--- title: "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" year: 2002 kind: "film" canonical: "https://film.one/film/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets" fi1m_score: 65 critics_score: 66 critics_reviews: 13 published: "2026-09-19T15:32:52.165919+00:00" updated: "2026-09-19T15:32:52.625398+00:00" region: "US" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) Directed by Chris Columbus · 2h 41m · MPA PG · Adventure, Fantasy **Fi1m score: 65** · Critics 66 from 13 reviews *In a sentence:* The walls bleed, the spiders are enormous and Kenneth Branagh is the only person having a good time > Chris Columbus’s second trip to Hogwarts is darker, better built and a good half hour too long. Kenneth Branagh’s preening Lockhart and Stuart Craig’s sets earn the evening; the film around them is a book read aloud with pictures. ## Synopsis Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is spending the summer with the Dursleys, Vernon (Richard Griffiths) chief among them, when a house-elf called Dobby (voiced by Toby Jones) appears in his bedroom and begs him not to return to Hogwarts. He goes anyway, rescued in a flying car by Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and taken first to the Burrow, the Weasleys’ leaning home. At school the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher is Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh), a celebrity author more interested in his own photographs than in his pupils. Then a message appears on a corridor wall in blood: the Chamber of Secrets has been opened. Harry starts hearing a voice in the walls that nobody else can, and he, Ron and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) set out to find what is loose in the castle before it finds them. ## Review Chris Columbus’s second Harry Potter film does most things a little better than the first. It is darker, faster when it moves and more handsomely built, and it is 161 minutes long, which for a story about a school year and a monster in the plumbing is about thirty too many. Steve Kloves’s screenplay keeps nearly everything from J.K. Rowling’s novel, and the result is complete rather than shaped. Children who know the book will not mind. Anyone else should know what they are signing up for. Stuart Craig has widened the world. The Burrow is a house that should have fallen down years ago, rooms stacked on rooms, a kitchen where the washing-up does itself. Lockhart’s classroom is hung with portraits of Lockhart. Roger Pratt lights the school with less sunshine than before: the corridors are amber, the courtyards grey, and when the message appears on the wall it is lit by torches so the letters look wet. Lindy Hemming puts Lockhart in robes the colour of his own book jackets. Kenneth Branagh is the reason to sit through it. His Gilderoy Lockhart has the smile of a man watching himself in a mirror that is not there, and whenever the plot needs him to be useful he is elsewhere signing photographs. We laughed out loud at his duelling club, where Alan Rickman’s Snape throws him the length of a hall and he gets up insisting that was the plan. Jason Isaacs plays Lucius Malfoy as patient contempt: white hair, black cane, a voice that never rises. Shirley Henderson, a grown woman playing a teenage ghost who has been sulking in a lavatory since she died, is the film’s oddest and best joke. The children are as they were, a year taller. Daniel Radcliffe has settled into the part; he is still stiff whenever he has to say a line rather than react to one. Rupert Grint carries the film’s fear with his whole face, especially in a forest sequence involving spiders that frightened us more than a PG has any business doing; Grint’s terror was half the reason. Emma Watson delivers her lines as if each one were being marked. The adults are mostly furniture: Richard Harris’s Dumbledore is gentle and largely absent, Robbie Coltrane’s Hagrid is given one thing to do, and Rickman is on screen for perhaps six minutes. Dobby, voiced by Toby Jones, will divide a sofa; Jones does what is asked, and what is asked is squeaking. Here is what we felt. When Harry first hears the voice in the walls, a hiss moving along a corridor under John Williams’s low strings, we sat up; it is the film’s best idea and Columbus handles it with a restraint he shows nowhere else. Somewhere in the second hour, during a Quidditch match faster and rougher than the first film’s, we caught ourselves checking our watch and were annoyed, because the pictures were still good. The trouble is Peter Honess’s cut, or the brief he was given: nothing goes. Every subplot from the book gets its full scene, so the mystery, which is a good one, keeps stopping to let something else through. Williams brings back the flying theme from the first film and adds a sliding minor-key motif for the Chamber that is unsettling the first time and less so the eighth. Columbus directs as he did before: he points the camera at the thing and lets the thing be spectacular. That works for a flying car chasing a steam train and less well when a scene needs shaping rather than displaying, and the climax runs on well after its point has been made. Against *Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone* (2001) this is an improvement in every department except length. If you have children who know the book, put it on and let them tell you what is coming; they will be right. If not, watch it at home over two evenings. The film is long enough to have an interval built in, and generous enough not to notice you have taken one. *Fi1m score 65, published 19 September 2026.