    If I was rating this movie based on its merits as a book adaptation, I would have given it one star. I left the theater wondering if the director is actually Gilderoy Lockhart. Although many of the major plot points from the book made it into the movie, the director felt the need to banish character development and any possible lulls in the story in favor of showing off what the special If I was rating this movie based on its merits as a book adaptation, I would have given it one star. I left the theater wondering if the director is actually Gilderoy Lockhart. Although many of the major plot points from the book made it into the movie, the director felt the need to banish character development and any possible lulls in the story in favor of showing off what the special FX department can do. Aside from the fact that the special FX were sub-par when compared to contemporary fantasy movies (the scenes of the flying car were particularly bad, and not all of the sound FX seemed appropriate), the pacing of the movie was atrocious. The audience is fed scene after scene after scene of action without a break. Small action sequences in the book were amplified in length to compete with the "Pod Race" scene in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Violent scenes from the book that involved protagnists (such as Dobby beating himself up) were removed, or toned down, in order to "kiddify" the movie, despite the fact that it is an adaptation of a children's book. Instead of the worried, uncertain Harry Potter from the books, director Chris Columbus transformed him into a Hollywood hero who is devoid of personality. His apparent ability to easily vanquish any and all foes robs the movie of suspense. Even so, a few kernels of humor and wonder fell through. The set designs were beautiful, and not all of the special FX were bad. The cast did an excellent job with what they had. As long as you are not expecting a deep story, you will be treated to 171 minutes of eye candy. I think the major difference between the Lord of the Rings movie adaptations and the Harry Potter movie adaptations is the difference between a director who loved and understood the books, and a director who didn't. Expand
  19. Lisa
    Dec 23, 2002
    3
    Only deeply intelligent children will be able to decipher the labyrinthian plot and only naive adults will be able to overlook the pathetic acting. It is merey a vehicle for incredible special effects and cute children in lavish costumes. For a truly delightful and magical chidlren's film, see Spirited Away, the best film for the younguns (and adults) in many, many years.
  20. Anthony
    Jan 26, 2005
    0
    A godawful piece of sluggish, incompetent and stinky filmmaking. How this production was released clocking in at 160 minutes is completely unthinkable. Chris Columbus, the director, is third only to Uwe Boll and Edward D. Wood as a maker who are so utterly devoted to the crap they do. Is J.K. Rowling's series in the same league as the Bible? Of course not; so stop treating it like it A godawful piece of sluggish, incompetent and stinky filmmaking. How this production was released clocking in at 160 minutes is completely unthinkable. Chris Columbus, the director, is third only to Uwe Boll and Edward D. Wood as a maker who are so utterly devoted to the crap they do. Is J.K. Rowling's series in the same league as the Bible? Of course not; so stop treating it like it is. Peter Jackson is justified for the 3 to 3 1/2 hour lengths of "Lord of the Rings" because of its timeless theme and well written story. "Harry Potter" is simply pop culture garbage able to entertain loads of ADD-addled children AND simplistic adults. The action sequences of this abomination, as well crafted they may be, are annoying, totally distracting and lacking in originality. Spielberg should sue. And my god, what of the "acting" (if you can even call it that)? I personally had to rewatch "The Godfather" and "Pulp Fiction" to remind myself that true acting does exist. When the children aren't cloying, they're gooey, sentimental and totally incomprehensible because of their thick English accents. The adults are sadly wasted with their 30 second cameos, while the script still has time for that stupid Quidditch. The latest film in this series, "Prisoner of Azkaban", was a slight improvement, but in the day and age of the Internet and pop music, it really doesn't matter. Stick Columbus in the deep fryer so he won't make another annoyingly self-indulgent effort again. What a travesty. Expand
  21. Jul 5, 2011
    8
    This second installment continues the adventures of Harry Potter as he and his friends discover that the hogwarts students are being attacked by a deadly snake known as the Basilisk and must solve the mystery that lies within a chamber known as the Chamber of Secrets. Little does Harry know that a shocking secret that will reveal the dark lord who killed his parents.

    I saw it twice in
    This second installment continues the adventures of Harry Potter as he and his friends discover that the hogwarts students are being attacked by a deadly snake known as the Basilisk and must solve the mystery that lies within a chamber known as the Chamber of Secrets. Little does Harry know that a shocking secret that will reveal the dark lord who killed his parents.

    I saw it twice in theaters perhaps at the exact same year it came out and I have no time to waste, so let's get on to my opinion.

    The CGI effects were pretty cool and the fantasy action was intense.

    The storyline followed the book as it should be and it succeeded.

    The actors have done well at their performances once again. Kenneth Branagh was entertaining as Professor Lockhart and was very funny, Daniel Radcliffe did well as Harry Potter once again, and the rest of the actors did very well at their performances, etc. etc. etc.

    There's nothing negative to say about it, so I'm all set.

    Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a successful sequel and its as good as the previous installment.

    8/10
    Expand
  22. Nov 8, 2012
    10
    Somehow, this sequel manages to be even more magical than its predecessor. It unleashes a string of brand new ideas and invents some marvelous new characters. The is a film no true movie lover is going to want to miss.
