Harry Potter i Komnata Tajemnic

At 160 minutes, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is just too long. It’s brilliantly filmed, the characters haven’t lost any of their charm and the darker approach suits the film, but it still seems more routine and static. As a fan of J.K. Rowling, I was definitely excited to see it. But as an impartial viewer, I missed having a remote control with a rewind button in places. (12.12.2002)

Better than the first one in every aspect, much darker and therefore much closer to my tastes. Radcliffe as Potter is once again dreadfully plankish, the actors playing Ron and Hermione are better, they are undeniably talented. Some of the scenes are so scary that little kids must get the creeps. For example, as an arachnophobe, I barely made it through the scene with the spiders. And back to Radcliff, I’m surprised they gave such a big role to a wooden actor like him. But when I see that one of the producers just happens to be called Radcliffe, I'm wonder if there wasn’t some nepotism involved. Anyway, in conclusion, I would just like to add that my desire for the Nimbus 2000 has passed. Now I want the Nimbus 2001, it’s supposed to have better aerodinamics. (22.06.2003)

Chris Columbus’s film is a bit better than The Philosopher's Stone and has better visual effects (though far from perfect), but the greatly exaggerated running time and the weak lead actor, who started to bore me after about thirty minutes, bring it down to mediocrity. If it weren't for the brilliant Kenneth Branagh and Jason Isaacs, it probably would have been even worse. (13.12.2002)

Well, this is definitely more watchable than The Philosopher's Stone... The atmosphere is a few shades darker, with the story thrown into a kind of Gothic gloomy and mysterious garb. For the first 40 minutes, I kind of yawned through the shower of digital effects and purely illustrative films that didn't do much for me as a non-reader of the books, but during the rest of the runtime it was a much fresher experience. It's just too bad that Columbus can't give the film more charm and poetry than the visual effects and artwork give it. And, of course, the actors, of whom I was most pleased by the eccentric egotist Kenneth Branagh... Unfortunately, the director is a routinist in every way, the author is every inch a conservative and a loner, which may benefit the film as a book illustration, but not the film as a film... Some scenes have a huge charge in them, which Columbus zeroes out with unruly and mechanical direction without a hint of invention (e.g., the spider scene in the Forbidden Forest) and sometimes it would benefit the film more to cling to the storyline and not overwhelm the viewer with details as much. In the end it's quite amusing, though quite stretched, and it's nice-looking, but it lacks more pronounced poetics... There is something good waiting in there, and when a handy director wakes it up... well, let's wait for the next films. (13.06.2004)

While sticking to his usual understated style, this time Columbus has a tremendous foothold in the original book which is one of the best (and best that works independently) of the series. Moreover, he “darkened" the atmosphere, and thanks to the well-cast duo of Branagh/Isaacs, he manages to partially correct the impression of the central trio which the camera closely follows the whole time, and who are still more like cute mannequins than real lead actors. It is still a mere illustration of the original, but this time at least a well made illustration which the extended version does no harm to (but nor does it add anything positive). Which is not to say I can't imagine it being cut down significantly. And even though it worked out for Columbus this time, thanks god for Cuarón next time! OST score: 3/5 (21.11.2010)

Columbus took on a task of gigantic proportions. Not only did he have to follow up on the success of the first film without repeating it, but he also had to adapt a book that holds the most ambiguous position in the entire series. It serves only to bring the reader (in this case, the viewer) closer to the characters and to create a strong connection with them for the future installments. The Philosopher's Stone introduced the heroes, The Chamber of Secrets and The Prisoner of Azkaban bring crucial parts of the mythology and key chapters of the entire history of the wizarding world. That's why I admire the director for handling everything with grace, even though he basically allowed the book to be almost entirely re-written into a screenplay without rushing it. With all the scenes that are typical for the Potter series and that may seem unnecessarily drawn-out to regular viewers, such as the Dursleys' introduction or Dobby's repeated hysterics, many creators would have stumbled and ended up with an unwatchable bore. Chris Columbus has heard countless complaints after the release of the film, calling him a mere people-pleaser who made a harmless family spectacle without atmosphere, but in reality, he created two films that the series desperately needed and laid the groundwork for Cuaron and others to experiment as they pleased. (12.07.2007)

Maybe the most anticipated movie of its time! We're already into the story and the first proper adventure is coming. The atmosphere pleasantly darkens and one enchantment pops up after another. I'm starting to adore Hogwarts and want to become Hermione's best friend. (13.05.2011)

Somewhat more mature, darker, and overall better than the first installment, and the silly cuteness and childishness are also on the decline, for which we thank both the author of the source material and the slightly older main characters. The visual effects are noticeably more elaborate, too – the sequence with the enchanted balloon is captivating. Perhaps only Williams's music is somewhat unimpressive and in most passages essentially copies the first part. The Chamber of Secrets is much more colorful and emotionally charged than its predecessor. Its massive running time is far from being an issue, contrary to what one might think, and despite it being nearly three hours long, the I rarely felt bored throughout the entire screening. Truly a significant upgrade. (31.07.2006)

Except for the overly annoying Dobby, who I didn't even like in the book, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is better than the first installment in every way. First of all, it is more entertaining, but also the stunts and action scenes have improved (the Quidditch has finally got some pizzazz), the plot is more interesting with "something/someone" threatening the students' lives, and the visit to Aragog's house is pleasantly scary. Again, I have no complaints about the child actors (okay, okay, Rupert Grint makes too many faces, I admit), and of the adults, I was impressed by Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart. And needless to say, every sentence and every glance of Rickman's Snape and Isaacs' Malfoy is also worth it. (07.09.2015)

Still too long and conceptually the same as the first one, but this time properly atmospheric and more original in the staging of the climactic scenes (the passage with the giant spiders is simply amazing, likewise, for its time, the fight with the basilisk). Plus, well-developed characters and a very skilled straddling between a very dark film and an innocent fairy tale for children. Of course, needless to say, had it stayed exclusively on the dark side, it would have been awesome, but that’s understandably impossible... 80% (02.05.2017)

The fairy-tale-like look of the first two films suits me, just as it suits me in the first two books. Such a form could be seen in a modern fairy tale, which "Harry Potter" actually was before it turned into a thriller for teenagers, which it actually is. Chris Columbus doesn't surprise with anything, he does his thing, but it's enough. However, it is visible that for the following films, this was a completely different starting point and a lot has changed since then. (28.01.2014)