Rating: 
Summary: The best movie of the year !
Review: I thought Harry Potter and the Scorcers Stone was good. But Harry Potter and the Chamber Of Secrets is way better! There are more new characters, settings and enemies in the movie. When I went to see to the movies, I was so excited. I'm a huge Harry Potter fan. It's a must see movie! And it's the best of the year! I got it only a month after it came out on video and DVD. From a big Harry Potter fan it's an A+++ movie.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter Is Back
Review: Great Acting By The Cast, And Very Much In Tact With The Book. Its A Great Familyt Movie Full Of Scary Surprises, And Alot Of Comedic Standpoints. This One Will Surely Stand The Test Of Time In Movies...
Rating:
Summary: Congrats to the makers of this movie
Review: I am not one of those 'Potterheads' going to midnight book-store parties before the newest sequel comes out, but I do love the series, and it never fails to grab me. But the first movie disapointed me. I went in the theaters with high expectations and came out raging on about how they changed this left out that. It seemed as if the movie was way too long, and merely scenes put together. Also I thought they could have done a better job in choosing Harry considering acting skills. But the second movie was really great. You could follow the plot and make sense of it all. They did a great job with Ron(even if it can get a little over the top) he never fails to be funny. I still think Harry is too sullen, always with a stoney face, never much expression. But maybe that's just me, I am always very critical with actors. Of course the movies could never beat the books, and they couldn't really possibly include all of the books in the movies.But I have to say they did a great job on the second and I can't wait for the third.
Rating: 
Summary: -- Good --
Review: It is good to watch, but not as good as Part I . If the special effects were given more attention it would have come out much better.
Rating: 
Summary: Good movie, bad translation
Review: Rating this just as a movie, it is great. Rating it as a translation of the book, its not so good. Some of the funniest scenes in the book were changed (or left out). When Harry and Ron arrive at school, they look into the great hall and wonder where Professor Snape is when suddenly they hear his voice from behind them (very funny). The movie translation, they walk up the stairs and right up to Filch (not funny). The small side plots in the book were totally left out in the movie. It makes me wonder what kind of butcher job they are going to do to the third movie (probably in post production now).
Rating:
Summary: "Hogwarts is no longer safe. It is as we feared"
Review: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is much darker and more insidious in nature than 2001's Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. This is not meant as a criticism; indeed, it is partly due to the undercurrent of menace, that this second filmic journey into the wizarding world surpasses its predecessor in terms of quality, enjoyment and heart-in-your-mouth scares. While it is funny and light-hearted in places, it doesn't gloss over the unpleasant aspects of life, and deals with racism in particular. It is Harry's second year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, but owing to a blocked up wizarding portal, a flying Ford Anglia, and a whomping willow, the beginning of the term is far from ideal. Then Harry begins to hear voices in the walls of the school; voices that no one else is aware of. It would seem that the fabled Chamber of Secrets has been opened, and that the horror residing within has been unleashed upon the students. It is nice to see how the young actors have developed their roles, although Ron's (Rupert Grint) slightly overdone comedic style would perhaps be more suited to stage performance. The real stars of the film however, are not the actors, but the wonderful and intricately detailed sets. From Hogwarts' gothic cathedral, to the glorious muddle of the Weasley household (complete with self-washing dishes and self-knitting jumpers), to the grime and nastiness of Knockturn Alley, the built sets are far more impressive than the CGI wizardry. In particular, the Quidditch match takes far too long and isn't really all that exciting. Having said that though, the computer-animated outsize spider sequence will likely scare the socks off small children, and probably even some parents as well!
Rating:
Summary: Read the Book, Skip the Movie
Review: The book was so much better than this attempt at a movie that it's painful to watch it. I didn't like the first movie all that much, but I didn't thtink it was so bad that I should skip the second movie. Now, I regret that I bothered to see it. It's not even that the effects are bad- most of them were okay- or that the scenery was wrong- though it was certainly not what I had pictured... It was more that the actors were terrible, the story was no where near as good as the book and it was just.... disappointing. I knew going in that there was no way that they could have matched the book in terms of greatness- but this was such a huge disappointment to me... As to the extra features on the DVD? Well, it's a good thing I watched it on my computer and could point and click- I can't imagine trying to navigate that disaster with a remote control. Stupid trivia questions bar the way to seeing the extra scenes and checking out all of the extra features- not that there are many in the first place! The only reason I'm still planning on seeing PoA is the new director and the introduction of Sirius... (And, Merlin, if they cut Quidditch out of the third book, I swear to you that I will be writing more than one angry letter- and demanding another new director.) ...
Rating: 
Summary: I Could Give It Zero... If Possible
Review: Movies are a form of entertainment but Chamber of Secrets is a form of falling asleep due to boredom.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a way-too faithful adaptation of J.K. Rowling's phenomanal book series. The pacing is slow and the film is all chopped up.
The acting could be much better. Daniel Radcliffe is downright bad, an empty, emotionless adolescent. Rupert Grint is a juvenile crybaby. Richard Harris is a mechanical zombie. Draco Malfoy is scary because Tom Felton is so terrible at portraying him. Sean Biggerstaff seems to think his looks will make up for his empty lines. None of these actors have a good looking career future in acting. There is a lack of character development and complexity so be prepared to say aloud "Harry is so one-dimensional!"
The special effects are corny. The basilisk looks more reptilian than snake. Dobby looks like something who was born in a toilet.
Instead of following the movie you'll be on the look-out for the 176 mistakes I spotted.
The sets will forever compete with the one in your head while reading the books. The biggest are Hogwarts exterior, Diagon Alley, the Chamber of Secrets, Dumbledore's Office, the Great Hall, the Slytherin dungeons, the Dursley home, Moaning Myrtle's bathroom, and Hagrid's Hut (it's supposed to be wood). I thought of Hogwarts as a warm, cozy, safe place but it is a cold, dungeon-like juvenile delinquent facility.
The special features are cheesy and the deleted scenes are pretty useless. There are no commentary tracks.
This film has the lamest ending a movie has ever had and you'll ask why J.K.R ever sold film rights to her literary masterpiece, now turned childish franchise by the executives at Warner Brothers.
You'll regeret watching it so don't even think of buying it. Any movie is better than this.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent work
Review: I read all the books, I did not believe it was possible to create half of what was written in a fantasy fairy tales into a movie and make it look so real. Hollywood must be organized for miracles and decide to perform them to the public.
Rating:
Summary: love it
Review: The title says it all. The movie takes you on a wonderful journey. It is nice to see all of the characters come back for more.
| 