  23. Nov 14, 2010
    7
    Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is the second out of the eight films, but this and the first would be the only ones that actually makes sense and do not feel jumpy. Someone who has read all the novels would have no problem decyphering the other Harry Potter movies, but this is one of the few that will be easy to follow even by non-Harry Potter fans. It may not be a completelyHarry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is the second out of the eight films, but this and the first would be the only ones that actually makes sense and do not feel jumpy. Someone who has read all the novels would have no problem decyphering the other Harry Potter movies, but this is one of the few that will be easy to follow even by non-Harry Potter fans. It may not be a completely enjoyable film, but this is because it is aimed a slightely younger and less age-ranged target audience. Still, it will keep you interested from beginning to end, and don't forget it has Dobby! Expand
  24. JaredC.
    Jul 29, 2007
    0
    Really boring, it may have some use for the series, but doesn't do anything special. Chris Columbus just doesn't get it. Could have been so much better.
  25. Dec 17, 2011
    8
    With it being even longer, and lacks some adventure, the film has good performances, thrills and a strong story making it somewhat an improvement and somewhat not. I give this film an 82% of a good movie.
  26. RandyT.
    Apr 20, 2003
    0
    There is no magic here at all. Only 161 minutes of long, drawn-out scenes with no wit, no excitement and no imagination. It's a drab mystery tale that would've made a wonderful Saturday morning serial.
  27. DannyC.
    Apr 13, 2003
    1
    I watched it and it sucks dont waste your money on this buy starwars episode 2 now THATS a good movie.
  28. HLoverPotter
    Apr 5, 2005
    10
    OH my!!! This movie rules the world.
  29. Aug 16, 2010
    5
    The only thing that this film improved on the first one was the Quidditch match. After that, this film was rather mediocre, especially near the end. This film just drags and drags and drags until you're begging for the predictable ending to happen. "Chamber of Secrets" is arguably my least favorite HP book, and it's arguably my least favorite film of the series as well. There just wasn'tThe only thing that this film improved on the first one was the Quidditch match. After that, this film was rather mediocre, especially near the end. This film just drags and drags and drags until you're begging for the predictable ending to happen. "Chamber of Secrets" is arguably my least favorite HP book, and it's arguably my least favorite film of the series as well. There just wasn't enough material there to keep one entertained for two hours. Expand
  30. ck
    Aug 3, 2009
    9
    Not a kids movie.
  31. FantasyL.
    Nov 15, 2002
    4
    This is a movie strictly for children. It is not for kids (parents) of all ages. Chamber of Secrets has been so hyped that it should do well at the box office. To be perfectly blunt there isn't much there.
  32. Nov 26, 2011
    6
    The first hour of the film was amazing but as soon as they got into the parts with the actual Chamber Of Secrets, The film just went all downhill from there. The cast was solid and I was disapointed by the lack of use of the older and experianced cast members. It was ok overall.
  33. Dec 21, 2012
    6
    Same as the first only this time the acting dropped. I thought Tom Riddle and Daniel Radcliffe did a poor job, and special effects fell apart. Plus it tryed to add a darker tone but instead it felt lighter to me. However the movie was good for it's humorous car scenes and Ron's pathetic yet extremely amusing reaction to spiders.
  34. May 18, 2013
    5
    Harry potter gets better and better, and for this installment was not too bad, yet not too good. If you like most of the Potter flicks this one won't glue you to your seat. Its still fun though

    Next Movie!
  35. Jun 28, 2013
    0
    Boring as hell. Painful to sit through this. My Lord, it is a good thing they changed directors even though they were just as horrible too. Read the books, not this poorly acted adaptation.
  36. GeorgeF.
    Nov 25, 2002
    7
    From someone who reads fantasy and watches a lot of movies - it was good yet needed quite a bit of editing -- the length and some of the more obvious needed to be cut.
  37. Richard
    Dec 2, 2002
    6
    I guess I'm doomed to be disappointed by these films. They always seem to miss a lot of the books they're based on, and yet at the same time they often seem punishingly long. Branagh is good for a laugh and Jason Isaacs is a welcome addition. The kids are better than they were last time, and the set design is fab. Quidditch scene is fun, too. Ending's a bit of a letdown. I guess I'm doomed to be disappointed by these films. They always seem to miss a lot of the books they're based on, and yet at the same time they often seem punishingly long. Branagh is good for a laugh and Jason Isaacs is a welcome addition. The kids are better than they were last time, and the set design is fab. Quidditch scene is fun, too. Ending's a bit of a letdown. All in all, it's very well-done but strangely unsatisfying. Expand
  38. EricS.
    Dec 7, 2002
    10
    I only see the good movies, so many of the ratings I give are 10s. I don't bother with the crap--which "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" certainly isn't. Disregarding the sinful "3" given the film by the Washington Post, did anyone take a look at the "highbrow" (cough, cough) publications that brought down it's score? "Film Threat?" "Slate.com?" "The Miami Herald?" I only see the good movies, so many of the ratings I give are 10s. I don't bother with the crap--which "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" certainly isn't. Disregarding the sinful "3" given the film by the Washington Post, did anyone take a look at the "highbrow" (cough, cough) publications that brought down it's score? "Film Threat?" "Slate.com?" "The Miami Herald?" No fair guessing whether these reviewers give a damn about style, substance, characterization, brilliant set pieces, and jovial good fun? This second installment is great, while the first film was merely good. Not only is it one of the best films I've seen this year, it's one of the most glorious and ambitious films I've seen in quite a while. This goes out to all you dissenters of brilliance: It's a great movie. Duh. Expand
