Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: November 15, 2002
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 633 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
453
Mixed:
100
Negative:
80
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
imthenoobJan 28, 2012
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 thatThe 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. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
grandpajoe6191Sep 23, 2011
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!!!!
4 of 6 users found this helpful42
All this user's reviews
5
nboley08Aug 16, 2010
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 toThe 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
1 of 6 users found this helpful15
All this user's reviews
4
FantasyL.Nov 15, 2002
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
asylumspadezNov 26, 2011
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 andThe 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. Expand
0 of 6 users found this helpful06
All this user's reviews
6
jfrotylpe532Dec 21, 2012
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 goodSame 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
Annoymous1May 18, 2013
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!
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
RichardDec 2, 2002
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RobertA.May 30, 2004
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JeremyS.Nov 18, 2002
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
B.S.Jan 4, 2003
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
TommyL.May 18, 2003
Pretty entertaining, worth watching if you get a chance. And the chamber of secrets aint all that.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
[Anonymous]Dec 2, 2002
Even though this was a big improvement on the first film, I still found the movie to be more annoying than enjoyable.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChadS.Dec 30, 2002
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MikeD.Dec 7, 2002
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RodneyD.Nov 16, 2002
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
KonradR.Dec 12, 2002
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JacobNov 12, 2016
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets for better or worse will please book fans and fans of the predecessor. Columbus once again provides a mostly faithful story and continues a stellar casting adding new memorable characters and visuallyHarry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets for better or worse will please book fans and fans of the predecessor. Columbus once again provides a mostly faithful story and continues a stellar casting adding new memorable characters and visually bringing Rowling’s world to life. Those who weren’t fans of the first one and/or are looking for anything new will be disappointed. The film not only recycles numerous plot points from the first film but once again suffers from overfaithfullness with scenes loosely strung together in an effort to maintain the source material resulting in a lengthy runtime in serious need of padding. Fans of the book won’t mine but others will depend. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
oxanaJan 3, 2015
Harry is back in this second instalment of the series based on J.K. Rowling's books. I am sure that to most, Harry and the actor behind him (Daniel Radcliffe) is sweet and altogether awesome, but he has never won me over, though I have noHarry is back in this second instalment of the series based on J.K. Rowling's books. I am sure that to most, Harry and the actor behind him (Daniel Radcliffe) is sweet and altogether awesome, but he has never won me over, though I have no idea why. I prefer the Malfoy family, which really steps up in this movie. Although Draco (Tom Felton) is annoying and bratty, and in the end his father Lucius (awesome Jason Isaacs) is almost too plain with his words and actions, they still hold something tainted and interesting whereas Harry and his friends are too 'pure' and perfect. Then there is Snape (Alan Rickman), whom I have rooted for since film one - and will no doubt continue to do so. After the first watch, I kept thinking this movie was better than the first, since it has more action and had grown a bit more "adult" - the characters have grown, naturally - but I came to realize that while the first movie was more introductory in its storytelling, it was also slightly better one. This time around, the plot goes straight into the point, not bothering to explain most things. I am sure this works for devoted fans just fine, and when you've just freshly watched "the Sorcerer's Stone". Again, a beautiful movie, but the acting could be a bit less obvious; you can guess who is doing and planning what, and that takes a lot from the plot! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
potatoes351Aug 14, 2012
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was a hard to put down read, just like the first. But the film has not translated well. The film gets too in over its head with special effects and loses the magic that the original film had. Not toHarry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was a hard to put down read, just like the first. But the film has not translated well. The film gets too in over its head with special effects and loses the magic that the original film had. Not to mention cutting out large parts of the book that were quite important and leaving non important things in making the film far too long for its own good. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
dante_finnDec 22, 2012
A spellbinding adaption
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Movie1997Sep 8, 2013
This movie does have its good qualities and its bad qualities. It has an interesting story and engaging conflict, but lacks in its dragging feel and easy loss of interest. Overall, while it's the movie's not horrible, it's the worst of theThis movie does have its good qualities and its bad qualities. It has an interesting story and engaging conflict, but lacks in its dragging feel and easy loss of interest. Overall, while it's the movie's not horrible, it's the worst of the movies for sure. Be sure to check out my channel "TheMovieManLife" for all things movies. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
AReviewsJun 24, 2013
In a way, this sequel manages to be greater than its predecessor, but it fails, this is my least favorite Harry Potter movie, because it is way too long and gets lame, but still it is still magical and interesting.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
joao1198pedroNov 28, 2013
the book 2 is best than book 1 the film 2 isn't best than the film 1,it is an nice movie but it didn't have the quality and the magic of the first film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
RayzorMooseNov 12, 2013
Harry Potter once again mystifies.
Although a noticeably weaker sequel, The Chamber of Secrets still entertains with a good script and elusive plot twists.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
CameraBounceGodMar 2, 2015
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The worst part about this movie is that Tom riddle just stands around waiting to lose his mind...what is he a ghost or something?...i really hope Ron was paying attention to harry opening the Chamber.... Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
MovieManiac83Apr 23, 2015
Like its predecessor, Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone, Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets works perfectly well as a cinematic corollary to J.K. Rowling's adored children's fantasy series. Quidditch, self-loathing house elves, andLike its predecessor, Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone, Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets works perfectly well as a cinematic corollary to J.K. Rowling's adored children's fantasy series. Quidditch, self-loathing house elves, and basilisks all make it to the screen intact, a well-chosen cast helps make the wild notions convincing, and director Chris Columbus presents it all in an attractive, thoroughly watchable package. But try imagining a universe in which the Harry Potter series existed only in film form. Would audiences still find themselves transported by such thinly drawn characters? Would the imaginations still leap for the nonstop assault of impressively realized but creatively pedestrian special effects? And would the two-and-a-half-hours-plus trek toward an unmasking straight out of Scooby Doo seem quite so satisfying? So far, the series has relied on viewers' familiarity with Rowling's characters to fill in blanks that other movies would have to fill for themselves. As before, Daniel Radcliffe gives an assured performance in the lead, but he's given so little time away from after-hours sleuthing and confrontations with bugaboos that he's mostly a sympathetic character because he's playing Harry Potter, not because of any moment within the movie itself. It doesn't help that Chamber is pretty much all business from the opening shot, trading in Stone's sometimes-clunky exposition for full-steam-ahead action that whisks Radcliffe back to Hogwarts for another year of intrigue and spellcasting with scarcely a moment to collect his syllabi. In the space between the scenes of kids screaming amid special effects, the grownups have the best moments. Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, and the late Richard Harris all reprise roles from the previous film, and Kenneth Branagh has a funny part as a self-obsessed celebrity charlatan. The movie could use more of him, and of droll touches like John Cleese's unfailingly polite, nearly headless ghost, but overall, Chamber is very much in the spirit of John Williams' score: a succession of irritatingly familiar swooping climaxes hammered out at double fortissimo. It's enough to make viewers of a certain temperament want to curl up with a good book. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
aadityamudharApr 17, 2016
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 thatThe 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews