Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Reviews | RateItAll

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

2002 fantasy film directed by Chris Columbus from a screenplay by Steve Kloves, based on the 1998 novel of the same name by J. K. Rowling Website

Approval Rate: 71%

71%Approval ratio

Reviews 50

Sort by:
  • by


    Wed Jan 29 2003

    Not as good as the first but still good. A little too long

  • by


    Thu Dec 31 2009

    not too bad but the ending kindof was a little crappy. how could a little kid hide from a huge creature?

  • by


    Thu Oct 09 2008

    dont like harry pot

  • by


    Fri Sep 26 2008

    Possiblement la més fluixa de totes

  • by


    Sun Jul 27 2008

    It's Harry Potter. Nuff said.

  • by


    Fri Jul 25 2008

    HArry Potter!!!!

  • by


    Wed Jul 23 2008

    I'm sort of bothered by these films. This review is about to go entirely off topic. You've been warned :P Why must everything for children become a movie, anyhow? Not that I've ever read these particular books, but seeing a director and/or cinematographer and/or casting director's interpretation of something that you've read as a child kinda destroys the "magic" a little, in my opinion. Imagination is important to foster, and books usually help.

  • by


    Tue Jul 22 2008

    I love all the Harry Potter movies!!! This is my favorite kind of Fantasy movie!

  • by


    Tue Jul 22 2008

    The Harry Potter books and movies are number one for me and there awesome!

  • by


    Mon Jul 21 2008

    So far I have avoided the charm of Harry Potter.

  • by


    Sun Jul 20 2008

    I do not Like HP!!!!!!

  • by


    Sun Jul 20 2008

    It is good, but the book is better.

  • by


    Wed Aug 22 2007

    A 3.5 this was an okay adaptation of the book.   In this movie you see Tom Mavalro Riddle a.k.a. Lord Voldemort.  I think that they portrayed Dobby well from the books.  There were scenes from the book that they didn't put in the movie like Nearly headless Nicks deathday party.

  • by


    Wed Sep 13 2006

    Pretty good but far from thrilling. I'm one of those mean people who says Harry Potter films are for nerds. Sorry, but I think these movies are pretty geeky.

  • by


    Sat Mar 18 2006

    I just don't understand why this is so popular. Oh yeah, and the people in the movie theater, wedgie city dudes, wedgie city!

  • by


    Sat Feb 25 2006

    It's Harry Potter...It's got to be good!

  • by


    Thu Feb 09 2006

    I liked this movie. It was better than the first one, and the acting was even better.

  • by


    Wed Nov 09 2005

    This is a great film!

  • by


    Sun Sep 04 2005

    The best bit was Tom Marvolo Riddle.

  • by


    Sun Feb 27 2005

    Better than the first movie. I can say as a non Harry Potter fan that I enjoyed watching it. It was a long movie, but it did not feel that bad compared to the first one.

  • by


    Thu Dec 23 2004

    Some how they managed to make a more uninteresting movie than the first, amazing! How anyone could enjoy this bothers the hell out of me, nothing personal though, to each his own, but I really hate Harry Pothead because the movie felt like a bad acid trip. And to Piper Norman: Yes, yes he is.

  • by


    Mon Aug 16 2004

    All Harry Potter movies and books are O.K but they ain't great.

  • by


    Sat Jun 26 2004

    it was good but it left to much stuff out from tha book

  • by


    Sun May 30 2004

    Grow up!

  • by


    Fri May 07 2004

    Read the book first.

  • by


    Thu Feb 12 2004

    I didn't like this film as much as the first. It got a bit boring and couldn't hold my attention like the first movie did. A well-made film though.

  • by


    Fri Jan 09 2004

    Harry is back, this time older. Still great, but have to take away a star because Dobby gets a little annoying.

  • by


    Sat Dec 20 2003

    As if the first one wasn't bad enough. The only redeeming feature here was Branagh's performance, although even that isn't enough to award another star.

  • by


    Sat Nov 15 2003

    The books are much better. Daniel Radciffe is a little old to play Harry now.

  • by


    Mon Nov 10 2003

    Whilst better than Philosopher's Stone, this film has too many downfalls to be classified as a 'great' or even 'good' film. Chris Columbus's direction is unsatisfying and the script takes away JK Rowlings smart dialouge and characterisation from the book and leaves us with shallow characters unable to be liked. Harry is an annoying hero, and Hermione is an up- herself know-it-all. The only characters who shine are Kenneth Brannagh's portrayal as Lockhart and Rupert Grint's Ron. As a big fan of the books, this film leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Hopefully a change of director will give Prisoner of Azkaban the magical element of the books that have been lacking in the previous two films.