  39. TaylorJ.
    Mar 22, 2003
    7
    This movie, once again, is just a placement to advertise "Harry Potter" to teenage girls and obsessed adults. However, it turns out to be a decent one. There's no doubt that "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is second of a pure, Spielberg-ish product placement series. However, the movie's action is more fun than the first and the children's acting is greatly This movie, once again, is just a placement to advertise "Harry Potter" to teenage girls and obsessed adults. However, it turns out to be a decent one. There's no doubt that "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is second of a pure, Spielberg-ish product placement series. However, the movie's action is more fun than the first and the children's acting is greatly improved. It's a little less successful than the first, but "Harry Potter", once again, remains a magnificent event than a movie. Expand
  40. JohnL.
    Apr 9, 2003
    10
    I was very disappointed in the lack of depth in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". Unlike the book, the movie seemed so shallow when it came to it's magnificent world and vivid characters. But in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets", all of that is fixed. Character dimension, the depth of the plot and all the supporting details of the main premise is all clear and I was very disappointed in the lack of depth in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". Unlike the book, the movie seemed so shallow when it came to it's magnificent world and vivid characters. But in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets", all of that is fixed. Character dimension, the depth of the plot and all the supporting details of the main premise is all clear and glowing. It is full of wonderous secrets and thankfully, the "Chamber" becomes a majestic beacon of hope for the series. AAA cast filled with J.K Rowling's world helps create a truly magical movie. It is far superior to it's predecessor. "Chamber of Secrets" crushes a best-selling novel into a movie with so much going on. Way to go! Expand
  41. RobertA.
    May 30, 2004
    5
    Better than the first movie but still not too good. empty feeling in my stomach is getting bigger with two movies smelling a little childish. i hope the third makes up for the emptiness.
  42. MattD
    Oct 1, 2008
    8
    Better than the novel.
  43. JeremyS.
    Nov 18, 2002
    6
    Uneven. There are some terrific and memorable scenes in this movie (in contrast to the first installment, which left me with no lasting impressions whatsoever). Unfortunately, CoS, much like Sorcerer's Stone, is overflowing with exposition and plot advancement, and sometimes moves from scene to scene in a clunky, tiring, almost mindless fashion. I know a movie is inconsistent when, Uneven. There are some terrific and memorable scenes in this movie (in contrast to the first installment, which left me with no lasting impressions whatsoever). Unfortunately, CoS, much like Sorcerer's Stone, is overflowing with exposition and plot advancement, and sometimes moves from scene to scene in a clunky, tiring, almost mindless fashion. I know a movie is inconsistent when, the day after, I can only remember a few isolated scenes from it, and the film has no real resonance as a whole. That's Chamber of Secrets. Expand
  44. RickJ.G.
    Nov 18, 2002
    7
    It's really good at the beginning, but becomes long and tedious by the time it gets around to the last half-hour. Branagh is brilliant and very funny as the vain author Gilderory Lockhart.
  45. DorisP.
    Nov 30, 2002
    9
    The first order of business is to ask what the h*** Zrum's review is trying to portray?!Second, I'd like to make it clear that this film was just as enchanting, if not more, than the first Harry Potter and translated well from the book.
  46. Evey
    Dec 4, 2002
    10
    I think that the "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" movie was brilliant. I'm glad the movie didn't leave out too many scenes from the book. Even though many people say it went for too long, I don't think so. I loved Moaning Myrtle, Gilderoy Lockhart, the Quidditch and the scenes in the Chamber of Secrets so much. I also love the cast, especially the main 3, Daniel I think that the "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" movie was brilliant. I'm glad the movie didn't leave out too many scenes from the book. Even though many people say it went for too long, I don't think so. I loved Moaning Myrtle, Gilderoy Lockhart, the Quidditch and the scenes in the Chamber of Secrets so much. I also love the cast, especially the main 3, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. Expand
  47. B.S.
    Jan 4, 2003
    6
    First there missing important parts but rather than write a novel (come on think about it its a joke worth at least a giggle) I gotta say I'm glad I watched a pireted verson first.
  48. PaulM.
    Mar 16, 2003
    7
    What I don't understand is why doesn't a movie as big as Harry Potter make the CGI Dobby look more real? Look at Yoda, it's perfect...you can't tell that it's not physically there. Dobby is above normal CGI standars, but is not completely there. But I must admit that the the gigantic spiders and the huge snake look great as CGI spectacles though. The movie overall What I don't understand is why doesn't a movie as big as Harry Potter make the CGI Dobby look more real? Look at Yoda, it's perfect...you can't tell that it's not physically there. Dobby is above normal CGI standars, but is not completely there. But I must admit that the the gigantic spiders and the huge snake look great as CGI spectacles though. The movie overall is very fun. It's about as good as the original; good acting(escpecially Kenneth Brannagh) and memorable scenes. But I think I liked this one a little better though because it was much darker deeper. Expand
  49. Amoviefan
    Apr 2, 2003
    10
    This movie truly is magical. The action scenes are amazing, and while the character chemistry is a little off, it is definately one of the best movies. The special effects are amazing, the acting is great, everything in this movie is just awesome.
