Rating: 
Summary: Harry Potter Does It Again and Better
Review: This movie was fantastic. The graphics were phenomenal. The lead actors were great making you really believe that they are Harry Ron and Hermione.There was a lot more action this movie with blazing magic. It was nice to see Malfoy, played by well Tom Felton, get his this time. One thing I noticed is that Harry, played by Daniel Radcliffe, is coming into his own. He has grown up to his magic and is a lot more confident with himself. The steely eyed look in his eye when he face Draco and his father as well as the beast in the Chamber. Adding Moaning Myrtle was nice in this movie as well but that character was more important this time. All in all I thought that this movie really let you see what the wizards of Hogwarts was all about. Wouldn't mind having Dumbledore on my side either. I give this movie five stars for action, acting, graphics, and good story line. Could have done without the spiders but I hate those things. Yuck! The ones in the movie were scary. And the care was great.
Rating:
Summary: Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets
Review: I read an interview with Ray Bradbury once where he said that the best way to adapt his books was to simply "stuff the pages into the camera." This is what has been done with the Harry Potter adaptations so far and the results are wonders to behold. Chamber of Secrets may be even better than Sorcerer's Stone. The first film was the introduction, this film provides a very solid plot, even as we meet new characters, some of whom will only be in this film (Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart, the new Defense Against the Dark Arts Instructor, is a safe revelation. Each teacher only lasts a year.) Others are welcome returns, especially Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid. But Richard Harris, in his final film, sadly looked tired and worn out, gamely going on with the show even if he wasn't feeling up to it. Of course the scenario did require all of the characters to undergo a great deal of stress so in context of the movie it works. The actors seem to have settled into their roles very comfortably and deliver strong performances throughout. This movie is darker and scarier than the first one with better special effects. The plot follows Harry on his 2nd year at Hogwarts where students start to be found in a petrified state -- frozen solid. Harry also starts to hear a slithering voice saying "Kill kill," and is often the first on the scene, making him a prime suspect. The words "The Chamber of Secrets has been opened" are written on the wall at the scene of the first attack, deepening the mystery for our hero. He and his friends Ron and Hermione must find out what the Chamber of Secrets is in order to save Hogwarts. The film runs 2 hours and 41 minutes, which is long for an alleged children's movie. But, although I often believe that most movies released during the past few years have tended to be too long, this is one of the exceptions. J.K. Rowling fashioned a very well constructed novel where everything played a part, from the flying car and Ron's younger sister at the beginning, to Hagrid's continued fascination with exotic creatures to Dobby the House Elf causing muschief for Harry Potter, to Draco Malfoy taunting Hermione to Moaning Myrtle who haunts a girls' lavatory. There was nothing that could be cut and keep the story coherent.
Rating:
Summary: Harry's back and better than ever!
Review: I am a huge Harry Potter fan, and I have to admit, I was a little scared when i went in to see this movie that it would ruin the book for me. I need not have worried! This movie is amazing, tapping into the true magical spirit of the books. It is very true to the book, though it does cut out the Deathday party, most important details are the same. Dobby, the basilisk, and other creatures are so real, they don't even look computer generated, and the Quidditch scenes are much better than in the Philosopher's Stone. The story itself is more dark and mature than PS, and the movie does the book justice in this sense. In short. . . I wanna see it again! and I can't wait for Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, as long as they stick as closely to the storyline and cast Sirius Black and Professor Lupin well. . . not to mention Dumbledore. . .
Rating:
Summary: Petrified Trees and Tree-eating People.
Review: Like the previous movie in the series, HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS stays pretty close to the book that it is based upon. This movie is darker and longer than HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE, but the novel was too. All of the previous characters from the first film are back and the most crucial elements of the novel survive intact and are brought to life on the screen. There are a few scenes missing, such as the Deathday party that Harry, Ron, and Hermione attend for Nearly Headless Nick. Much of the humor found in the novel is also missing, but I was pleased to find that this movie was much more humorous than it's predecessor. Also, watch the entire movie through the ending credits and find out what happens to Professor Lockhart. A great movie full of action and faithful to it's source.
