Rating: 
Summary: Great Movie, But No Sorceror's Stone
Review: I'm a newcomer, in terms of being a Harry Potter fan. Just before the first movie opened, I read all of the books (1-4). Needless to say, I was very impressed with the first movie.Now, I loved the second movie--I even bought it the day it came out. But, I have to admit that the acting was not quite as good as the first. Also, I expected better special effects--especially with the flying car. I had hoped the car would look a little more realistic, and less like the falling Neville in the beginning of the first movie. Never the less, I do recommend this movie to anyone who likes the books or the first movie. But be prepared, as with most sequels, this is one is slightly disappointing.
Rating: 
Summary: As Good As Sorcerer's Stone
Review: I enjoyed this film as much as I enjoyed Sorcerer's Stone, only for different reasons. This film has the characters a year older, and a wee bit wiser. Of course, they're still getting into trouble, as most kids 12 years of age do. This film is a bit darker than the first, which is what the author intended. This is a progression that builds through the four books currently on the market. This will build until the seventh book in which (I'm assuming) Harry will finally battle, and defeat Lord Voldemort. This is shown by J.K. Rowling's admission that one of the main characters will die in the fifth book. Something to notice when you watch the film is how little of it takes place during the day. Of the three hour film, only about fifteen minutes takes place outdoors during the day, ten minutes of that being a quidditch match. The rest of the film is at night, or inside a dark castle. I have to say that I'm amazed at the quality of the acting the kids in the film possess. These kids weren't child stars in England when cast for the film. These were kids that were picked because of the way they looked. In fact, Daniel Radclife (Harry) won a contest for being the most 'Harry-like' kid. Some scenes in the film astound me, and make me wonder how many takes it took to get the good shot. One thing I miss is any bloopers that might be floating around somewhere. I'd love to see them!
Rating:
Summary: Better than the first one.
Review: Summary:
It's Harry Potter's (Daniel Radcliffe) second year at Hogwart's and, of course, there is something going on that only Harry and his friends can resolve. When the original founders of Hogwart's created the school, one of the four, Slytherin, didn't think that mud-bloods (impure wizards) should be allowed entrance. To purify the school, Slytherin created The Chamber of Secrets that would be opened by his true heir. The true heir possesses Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright), Ron Weasley's (Rupert Grint) little sister and gets her to open the chamber. It is now up to Harry to face down the horrible creature that is released and save Ginny's life. My Comments:
As is likely going to be the case with all of the Harry Potter movies, the book is better, much better. Nevertheless, this movie wasn't too bad. It made more of an attempt to tell a story instead of just jump from one memorable scene in the book to the next one and letting the people that have read the book (which is probably just about everyone by now) fill in the story. The problem with actually trying to tell the story is that there are a lot of details that inevitably get left out, details that add depth and charm to the story. So, if you really want to experience the second story in the Harry Potter series, you need to read the book. As for the movie itself, the cinematography and special effects were, as to be expected, superb. The budget for these films must be enormous. And, most of the actors were pretty good, including Dobby who was computer generated. However, and I hate to say this because I really liked Ron in the books, Rupert Grint (who plays Ron Weasley) drove me nuts. I was never really convinced that he was Ron. He continually came across as acting and trying to force lines and it never really worked. Of course, Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy) has always been like that, but I thought Rupert did a better job in the last film. Other than the distracting child actors, the movie was pretty good. The story made a bit more sense this time (as in, the story that is actually told in the movie, not the story from the book), even though a lot of the fun details were left out. Perhaps the actors will improve their skills as actors just as their characters are supposed to improve their wizardry skills. As a fan of the books, I'll be looking forward to the next one, and hopefully they will just continue to improve.
Rating: 
Summary: Extras for fans only
Review: Like the first "Harry Potter" DVD, "Chamber of Secrets" stays true to Potter's legions of young fans, with games, happy-face interviews and trivia tests for tweens and their younger siblings. Film buffs seeking the lowdown on creations such as the fiery Phoenix, Dobby the downcast house-elf and the film's giant snakes and spiders will have to get their own DVD. Grown-up muggles need not apply for this semester at Hogwart's. The 161-minute film looks great, as in theaters, with medieval ambers and black-magic blacks effectively conveying the second installment's darker tone. Skin tones are especially pleasing. Most of the murk that haunted the first "Potter" film's darker scenes has done a disappearing act. The Dolby Digital 5.1 EX mix comes in English and Spanish, crisply delivering the high-volume jolts as Harry hurls spells and battles the beasts of the underworld. Directional effects are used with reserve, enhancing their impact when finally unleashed (check out the surround at 1:48, when Harry hurls a hungry spider across your living room.) Menu art alternates between gothic creepy and castle-fire warmth. Fortunately, navigation links don't call for as much needless casting about as last time out. The DVD for "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer Stone" cruelly locked its deleted scenes behind a time-consuming game. "Phoenix" rises above that, providing direct access to 19 outtakes. Most are snippets, but director Chris Columbus unlocks a few telling scenes. "Potter" author J.K. Rowling and American screenwriter Steve Kloves talk about the project in a fairly informative interview apparently taken from British television. "I just steal her best stuff," Kloves says. "And I don't sue," Rowlings shoots right back. The classy featurette "Setting the Scene" gives youngsters a proper lesson in the logistics of filmmaking ("It starts with a script ...") The docu covers cinematography, sets, costumes, visual effects and other detail rarely found in extras for young people. The featurette should be required viewing in middle schools across the Potter kingdom. The DVD's so-so games include an "Evil Dead"-like visit to the Forbidden Forest and a maze that rewards victors with an interactive tour of the Chamber of Secrets.