  50. JohnC.
    Apr 23, 2003
    10
    A magical adventure loaded with action, surprises, thrills, and comedy. Definitely better than the first, and many movies released this year.
  51. Hidden
    Apr 30, 2003
    10
    While not as good as the book, (I think it's impossible for a HP movie to be, because the best part of the Potter books is what the character is thinking.) this movie is a great adaptation of the book. I don't see how Sorcerer's Stone topped this movie. I'd give Sorcerer's Stone a 5, and this a 10. This is twice as good. Twice the action, twice the suspense, twice While not as good as the book, (I think it's impossible for a HP movie to be, because the best part of the Potter books is what the character is thinking.) this movie is a great adaptation of the book. I don't see how Sorcerer's Stone topped this movie. I'd give Sorcerer's Stone a 5, and this a 10. This is twice as good. Twice the action, twice the suspense, twice the special effects, twice the thrills, twice the humor, etc. This movie almost 3 hours!? It seemed so much shorter. Much unlike Two Towers... Expand
  52. Amoviecritic
    May 17, 2003
    10
    Just to make some things perfectly clear. The Harry Potter books are not books for the kids. During this movie, parents with little kids shifted uneasily in their seats during some of the scenes, but I guarentee that they have NOT read the books. They would have been prepared. They are under the illusion that Harry Potter books are very bright, happy books in the same league as Dr. Seuss. Just to make some things perfectly clear. The Harry Potter books are not books for the kids. During this movie, parents with little kids shifted uneasily in their seats during some of the scenes, but I guarentee that they have NOT read the books. They would have been prepared. They are under the illusion that Harry Potter books are very bright, happy books in the same league as Dr. Seuss. NO.....they verge on Lord of the Rings material. I think it's rediculous that critics complain it's too frightening for little kids- little kids shouldn't be there in the first place, because it's rated PG for some scary moments, creature violence, etc. It's all there in the rating. If critics complain about the Chamber of Secrets, they will see the 3rd and 4th movies, and realize how dark the Harry Potter books really are. Anyway, that out of the way, I'd like to compliment everyone in the movie on a job well done. The action scenes were amazingly who would have thought it,) Chris Columbus, whose Harry Potter Unlike Sorcerer's Stone, which was nothing more than the book translated to the screan with nothing added and many things deleted, Columbus, this time, decides he needs to add some new stuff. The first movie seemed to lack his usual style, but it is indeed in this one. In the Dursely escape scene, instead of Harry simply kicking uncle Vernon away, he is literally dragged out the window. In the Whomping Willow scene, instead of the car's seats simply tilting and having them fall out, they are literally thrown from the vehicle. The Quidditch match is longer than in the book, as is the scenes with the spiders and basilisk, etc. MUCH BETTER DONE. What made this film more scarry than the first one is that Columbus added things not in the book, so everyone was surprised by moments. People in the theature literally screamed at one part during the basilisc scene that was not in the book. (the surprise moment.) Yes, this movie has it's faults, where many moments of Harry Ron and Hermione breaking the rules were cut, but I left this movie feeling amazed, and glad. They didn't mess up like they did in the Sorcerer's Stone. Expand
  53. TommyL.
    May 18, 2003
    6
    Pretty entertaining, worth watching if you get a chance. And the chamber of secrets aint all that.
  54. SiriusBlack(femaleversion)
    May 21, 2003
    10
    Thank you "movie critic"! You stated everything perfectly! I remember going to see this movie on opening night, and I had the greatest time in a movie. The theatre was packed, which ment you heard loads of screams, laughs, and girls sqealing when Draco Malfloy entered (either that or they dreamily cried, "Draco!!!") Believe me. I NEVER scream at a movie. But I was screaming like hell in Thank you "movie critic"! You stated everything perfectly! I remember going to see this movie on opening night, and I had the greatest time in a movie. The theatre was packed, which ment you heard loads of screams, laughs, and girls sqealing when Draco Malfloy entered (either that or they dreamily cried, "Draco!!!") Believe me. I NEVER scream at a movie. But I was screaming like hell in this one with the Aragog and the spiders scene. I still whimpered when I saw that scene when watching this film for the 2nd and 3rd times. By the way, people HAVE criticized Lord of the Rings' length, but it seems like they criticize every movie's length that has ACTION in it. I suprsingly never hear anyone saying they fell asleep in movies as dull as "Possession". Weird... Expand
  55. BrianN.
    Aug 19, 2003
    9
    Excellent movie, One of the best of 2002. It is filled with invention and great acting.