Rating:
Summary: Great!
Review: I was a little disappointed with the first one, but I really liked this movie. The moie was pretty faithful to the book. The acting was good and the special effects were much better than in the first one. Over all, a great movie. Don't miss it!
Rating: 
Summary: A lot more "in-tune" to the spirit!
Review: In 2001, Director Chris Columbus (Home Alone) proved that he could handle children, special effects and the marvelous world of J.K Rowling in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". I liked the first, but still didn't feel completely filled. Of course, I had bigger expectations for "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets". It was one year later, and the filmmakers had that whole year to clean out their mistakes and make a better movie. Once again, I was not COMPLETELY satisfied with "Chamber of Secrets" but Columbus did learn a few points about filmmaking and it certainly is more in-tune with the spirit of J.K Rowling than the first was. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has not had a good summer. After dealing with his non-caring aunt, uncle and cousin, a strange impish creature called Dobby claims that he should not return to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry or he will be in mortal danger. However, Harry does not take any of this advice seriously, and reunites with Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger (Rupert Grint & Emma Watson) and heads back for Year II at Hogwarts. However, something is not right this year at the mystical Hogwarts: Students are turning up "petrified" all over the school and messages are written on the walls in blood, mentioning a mythical room in the castle called the "Chamber of Secrets". Who is the culprit? Could it be the muggle-hating Draco Malfoy? Could it possibly be Hagrid, the dangerous creature-loving half giant? Or is it Harry? A word to the wise: If you have never seen the first film, read any of the books or don't know a damn thing about Harry Potter, please, do not risk yourself with "Chamber of Secrets". It's a continuing story, and the movie doesn't stop to introduce us with the characters or the setting or theme. You will have no chance with this film if you don't know what "Quidditch", "Muggle" or "Mandrake" means. Back to the other side of every viewer: The Potter fan. As a reader of J.K Rowling's book, Columbus disappointed me with 2001's "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". The film was plaqued with amatuerish acting, below-average special effects and a storyline that couldn't keep whole interest in the 152-minute running time. I was anxious and nervous for "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets": Not only was it directed by Chris Columbus, it was longer and a great deal larger in scale than the original. However, the movie is really quite good. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" tries to aim at it's target audience, kids, and in my opinion, I say it succeeds there. It's not a movie for real little kids ages 7 and below. They'll be restless at the 161-minute running time, it would scare the pants off them, and it would be a bit of a chore for them with the labrinythian plot with nothing else to enjoy but the visuals. Columbus states that it is darker and scarier than "The Sorcerer's Stone". Darker? A bit, yes. Scarier? Really nothing a child 8 or above couldn't handle with a parent by their side, which is somewhat of a disappointment. Rowling is a lot more darker than what Chris Columbus presents on screen, but I guess he doesn't want angry parents shouting at him. But a joyful pleasure of Chris Columbus' direction of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is how visually alive it is. Pearly-white ghosts drift through chamber to chamber and paintings on the wall come to life once you get a closer look at them. A Quidditch match is boosted with flying players, Golden Snitches and threatening bludgers (one trying to get at Harry). The special effects deepen with gigantic spiders, a lethal snake, flying cars, phoenixes and magical spells, all which are visually appealing. A problem with "The Sorcerer's Stone" was that the special effects weren't truly magnificent. In "Chamber of Secrets", the special effects are all tightened and spit-shine. There is not one special effect that is not believable (at least, not for me). They are dazzling! (Specifically the finale monster) Hogwarts School has seemed have grown into a much more "living" invironment filled with strange creatures. It has a much darker (and more satisfying) look than what it looked like one year ago, a sort of kiddy-fide, video game setting. It's progressing into the darker stages of Rowling's work. The acting: Is it an improvement over "The Sorcerer's Stone"? In a simple answer: Yes, a huge improvement. I was particularly impressed with Daniel Radcliffe this time around. As Harry Potter, Radcliffe has seemed to grown with a lot more confidence in his role. He now knows how to portray believable emotion and also possess some