  • by


    Sun Aug 03 2003

    its Harry Potter so it has to get a least 4 stars. but this film was a little better than the first and some of the acting especially maggie smith was very good. also it had some good special effects. overall good but they could have done a better job with such a great storyline.

  • by


    Mon Jul 21 2003

    This movie is awesome. I think the movie was a star below the first one however, mostly because of that annoying house elf..ugh. But overall, this movie is entertaining from beginning to end, and I could watch it many more times without getting bored with it. Really cute. Can't wait until the next one. :) ~~~Kolby

  • by


    Fri Jun 27 2003

    Pretty good sequel, but I liked the first a little better. Harry Potter is played by the same person from the first movie. This had some good effects, but it was a little too long. I missed it at theaters so I rented it. If you rent it, try not to fall asleep.

  • by


    Fri May 30 2003

    Another great Harry Potter movie.

  • by


    Mon May 26 2003

    This movie is one of the best movies that I have seen. I like this one better, because I think I've seen the first one a little too many times. I think the acting did get better.

  • by


    Wed May 21 2003

    This movie was okay, but should be further down on the list.

  • by


    Sat Apr 26 2003

    No matter what others might say...this film is good. The story is excellent,(as many harry potter fans will tell you!) and the directing has made the magical side of it stand out in a fantasical quality. For all the fans out there i do agree that it is a great movie. The director has done a great job bringing the books to life so far and i think that this film was better than the last one. Having read the books there are a few differences in from the orginal story, but how can you expect a movie from such an imaginitive book to be exactly the same as the written version? This film following from the perviuos is one of those rareties...a sequel that is actualy as good (and better) than the first one...i look forward to the next movie and advise everyone to try and see this film.It was one of the must sees for the past year and now that its on DVD its even better!

  • by


    Thu Apr 17 2003

    harry potter is not a nerd

  • by


    Tue Apr 01 2003

    The movie like the books was surprisingly good.

  • by


    Sat Mar 22 2003

    Horrible, thats all i have to say.

  • by


    Fri Mar 14 2003

    Even better than the first film and I loved that one! The pace is faster and the story is a little darker. All the exposition from the first film is largely out of the way, so they can really concentrate on telling an exciting story. There are some really funny moments to the film...personally I think that Rupert Grint who plays Ron is brilliant! In the one scene where he and Harry follow a trail of spiders through the forbidden forest, he kept whimpering and tugging on Harry's arm, his voice cracking at really humourous moments. Kenneth Brannagh was also very funny as Professor Lockheart, the self obsessed, and icompetent new teacher at Hogwarts. The effects were also well developed...Quiddich looked even more exciting than the first film and the CGI character Dooby was a joy to watch

  • by


    Sat Mar 08 2003

    I felt that is a great movie, it didn't fit everything from the book into the story line but it captured the important aspects.

  • by


    Fri Feb 21 2003

    Best. Movie. Ever. This ran circles around the first. Before I saw it, my favorite movie was The Nightmare Before Christmas. I haven't read any of the books, though. The best part was with the snake and the bird.

  • by


    Fri Feb 07 2003

    I liked this movie. When I went in, I thought I was going to see a boring dull kids movie. I found out that this movie is good for people of all ages. Go see it.

  • by


    Tue Feb 04 2003

    Despite good special effects, and a fine performance by Maggie Smith, the film contained far too many characters and subplots. It was 1 hour way too long, and the ending was totally forced and had little or no meaning to it other than to scare little children. Daniel Radcliffe shows no emotion to his character, and makes Harry Potter out to be a complete nerd.

  • by


    Sun Feb 02 2003

    The book actually was a lot better. In the movie the´ve let out too much. So I must say that the first film was better. But I don´t hope that movie three will be as bad as the second. I this one they could have put in more information out of the book. It really disappointed me in many ways. Yet again they could have put more effort into the quidditch games. I don´t like having to say, that it is quite a shame. Sorry bout that.

  • by


    Wed Jan 15 2003

    I don't like fantasy...many people may disagree.

  • by


    Sun Jan 05 2003

    I have to admit that when I saw the first Harry Potter I was not impressed. I had no intentions of seeing the second release, but was dragged to see it with a friend. To my surprise this time around the film was quite good. I found comedy in the character of Dobi, but am dissappointed to learn he won't be in any of the new Harry Potter movies.

  • by


    Sun Jan 05 2003

    Not bad for the sophmore outing.

  • by


    Thu Jan 02 2003

    A good movie, but not as good as it was expected to be. The actors are not remarkable, and the story begins to loose entertainmet. I liked the book best than the movie.