  56. DaveC.
    Jun 21, 2004
    7
    The worst of the three so far. Lacking the playful innocence of the Philosopher's Stone and the distinctly dark atmosphere of the Prisoner Of Azkaban, the film sometimes feels like a TV after school special. More realistic sets this time round make the film feel oddly less magical and Columbus really could have made more of an effort to really evoke the darker elements of the story, The worst of the three so far. Lacking the playful innocence of the Philosopher's Stone and the distinctly dark atmosphere of the Prisoner Of Azkaban, the film sometimes feels like a TV after school special. More realistic sets this time round make the film feel oddly less magical and Columbus really could have made more of an effort to really evoke the darker elements of the story, but takes too much of a casual attitude towards it leaving the film with an extreme lack of the tonal variation. The young actors haven't improved and this film also seems the most badly shot of the three films. Gone are such beautifully photographed imagery as that of Hogwarts Express and Platform 9 3/4 and instead we are giving a sharper and more glossy picture, one that looks too digital and too staged. Thrills are also greatly lacking in the film. While the flying car sequence is exciting and funny (largely thanks to Rupert Grint who is still wonderful as Ron Weasely) the climax sequence isn't up to much and that ghost girl really did get right my nerves and came across as more cartoonish than magical or mystical, much like the majority of this film. I am however going to give it 7 out of 10 because it is all competently and very professionally put together with an impressive cast of British thespians and while the younger actors aren't great, they do their job in bringing their characters to life. Everyone is well fleshed out and the film remarkably kept me interested throughout its hefty 160 minute running time, it just could have been so much better. Expand
  57. KittyC.
    Jul 24, 2004
    10
    This is a wonderful movie but as already stated.. PG means may be unsuitable for young children. Many people think it means 'Little children won't get kicked out'. Great plot, characters (except Ron, who needs to stop being used as comic relief) are like the ones in the book and excellent special effects.
  58. RuanH
    Aug 12, 2007
    7
    A generally good film throughout, but unfortunately fell a little short of my expectations. Nonetheless, a good start to a promising series.
  59. DexterJ.
    Mar 17, 2008
    8
    A great movie full of excitement and fun.
  60. AdnanA
    Jul 19, 2008
    10
    Again this movie has also been criticized for following the book too much. Personally, I think staying true to the book is the strongest point of the movie. Staying with the book imparts the same magic of the book which has created the Harry Potter phenomena. The story... well I don't have to say anything about that because the success of this franchise has already proved it. Again this movie has also been criticized for following the book too much. Personally, I think staying true to the book is the strongest point of the movie. Staying with the book imparts the same magic of the book which has created the Harry Potter phenomena. The story... well I don't have to say anything about that because the success of this franchise has already proved it. Acting... couldn't be better. The trio, Daniel, Rupert and Emma were born for these roles. All the adults are perfect for their roles and create the same attitude and personality as their characters have in the books. Direction... Warner bros did a very smart thing by giving it to Chris. A person like him knows how to make a family movie which not only entertains but remains in your memory forever. Even though many have criticized Chris for making such a kiddish movie but I think that as this is the first year you have to stay with the kiddish atmosphere as the children are only 12. Visuals... for a 2002 movie it's visuals are excellent. Even today they look fantastic! Overall I'd rate this movie an A because the book created the world and the characters but the movie has created the true images of the Harry Potter world. Expand
  61. LouisP.
    Nov 18, 2002
    10
    A true family film. Parents and kids alike will love this flick. It can be scary for younger audiences but it's worth it.
  62. LindaW.
    Nov 18, 2002
    9
    When I went to see this movie on the premiere, the theatre was completely packed. I think it should be, because Harry Potter 2 was a very good film which delivered every single thing it needed to it's target audience. It's not really intended for people in high school or university, so just accept it if it's childish! The acting has improved hugely in Ron and Hermione, When I went to see this movie on the premiere, the theatre was completely packed. I think it should be, because Harry Potter 2 was a very good film which delivered every single thing it needed to it's target audience. It's not really intended for people in high school or university, so just accept it if it's childish! The acting has improved hugely in Ron and Hermione, although Harry sucked. Overall HP2 was a lot of fun and I recommend it to anyone!! Expand
  63. BobM.
    Nov 18, 2002
    9
    Great movie! Much better than the first!! I am a 22 yr old male and the "kids" movie did a great job holding my attention for all 2 hrs and 30 or so minutes. I would recommend this to anyone, except those apposed to anything fantasy or unreal.
  64. ToolFan
    Nov 22, 2002
    10
    I personally loved the movie. I think most people who reviewed this are too damn picky. I did not like the second book as much as the first, just like Michelle P. Harry seemed to act better in this film. I still think Alan Rickman is the best actor in the film and the best person to play Snape. He's so perfect at it! The movie was not childish at all. They didn't remove scary I personally loved the movie. I think most people who reviewed this are too damn picky. I did not like the second book as much as the first, just like Michelle P. Harry seemed to act better in this film. I still think Alan Rickman is the best actor in the film and the best person to play Snape. He's so perfect at it! The movie was not childish at all. They didn't remove scary parts of the movie. The basilisk at the end was nicely done. The movie left out many of the things in the book, of course. All movies based on books usually must and in this case, I think it was for the better. Expand
  65. ZrumA.
    Nov 28, 2002
    7
    Besides the magic of Hogwarts, there MUST be some talent. Even if the Chamber of secrets have a more deep an intriguing storyline than Philosopher's Stone, the collors that painted the movie are quite different, Collumbus fucused on the acction but forgot the magic of the collours and the world of Hogwarts itself to concentrate in Harry. I think that was a terrible mistake.