Rating:
Summary: A Better DVD than the original one!
Review: The Movie: A vastly brilliant sequel that just might have revaled it's original in everyway just like most sequels have for example such as " Terminator 2", " Aliens", " Empire Strikes Back", " Godfather II", " Toy Story 2", " Evil Dead 2", and " Dawn of the Dead". Harry Potter ( Daniel Redcliff) is back to the real world for the summer with the awful dursley's, now he escapes back to Hogwarts only to find out that some of the students are mysteriously dying due to something terrible and now he must find the hidden Chamber of Secrets. Entertaining and magical sequel all the way that offers great performances including Richard Harris's last performance ( r.i.p. Richard) and action galore. The DVD: Perfection! Most excellent sound and picture quality with enough Extras to keep fans of the books and adults alike entertained, this time you won't have to solve a silly riddle to get to the deleted scenes, they are just ready for the DVD owner to see. All in all, it's a must see sequel and a must see DVD. Also Recommended: Lord of the Rings Trilogy, The Princess Bride, The Wizard of Oz, The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, Legend, Return to Oz, Star Wars, Spider-Man, X-Men, Attack of the Clones, Eight Legged Freaks, Big Trouble in Little China, Matrix.
Rating:
Summary: Superltaive film version of the novel
Review: HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS [161 minutes / Rated PG for scary moments, some creature violence and mild language] "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is even better than "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", although both movies suffer somewhat from their slavish faithfulness to the children's books by J.K. Rowling. This may not be the filmmakers' fault because, naturally, no one wanted to disappoint the beloved novels' readers. Still, this decision prevents either movie from taking flight on its own. In this adventure, Harry [Daniel Radcliffe] begins his second year at the Hogwarts School of Wizardry. Forces are at work to keep Harry from continuing his education. As an especially gifted wizard apprentice, he poses a great threat to those sorcerers who want to use their gifts for dark purposes. Aided by his talents and those of his best friends and fellow students, Hermoine [Emily Watson] and Ron [Rupert Graves], Harry investigates the chamber of secrets, a place so terrible that it threatens the very existence of the school. As in the first movie, the young cast holds its own against such formidable veteran performers as Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Kenneth Branagh, and the late Richard Harris. The set design is fantastic, and the special effects are better than those in the first installment. Pushing three hours in length, the film might seem too long for children to sit through, but its commercial success suggests otherwise. Its real problem is that it contains scenes that are genuinely scary, especially for children with phobias about spiders and/or snakes. Otherwise, this is fantastic family entertainment.
Rating:
Summary: Great Movie
Review: I am a big fan of the Harry Potter series so I am biased towards this movie. The DVD offers a ton of great extras, such as walk-throughs of the Chamber set and a 'building a scene' featurette. Did I mention the movie is great? The first disk is dedicated to the movie, though it does have a nice summary of the first movie, in case you missed it. The movie is great, by the way. The first disk doesn't have any commentary tracks though, which is somewhat disappointing. The second disk offers all kinds of options, like cast interviews, deleted scenes, and the aforementioned walk-throughs. There are plenty of extras to keep you, or your kids, enthralled for hours. As far as the movie itself goes, it runs fairly close to the book of the same name. There are a few points where big fans like myself just have to grimace in pain. I understand needing to cut some things out for time reasons, but I don't understand why Nearly Headless Nick was cut almost entirely from the film. For those who don't know, he played a fairly important role in the second book. Looking past this, however, the movie is able to stand on its own. If you know nothing except what you learned from the first movie, or if you've never seen it, this movie provides a clear enough plot-line. In other words, you don't need to have seen the first one to understand this movie. Oh yeah, it's a great movie, but not as good as the firt.
Rating:
Summary: Much Better Than Most Sequels
Review: Even as the Harry Potter book series has maintained quality and grown up as it progresses, so this film is richer, darker, and more grown-up than the first. Harry and his friends are back for their second year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, but there is a plot afoot to rid the school of Mudbloods (wizards and witches born of Muggle or non-magic parents), and much of the evidence keeps pointing at Harry as the culprit. As the tension and fear rise amongst the students and staff, Harry, Ron, and Hermione try to prove Harry innocent and find the true culprit. This is a long film, at 161 minutes, and there is considerable violence and horror (beware the basilisk and the spiders!). Parents of younger children should probably screen this movie before deciding whether to let their children see it, ESPECIALLY IF THEIR CHILDREN HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK. When I saw the film in the theater, there were many young children in the audience. I was initially concerned about this, until I noticed that many of them were busy whispering explanations of the scenes and events to their parents. I concluded they had read the book and were easily distinguishing fantasy from reality. An unprepared nine-year-old might have trouble with the violence of the film, while a seven-year-old who had read the book likely would not.
Rating:
Summary: [bad] ACTING, [bad] EFFECTS
Review: I gave this movie four stars b/c the acting was a little fake, and the effects were to complex for the scenes. The script and the story were good though. Neither the game, the photo galeries, or the self guided tour were much fun. you just say left right or enter. If you are looking for a specific thing in special features it's hard to find. I would reccomend buying it if you just want to see the movie and don't care about little details.
Rating:
Summary: Best movie since Lord of the Rings Two Towers
Review: This movie is way better than the first one. The Special effects are well done and the plot of the movie is 90% consistent with the book. This movie is a must get for all those Harry Potter fans, and even if you are not you will almost guaranteed love this second installment of Harry Potter.
| 
