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%
Reviews 50
by ringoluck
Wed Jan 29 2003Not as good as the first but still good. A little too long
by thatoneperson
Thu Dec 31 2009not too bad but the ending kindof was a little crappy. how could a little kid hide from a huge creature?
by the_champ
Thu Oct 09 2008dont like harry pot
by fb1473765476
Fri Sep 26 2008Possiblement la més fluixa de totes
by spike65
Sun Jul 27 2008It's Harry Potter. Nuff said.
by christie_p
Fri Jul 25 2008HArry Potter!!!!
by lena7358
Wed Jul 23 2008I'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 jennifer
Tue Jul 22 2008I love all the Harry Potter movies!!! This is my favorite kind of Fantasy movie!
by haji849
Tue Jul 22 2008The Harry Potter books and movies are number one for me and there awesome!
by genghisthehun
Mon Jul 21 2008So far I have avoided the charm of Harry Potter.
by barbie360
Sun Jul 20 2008I do not Like HP!!!!!!
by kari_grace802
Sun Jul 20 2008It is good, but the book is better.
by gloomyeeyore
Wed Aug 22 2007A 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 jeremy00081
Wed Sep 13 2006Pretty 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 ih8rateitall
Sat Mar 18 2006I just don't understand why this is so popular. Oh yeah, and the people in the movie theater, wedgie city dudes, wedgie city!
by charmedone1393
Sat Feb 25 2006It's Harry Potter...It's got to be good!
by cherrysoda99
Thu Feb 09 2006I liked this movie. It was better than the first one, and the acting was even better.
by rjy22751
Wed Nov 09 2005This is a great film!
by silentbrook
Sun Sep 04 2005The best bit was Tom Marvolo Riddle.
by maomania
Sun Feb 27 2005Better 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 the_slacker
Thu Dec 23 2004Some 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 wargamefan93
Mon Aug 16 2004All Harry Potter movies and books are O.K but they ain't great.
by tabaska907
Sat Jun 26 2004it was good but it left to much stuff out from tha book
by lahell84
Sun May 30 2004Grow up!
by suncat_nyc
Fri May 07 2004Read the book first.
by deigratia22
Thu Feb 12 2004I 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 tvtator
Fri Jan 09 2004Harry is back, this time older. Still great, but have to take away a star because Dobby gets a little annoying.
by irishgit
Sat Dec 20 2003As 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 darknightchild_e
Sat Nov 15 2003The books are much better. Daniel Radciffe is a little old to play Harry now.
by ambience_mcg
Mon Nov 10 2003Whilst 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 betty_boop
Sun Aug 03 2003its 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 kolby1973
Mon Jul 21 2003This 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 pikachan
Fri Jun 27 2003Pretty 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 ecky85
Fri May 30 2003Another great Harry Potter movie.
by sandy29cd
Mon May 26 2003This 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 onthe60
Wed May 21 2003This movie was okay, but should be further down on the list.
by xshikaxshikax
Sat Apr 26 2003No 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 piper_norman
Thu Apr 17 2003harry potter is not a nerd
by mentok_the_mindtaker
Tue Apr 01 2003The movie like the books was surprisingly good.
by tvmoviemusicfr_ek
Sat Mar 22 2003Horrible, thats all i have to say.
by queenelessar
Fri Mar 14 2003Even 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 corkey2003
Sat Mar 08 2003I 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 donkey_kong_song
Fri Feb 21 2003Best. 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 bigbaby
Fri Feb 07 2003I 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 callmetootie
Tue Feb 04 2003Despite 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 lactamaeon
Sun Feb 02 2003The 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 swiss88
Wed Jan 15 2003I don't like fantasy...many people may disagree.
by broughaj
Sun Jan 05 2003I 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 jmaxcb5b
Sun Jan 05 2003Not bad for the sophmore outing.
by lula_arg
Thu Jan 02 2003A 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.