  66. GilbertMulroneycakesAndThePhilosopher'sStone
    Nov 29, 2002
    10
    Harsh, Abby, very harsh. Columbus has read the books; Columbus cares about the books; Columbus understands the books. The world of Hogwarts is brought to even more life than before in Chamber of Secrets, thanks in part to some great FX (how you can say they were terrible I don't know...the car bit was great, I thought..mind you, I'm a Doctor Who fan so I've got a high FX Harsh, Abby, very harsh. Columbus has read the books; Columbus cares about the books; Columbus understands the books. The world of Hogwarts is brought to even more life than before in Chamber of Secrets, thanks in part to some great FX (how you can say they were terrible I don't know...the car bit was great, I thought..mind you, I'm a Doctor Who fan so I've got a high FX threshold). Deep Story? For a kid's book, it's a hideously complicated plot, which Columbus manages to keep a grip on, just. It's better than Philosopher's (PHILOSOPHER'S) Stone, it's brighter, it's more exciting, more complex, more complete, more...more. Last chance to see Richard Harris, too - shame, he would have been so great in Goblet of Fire...so utterly great..damn it. Please don't miss this film. Expand
  67. [Anonymous]
    Dec 2, 2002
    4
    Even though this was a big improvement on the first film, I still found the movie to be more annoying than enjoyable.
  68. ChadS.
    Dec 30, 2002
    6
    To put it simply; "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is better than "Attack of the Clones" but not in the same league as "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers". Put Ratcliffe in a coma. Emma Watson is a lot more interesting than Harry, and that might be the problem with this franchise. There should be some moments where the three main actors could cut loose and act like the kids To put it simply; "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is better than "Attack of the Clones" but not in the same league as "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers". Put Ratcliffe in a coma. Emma Watson is a lot more interesting than Harry, and that might be the problem with this franchise. There should be some moments where the three main actors could cut loose and act like the kids in "The Goonies". Expand
  69. MikeD.
    Dec 7, 2002
    4
    In leaving the movie theater, I really believed I had just seen the first film all over again, just not as good. As is so often the case, it lost a lot the second time around, with little character development that was in the book, and should have been in the movie even if it wasn't in the book.
  70. ErinM.
    Mar 18, 2003
    10
    I absolutely LOVE this movie! it's an awesome movie with much better special effects and such than the first. i've read each of the books about six times and the second one is definately one of my favorites. I love the suspense and going from one suspect to another, it's a great movie and book!!! I would also just like to add that Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy is extemely HOTT!!!!
  71. SimonL.
    Apr 11, 2003
    9
    T'was a fine film.
  72. LeviG.
    Apr 14, 2003
    10
    These Harry Potter movies are great! This had a great storyline and just good entertainment for the whole family. And if you haven't already, read the books also.
  73. HarryPotter
    Apr 21, 2003
    10
    A very magical movie.
  74. JakeS.
    Apr 24, 2003
    10
    Makes up for the lame first movie in every way imaginable. GOOD JOB TO EVERYONE INVOLVED!
  75. JoshM.
    Apr 28, 2003
    7
    I am impressed. While it made a huge improvement over the first movie, I still was dissipointed by how during the scenes with the Polyjuice Potion preparation, because they didn't break rules like they did in the book. Also, the Dueling Club incident was shortened from the book. As were the scenes with the Weasley's. A cool movie, but many things were left out. For some reason, I am impressed. While it made a huge improvement over the first movie, I still was dissipointed by how during the scenes with the Polyjuice Potion preparation, because they didn't break rules like they did in the book. Also, the Dueling Club incident was shortened from the book. As were the scenes with the Weasley's. A cool movie, but many things were left out. For some reason, a lot was done to keep the movie shorter than a 3 hour time limit, but WHY? Lord of the Rings movies are, and nobody critisizes them for their length.... Expand
  76. PotterFan
    Apr 28, 2003
    8
    Succeeds more in the special effects department than telling a heartful fantasy story about a twelve-year-old boy at magic school. It lacks some fun, and in a few ways, inferior to "Sorcerer's Stone". Though the 161 minutes felt like it did, it did feature some solid acting, beautiful visuals and a good adaptation of the book.
  77. MikeN.
    Feb 11, 2004
    7
    The final showdown is excellent, but everything else is rather bland----- which is exactly the reverse of the first film, where the end battle was a little weak but everything else was good. Overall the film lacks the imagination and spirit of the first outing. Most of the characters have little to do and don't seem very interested in doing it. Not a terrible picture overall, but a The final showdown is excellent, but everything else is rather bland----- which is exactly the reverse of the first film, where the end battle was a little weak but everything else was good. Overall the film lacks the imagination and spirit of the first outing. Most of the characters have little to do and don't seem very interested in doing it. Not a terrible picture overall, but a big step below Sorceror's Stone. Expand
  78. TomK.
    Aug 19, 2007
    7
    The second film is not much better than the first film, it's still childish and not matching the book's environment, but it's still enjoyable as a film.
  79. RyanM.
    Nov 15, 2002
    8
    Though it doesn't have the sorytelling, or grandeur of it's predecessor, it's still a triumph in many ways.
