Rating: 
Summary: Not Evil
Review: Since I am a God-fearing, God-loving Christian,I had my reservations about watching the Harry Potter movies.I heard they were dark and evil.I found them to be entertaining and the biggest fact that I came out with is that the movie is more about love and loyalty to friends that wickedness.There are dark sides to everything but this I feel teaches what is good in people. Thank you. Teri
Rating:
Summary: Better than the first one
Review: While it still retains many of the elements that continue to make of the series a children's classic, I liked the second installment more than the "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" movie. The beginning was a little repetitive in some ways (Harry's family, the train departure, etc.) but past that, the movie took on a life of its own and became very enjoyable, with a whole plot woven around the existence of a terrible hidden Chamber of Secrets in Hogwarts. Some elements I found to be rather interesting were the uninvited house-elf (Dobby) and Dumbledore's beautiful Phoenix bird. Obviously deserved praise for the ingenious characters and their surroundings belongs to J.K. Rawling, the author of the books, but the movie in itself is capable to deliver a whole world of effects that blend very well into the brilliant story. With Mexican-born Alfonso Cuaron directing the next installment, the Potter movies promise to only get better with time, quite an accomplishment for sequels.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing Magic
Review: This is my very first DVD (Malaysia is bursting with DVDs nowadays, a little late I think). And I wasn't dissappointed as well. This movie is a little not so popular by comparison to the first in Malaysia but its attraction is overwelmingly great for me. I am very eager to watch the third installment from Harry
Rating:
Summary: A Close Second
Review: Ok, it might not have been as good as the first, but this second HP film is a must have for all HP fans. Two thumbs up up up.
Rating:
Summary: Astounding: Even better than the last movie!
Review: The last HP Movie "The Sorcerer's Stone" was a marvelous adaptation of J.K. Rowling's first Harry Potter book and was hard to pull off onto the big screen but it was almost completely successful and truly amazing. The follow-up "Chamber Of Secrets" is even better, longer, darker, and more suspenseful than the first one. This is one of the best examples of the "Sequel Upswing". Director Chris Columbus truly brings out the magic of Harry Potter onto the big screen and maintains the faith and magic of Rowling's novels. There are some occasional humor jokes scattered throughout an other dark movie. The second installment in the movie series begins with Potter being locked up in his room at the house of his horrible Aunt Petunia Dursley, Uncle Vernon Dursley and his stupid and spoiled cousin Dudley Dursley in the London suburb of Surrey and thinks that his friends Ron and Hermione have forgotten him after not getting single reply from him Ron and his twin brothers bust him out of the Dursley's house. The movie brings the Harry Potter, Ronald Weasley, and Hermione Granger trio into a much darker arena. The darkness of the dangers is first evident when an elf named Dobby comes to the awful Dursley's house and warns Potter not to return to Hogwarts this year. Potter though goes to Hogwarts in defiance of Dobby but runs into problems at platform 9 and ¾ but that's not the main danger and Harry, Ron, and Hermione face much more dangerous events that threaten Hogwarts as a secret underground chamber called the Chamber Of Secrets has been opened by none other than the 'heir of Slytherin'. They must find how who the heir of Salazar Slytherin is as he is the one who knows where the Chamber is. During that time, several questions arise in who opened the Chamber of Secrets when Harry finds a little diary from a Hogwarts student from 50 years ago named Tom Riddle and also find a monster responsible for the death of a Hogwarts student around the same time as well. It gets darker and more intense as the movie progresses. We also meet new characters and including his archenemy Draco Malfoy's tyrannical father Lucius Malfoy played by Jason Isaacs. The rivalry between Harry and Draco also seems to grow bitterer as they get older especially with Malfoy's increasing bigotry against normal humans aka muggles and belief that 'purebloods' (born to magical parents) are superior to all half-bloods and muggleborns. I just hope that it doesn't reach to like a 'fight to the death' kind of rivalry though or Draco becoming the 'next Voldemort' but you never know. Still though, it's fun to watch Malfoy hit major speed bumps when trying to act out his rivalry against Potter but unfortunately winds up endure embarrassing accidents as a result. Severus Snape is once again the cold mean mysterious Head of Slytherin House Teacher. The main thing though in this movie that slightly disappointed me was that there wasn't enough of the mysterious character Severus Snape. He's one of my favorite characters and he should've been given a much larger role in COS. Oh Well. There are three main unsettling scenes though for younger viewers or those who hate creepy-crawlies. There are lots of them in the movie and it will creep the living daylights out of those who have revulsion towards snakes. 'Snake Lovers' though like most people, will definitely enjoy this movie a lot. There are also quite a good number of spiders in the movie too. Scenes like these will scare the living daylights out of those who suffer from arachnophobia and fear them like the plague. Arachnophobics (Correct me if I'm wrong) might want to hold on tight on the seats when the spider scenes come during various parts of the movie. For me though, I'm not scared of either snakes or spiders so they don't bother me in this movie at all. In fact, these are among my favorite of the creepy-crawly animals so there you have it. I actually enjoy the spiders but let's not warp the subject of this review though. The third scene is the bloody writing on the walls of the dormitory hallways and it can frighten some skittish viewers. For me, none of the three things bother me at all. In fact, the creepier feel of this movie makes it even more entertaining than the previous Harry Potter movie. Just for a little extra, I've even had a pet snake many years ago. ;-) The choreography is once again astonishing. The "Enchanted Car" flying through the air was eye-popping and was great to watch instead of being cheesy and silly. The Quidditch match was much more addicting and eye-popping to watch than the match in the last movie and that one was awesome too just so you know. I wouldn't be surprised of "Quidditch" winds up being added to the dictionary. I think that's one of the best made up words of all time. Overall, I have to say that "The Chamber Of Secrets" is a successful achievement and builds upon the success and greatness of "Sorcerer's Stone", resulting in a near-masterpiece if not an epic one. The movie is much longer than the last one, running at 2 hours and 40 minutes, scarier with occasional scenes that might be a little frightening for younger viewers, and much more suspenseful than the last one. Despite the frightening and darker tone of "The Chamber Of Secrets" and the bumbling of Gilderoy Lockheart, it is a fascinating and astonishing achievement in adapting Rowling's second novel to the big screen and is destined to become another classic in the years to come. Now begins the wait and anticipation for the third installment "Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban" due out in 2004. I give my hats off to Chris Columbus and company for creating another great Harry Potter movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Very Disappointing