heart. Sure, they somewhat made him into Indiana Jones or some kind of mini-Gladiator, and even sometimes at the end, the title could've been "Indiana Potter and the Chamber of Doom" but he needs to be heroic. Rupert Grint, however, was a bit mistreated. Chris Columbus seems to only want to use him as the source of laughs, and has kind of misplaced the nature of Ron Weasley. He is just as brave as Harry and is quite anxious for adventures. Emma Watson's Hermione was the best of three. In "The Sorcerer's Stone", she was forcing her lines that sometimes made me cringe! But in "Chamber of Secrets", Watson has wisened up and has presented the sassy and all-knowing Hermione from the books straight on the screen. The adult cast is also, once again, fabulous. Richard Harris gives his last role as Professor Albus Dumbledore, and Minerva McGonagall played by Maggie Smith. Two great actors steal the show: Kenneth Branagh and Alan Rickman as the preening Gilderoy Lockhart and the menacing Severus Snape. First, 'ol Professor Lockhart. Branagh's self-promoting new professor is a complete kill and never fails to generate laughs. The latter, Professor Snape played by Alan Rickman, is once again carefully planned, menacing, dark, funny and mesmerizing all in one. He is taken a back seat in this, but still will not give up his charm. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is more plot, less discovery. The joy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" was seeing this all for the first time. In "Chamber of Secrets" we are plunged right into the plot at first moment, and then never let go. Quidditch matches, duels, showdowns with creatures, an attack by spiders and the grand finale bring promise to the future installments. They are much more emotionally-driven than these first two, and with Alfonso Cuaron on the director seat, there should not be any disappointments. Until 2004, we'll manage with "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets". Visually dazzling and wonderfully acted, but not the perfect movie. There are problems, but they'll eventually be worked out in the future. So long Harry Potter. Until we meet again.
Rating:
Summary: Put aside the mass marketing and sensationalism......
Review: This movie far surpasses my expectations which doesn't happen often for anyone who has read the book first. Individual scenes are exceptional and well done, the special effects integrated well into the movie. I found that it most likely would not be appropriate for younger children for the scarier parts (spiders etc.) and the darker realism. The first movie was well done but this sequel is outstanding by comparison.
Rating:
Summary: Best Movie of the Year!
Review: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is an exciting and sometimes scary movie! I found it very entertaining and that all the actors did a beautiful job on their characters. It all starts when Ron and Harry almost get suspended for flying a car in the air and had seven muggle witnesses. From there it's a very excellent film. But I would not recommend this movie to anyone who is under 5, it can be very scary and discusting (escpecially when Ron throws up slugs). Other then that this movie will definetely do well in the box office! Harry Potter rules!
Rating:
Summary: Another Perfect Movie!
Review: They've done it again! I love this movie! If u want to see a good family movie, this is ur best choice.Although it is 2 hours and 41 minutes, this movie will keep u laughing, screaming, and geussing the whole way through!
Rating:
Summary: Amazing
Review: Harry Potter and the Chaber of Secrets was magical, hilarious, and scary- these adjectives even seem to trite compared to how great this movies is. I am a fan of the books and the first movie. In fact I loved the first movie, but Chamber of Secrets was even better. Where Stone lacked in comedy and action, Secrets made up for and then some. I think the reason is that this movie wasn't as much of an introduction as the first; so we could become enthralled with the characters right off the bat. The kids were really fantastic. Most notably, Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), his character provided much of the comic relief during the scary parts. Daniel Radcliffe was also good. Hermione (Emma Watson) was perfect once again; Her facial expressions were really funny. Kenneth Bragnah (Gilderoy Lockhart) was hilarious. He brought the same amount of pompous attitude that made Lockhart so funny in the book.This movie was a little scary, but not too much more than Disney movies (slightly scarier then when Ursula died in the Little Mermaid.) I think most of the people liked the movie in the theater where I saw it, because everyone cheesily proceeded to clap once the movie was over. The score by John Williams and the direction of Chris Columbus were perfect once again. I don't think the length of the movie will affect the little kids, because the only sound I heard during the movie was a little baby crying. See this movie if you want to be absorbed into a magial tale that won't let you down.
|