  80. RodneyD.
    Nov 16, 2002
    5
    The movie was pretty loyal to the book, but that probably hurt this movie, since it dragged with boredom during certain stretches. It had some nice "scary" moments that were full of action. But, overall, the story didn't seem to flow as well as it could have. Too many scenes were played out rather than edited for quickness. the end sum, boring during those stretches. I thought the The movie was pretty loyal to the book, but that probably hurt this movie, since it dragged with boredom during certain stretches. It had some nice "scary" moments that were full of action. But, overall, the story didn't seem to flow as well as it could have. Too many scenes were played out rather than edited for quickness. the end sum, boring during those stretches. I thought the first one was better, and the books better yet. As mentioned before, the movie will be a huge success based on marketing and fan base alone, but is it really that good? No. Expand
  81. MichelleP.
    Nov 16, 2002
    9
    I've read the reviews, and plenty have said, "It was boring". I've read the book (how many times?) and saw the movie at the evening premiere, and it was NEVER boring compared to the first one, but that was all Richard Harris' fault since he had no exspression whatsoever in the first one, unlike this one where he's a much better actor. It's funny, but I thought the I've read the reviews, and plenty have said, "It was boring". I've read the book (how many times?) and saw the movie at the evening premiere, and it was NEVER boring compared to the first one, but that was all Richard Harris' fault since he had no exspression whatsoever in the first one, unlike this one where he's a much better actor. It's funny, but I thought the first book, in my opnion, was better than the second one, but I thought the first movie was worse than the second one. It felt lifeless and fake, whereas the second one had better acting, special effects, and even the Hogwarts setting felt better, while in the first one it felt cold, dirty, and some where you don't want to live. I was suprised at the lack of intelligiance the S.F. chronicle had when trying to "support" their opinion. Basically, all they were saying was, "Harry Potter is supposed to be a SWEET, cute, little movie. There are some scenes that should have been deleated like the snake and spider scenes". First of all the Harry Potter series (both book and movie) didn't intend to be sweet. It's actually quite dark, especially the 3rd book, Harry Potter isn't supposed to be a cute fairy tale. It's dark fantasy. And secondly, about the spider and snake scenes, well, if they didn't have those scenes then: 1. The movie would be EXTREMELY unfaithful to the book. 2. It wouldn't have a plot without those two scenes. That person either hasn't read the books, or hasn't even heard what they're about. Then again, the S.F. hates all the best movies (well, they did like Lord of the Rings, but that was the only time) and love all the ones people hate or don't even deserve to get the highest score (like "The Ring".) It was fun seeing this one too. I screamed (for the first time in a movie) at the part when ..... Not to mention I had a few energetic laughs as well. Kudos to you Columbus and co., for not screwing this one up like you did with the first one. Expand
  82. PaulaM.
    Nov 22, 2002
    10
    This movie was definitely better than the first one, the first one was good but this one was better than the first one. it is also good if you read the book first before you see the movie otherwise you don't really know what's going on, and that's why I gave it a ten out of ten.
  83. LaurenH.
    Nov 24, 2002
    10
    I've read all four Harry Potter books twice and think that the movie, Chamber of Secrets was totally awesome. I love Daniel Radcliffe!!
  84. John
    Nov 24, 2002
    8
    Now familiar with the Harry Potter world, the sets didn't blow me away like then did in the first "Harry Potter" movie; but, still, this is an entertaining and imaginative sequel, one for our children's eager and curious minds.
  85. KonradR.
    Dec 12, 2002
    5
    A substantial improvement on the first installment, but it still has a long way to go. If Prisinor of Azkaban can pick the quality up yet again, then we wil be looking at a decent movie.
  86. G.M.D.K.
    Dec 24, 2004
    10
    This is the least best of the 3, but still manages to enchant young & old.
  87. JonL
    Dec 15, 2007
    7
    Columbus directed this? Really? A very good glimpse at the future of the series with the best visuals of it so far...would be great if it wasn't a half-hour too long. Some bits are put in just to please hardcore fans and they are really annoying and slow the pace down...but overall, solid, and in all aspects except editing, far superior to the first.
  88. Aug 21, 2010
    9
    The is the best of the Harry Potter movies by far. It follows the book extremely well, the setting and scenery feels really authentic and the story flows along and is exciting and a great adventure. It really captured the mood, tone, and visualization of the book well. Plus the music was by John Williams which they are really lacking with the new Harry Potter movies.
  89. Dec 2, 2010
    7
    While it isn't as good as the other Potter films, Chamber of Secrets does not go without its charm, suspense and magical moments. Potter fans will eat it up, others will wonder how it went from superb to fairly average given the previous material.
  90. Mar 19, 2011
    8
    While the Chamber of Secrets isn't as good as the first but it's still a great movie, and if your a fan of the first movie and like the books you should like this one.
  91. Sep 30, 2012
    8
    Chamber of Secrets is an excellent second outing in the Harry Potter franchise. Whilst still some distance away from Potter's best efforts (Goblet of Fire & Order of the Phoenix), this one improves upon the original and adds a whole bunch of memorable sequences. And you can't beat Kenneth Brannagh... He's just awesome!