Review: OK - I love the books. I felt the first movie was OK, but not great. But this one is not good at all. The director (Columbus) was terrible; he truly let down the audience. I know people liked the films, but if you want to watch a good "movie" - seek elsewhere. I'm really hoping the new director working on Book 3 does a better job. I am trying to cleanse my mind of these awful parodies of what were brilliant novels, so that when I re-read them I will not be encumbered with the memories of terrible scenes and bad acting. Hagrid was fine, Dumbledore (Harris) you can tell is obviously not well (and soon died), Potter is so disappointing and stiff, Ron Weasley does nothing but make silly faces throughout. Oh, and there was a plot somewhere in all that mess. Very sad. I blame it all on the director. I was stunned at what a bad job was made of a great book. The whole purpose of the books was to highlight the deep relationships between the characters, but that aspect is totally skipped in favor of menial special effects and pure nonsense (why do we need to see and hear slugs being vomited out of Weasley's mouth - funny in the book when you can use your imagination, but disgusting when detailed so graphically in the film). The director has no "soul", and I rank this along with his many other bad movies. What a terrible decision putting him in charge. Here's to Book 5 out soon - and I'm done with the films.
Rating:
Summary: WOW!!!
Review: Harry potter and the sorcerers stone is a must have. Although this one is a lot better. I would give the first 4 stars, but this one gets 5!!! Without a question this is a must own. Back in 2001 I thought Harry Potter and the sorcerers stone was good.
Harry potter and the chamber of secrets introduces a lot of new funny charicters. First you have Dobby, a house elf that causes a lot of trouble.and 2nd weve got Gilderoy Lockhart, a professor who braggs about dumb things like his smile. If you havent seen it yet please do. Harry Potters 1 and 2 will blow you away!
Rating: 
Summary: What's in it for the adults?
Review: First, I loved the movie. The question is, should you buy the DVD? Not if you're over 12 years old. The special features are all very kid-oriented, which is OK because it's mostly a kids' movie, but I wish there were a little something for us "grown-ups" to look at. The cast interviews focus on the child actors, while the adult actors got only a few seconds each, during which they mostly talk about the child actors. Snape, for example, is in my opinion the most interesting character, and I'd have loved to hear Alan Rickman say something about playing him. And who wouldn't love to hear more from Jason Isaacs or Kenneth Brannagh? The other special features, such as quizzes, games, and tours, have a condescending tone to them that I imagine would even bother younger children. I know it would have bothered me as a child.
Rating:
Summary: The "Great" Harry Potter
Review: In short, this movie was made solely by special effects and the plot. The only good actor, and many aren't even decent, was Kenneth Branagh, who played Gilderoy Lockhart in the Chamber of Secrets. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) and his friends show little to no emotion during the movie, and even the more experienced actors portraying the teachers do little to show their talent.
This movie, even though I thoroughly bash it above, was a huge improvement from the first, and I am anticipating the next installment. Once the main characters learn how to act, then these movies should have enourmous potential. The special effects are wonderful, I didn't think they would pull that off, and the plot provided by J.K. Rowling's books are superb. In particular, I am waiting for the announcement of the beginning of the production of Goblet of Fire, for I think that should be a very interesting movie to watch.
In conclusion, all those who liked the first movie should go out and see Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. For those who would've liked Sorcerer's Stone had some aspects improved, they should go see Chamber of Secrets because those things have probably been improved. And finally, for all those who disliked or hated the first movie, do NOT go see the second in the ongoing series. **I hope you found this review helpful**
Rating: 
Summary: Check out this film that's surprisingly entertaining!
Review: I'll start this one off on an odd note: I ...(.. HATED THE FIRST HARRY POTTER FILM. I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE that film. Never before have I seen such a commercially driven flick designed to do nothing more than drain parents' wallets. But I liked this film. Surprised the hell out of me. This film starts off on a note that I thought was going to be a re-hash of what I didn't like about the first flick: namely cutesy-wutsey-oh-thats-so-funny-family-slapstick-comedy. Once it escapes this "dungeon" that it has found itself in and manages to get to the meat of the film, it's pretty darned good. Gone are the pointless references that are thrown in your face. Gone are the explanations of things so long (and only slightly less pointless) that they bore you to tears. No no no... in this installment the filmmakers actually manage to create a sense of danger and suspense. They set up a villain that is unexpected and interesting, and even manage to throw in a few pointless references that don't annoy me to death. The players in this film also deserve a mention. Every actor in this film seems to have become more comfortable with their work in this installment. Daniel Radcliffe's performance (and his much deeper voice which gave me a chuckle or two) is much more.. mature, Rupert Grint (while still kind of a whiner) has at least two moments of actual backbone, and Emma Watson also has some genuinely interesting moments. To say nothing of Alan Rickman (my hero)'s performance. All in all a really good film. I even will grudgingly admit that the first (again, awful) film was necessary in order to lay a foundation for this one.
| 
