User Score
6.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 511 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 77 out of 511
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. 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.
  2. 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!!!!
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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!
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. TommyL.
    May 18, 2003
    6
    Pretty entertaining, worth watching if you get a chance. And the chamber of secrets aint all that.
  13. [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.
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. Jan 3, 2015
    6
    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 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 fatherHarry 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
  19. Aug 14, 2012
    5
    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 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.
  20. Sep 8, 2013
    5
    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 the movies for sure. Be sure to check out my channel "TheMovieManLife" for all things movies.
  21. Jun 24, 2013
    6
    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.
  22. Nov 28, 2013
    6
    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.
  23. Nov 12, 2013
    6
    Harry Potter once again mystifies.
    Although a noticeably weaker sequel, The Chamber of Secrets still entertains with a good script and elusive plot twists.
  24. Aug 12, 2014
    4
    A good film overall, fulfilling its promises. But there is nothing new that has not been seen in its predecessor, and features a less satisfying plot. Must watch to keep track of the series.
  25. Mar 2, 2015
    5
    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
  26. Apr 23, 2015
    6
    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, 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 inLike 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
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.