  92. Jan 13, 2011
    9
    This is all nonsense. I enjoyed the film every time I watched it. It isn't the best film, but the best Harry Potter film to date. (Not including Deathly Hallows, haven't watched it yet)
  93. Jul 11, 2011
    8
    Although is my least favorite Harry Potter film, this doesn't mean it's a bad movie. The visuals are still stellar and the performances are well executed. My only problem is how some plot elements were left out, after all this is the longest film of the whole series. Aside from that, there is really nothing awful since the plot is really easy to follow. This is still an absolute delight inAlthough is my least favorite Harry Potter film, this doesn't mean it's a bad movie. The visuals are still stellar and the performances are well executed. My only problem is how some plot elements were left out, after all this is the longest film of the whole series. Aside from that, there is really nothing awful since the plot is really easy to follow. This is still an absolute delight in the Harry Potter film series. Expand
  94. May 29, 2011
    7
    Chris Columbus has pledged to make adjustments faithful to the books, and succeeded. Reading the book makes us see the movie the way it is. But adaptation of the second was very long, less than the first child, and to me that climate was not "magic" and the incredible first. It is very good, very faithful to the book, shows the beginning of the ripening of the series (even very lightly).Chris Columbus has pledged to make adjustments faithful to the books, and succeeded. Reading the book makes us see the movie the way it is. But adaptation of the second was very long, less than the first child, and to me that climate was not "magic" and the incredible first. It is very good, very faithful to the book, shows the beginning of the ripening of the series (even very lightly). When you take the second and sixth films, see how the saga changed the face. And he feels a twinge of nostalgia. However, is by far the weakest of the series. And the problem is the same as in Stone, the script, that's so true to the book it becomes extremely tedious as the movie. And what makes it weaker than the first is that the magic in this direction from Columbus disappears almost completely. The film continues with good performances and great junior adults. Again a beautiful soundtrack Williams, and the effects a little better over the first. Expand
  95. Jul 4, 2011
    8
    There is no doubt in my mind that Columbus does better with the second film. The story line for the second film just isn't as good and because of that at times a felt bored. Still an amazing film itself, it's just sad that it will have to forever be compared to the others.
  96. Jun 18, 2011
    8
    Although not near the best in the Potter series, Chamber of Secrets is still a good film, almost equal to it's predecessor. The lead actors come into their own more so here, and the supporting cast is as good as always. The score continues to amaze, and the direction becomes a whole lot better in this movie. It becomes darker and sleeker, things we see in latter, better installments. TheAlthough not near the best in the Potter series, Chamber of Secrets is still a good film, almost equal to it's predecessor. The lead actors come into their own more so here, and the supporting cast is as good as always. The score continues to amaze, and the direction becomes a whole lot better in this movie. It becomes darker and sleeker, things we see in latter, better installments. The visual effects, especially concerning Dobby are delightful. The main problem is the length. It is quite a long movie, at nearly 3 hours. This can be an especially long wait if you have seen the superior future installments, and even more so if you are not a fan of the book series. But, criticisms aside, Chamber of Secrets is still a very good film. If you are a fan of the other films, or the books, see it, and maybe even if you aren't, still see this film. Expand
  97. Jul 12, 2011
    8
    This film is good in expanding the world of Hogwarts and introducing entertaining new characters as well as new settings. The sense of fun and magic is never lost but I must say that it does feel a tad overlong and like the first one doesn't always flow perfectly. However, the plot keeps us engaged as well as our 3 leads and the other actors portraying the teachers. Hogwarts is such aThis film is good in expanding the world of Hogwarts and introducing entertaining new characters as well as new settings. The sense of fun and magic is never lost but I must say that it does feel a tad overlong and like the first one doesn't always flow perfectly. However, the plot keeps us engaged as well as our 3 leads and the other actors portraying the teachers. Hogwarts is such a detailed, mysterious place that I didn't mind being stuck in it even if some scenes could have definitely been cut. Also the ending is a bit too much on the emotional side and with no real substance behind it. In the end though it is a very entertaining film. Expand
  98. Jul 20, 2011
    8
    Rather long, with questionable acting from the young cast and a somewhat overfaithful screenplay, this film is still enjoyable with a good climax, great effects, some dazzling performances, beautiful sets - and plenty of magic.
  99. CRL
    Jul 27, 2011
    7
    This was the second book/movie of the Harry Potter series, and even though some important backstories are delved into, it also comes across as one of the most forgettable. However that by no means makes it a bad movie. This was where Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson started to become great actors, and the directing from Chris Columbus is among the best in the series. TheThis was the second book/movie of the Harry Potter series, and even though some important backstories are delved into, it also comes across as one of the most forgettable. However that by no means makes it a bad movie. This was where Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson started to become great actors, and the directing from Chris Columbus is among the best in the series. The storyline is well-represented from the book (something only Columbus and Cuaron managed to do), and the special effects are extremely good for a movie released in 2002. Expand
  100. Oct 11, 2011
    8
    Even though it is one of my favorites within the series, I would cut 30 minutes out of it easily. Columbus tries too hard put every part of the book on the movie and ends up ruining what could be a thrilling film.
Metascore
63

Generally favorable reviews - based on 35 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 35
  2. Negative: 1 out of 35
  1. Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    40
    I can't think of a movie this long that has left me so starved for a movie.
  2. Chamber is chockablock with action (including a far more exciting game of Quidditch) and crafty special effects.
  3. Columbus never quite captures the depth, the rich complexities of Rowling's novels. She's written four Harry Potter books for kids that adults swoon for, too. Columbus has made two Harry Potter movies for kids … and we'll leave it at that. That isn't bad. But I suspect there's something better just around the bend.