* ## What the critics say Most critics find this a modest step up from the first film: darker, faster and more dangerous, with better effects and a Hogwarts that feels larger and stranger. The praise clusters around the new adults, Kenneth Branagh’s preening Lockhart above all, with Jason Isaacs close behind, and around the sets, the Burrow and the Chamber itself singled out. The three young leads strike several reviews as more natural this time, though a few still call the child performances uneven. The reservations are about fidelity and length. Several critics say Columbus follows the book so closely that the film runs long and leans on readers to fill in the characters, with Empire calling it an illustration rather than an adaptation. The spread is wide. The Los Angeles Times finds the tone lurching between the grotesque and the saccharine, and Slant Magazine dismisses it as an overstuffed, tiresome episode. Roger Ebert is the warmest, finding it richer and more inventive than its predecessor. ### Reviews we read (13) - **RogerEbert.com**, Roger Ebert (85/100, inferred): The film is a richer, darker and more inventive payoff than the first, expanding Hogwarts into a vivid world of secrets with strong supporting characters and visual invention. Columbus directs with visual flair that makes the action sequences exciting rather than routine. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets-2002) - **Radio Times**, Tom Hutchinson (4/5): Those who love the books will enjoy this darker, scarier sequel more than the first. Kenneth Branagh stands out as the egotistical Lockhart, though some mechanical repetition creeps in and Dumbledore's character is underused. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-s5b7l5/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets/) - **Screen Daily** (80/100, inferred): The film sticks closely to the book and delivers more thrills and danger than the first, with improved effects and strong turns from Branagh, Isaacs and Henderson. Some sluggish passages exist but it should match the predecessor's box-office success. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets/4011188.article) - **Evening Standard**, Alexander Walker (75/100, inferred): The second-year Hogwarts adventure shows progress across departments, with faster and more furious Quidditch, strong performances from the young cast, and effective handling of the central mystery and monster. It maintains the series' charm and spectacle while noting some staff underperformance and the director's straightforward style. [Read](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/flying-colours-for-potter-7385862.html) - **Sight and Sound** (70/100, inferred): The review notes the film's close fidelity to the book and improved effects over the first film, while observing that child performances remain uneven and expressing hope for the next director. [Read](http://old.bfi.org.uk/features/ultimatefilm/chart/details.php?ranking=24) - **The New York Times**, A. O. Scott (70/100, inferred): Columbus has acquitted himself honorably with a film that is a little better than the first, showing more dexterity while remaining lively on the page. The story moves backward and forward through wizard history and Harry's coming of age without too many disappointments. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/15/movies/film-review-an-older-wiser-wizard-but-still-that-crafty-lad.html) - **Empire**, Alan Morrison (65/100, inferred): The film is a faithful but overly reverential on-screen illustration of the book that will satisfy avid fans with its completeness while potentially confusing or boring casual viewers. It improves on the first film with funnier, scarier, and more action-heavy sequences plus polished effects, though its excessive length remains a drawback. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/harry-potter-chamber-secrets-review/) - **The AV Club**, Keith Phipps (65/100, inferred): The film works well as a cinematic version of the book, with intact elements like Quidditch and a strong cast making the fantasy convincing under Columbus's direction. However, it relies too heavily on book familiarity for character depth, features pedestrian effects, and ends with a Scooby-Doo-like unmasking amid familiar John Williams-style music. [Read](https://www.avclub.com/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets-1798198052) - **Los Angeles Times**, Kenneth Turan (40/100, inferred): The film fails to capture the book's well-balanced tone, overdoing both scary grotesque elements and happy beaming moments. Columbus' treatments are unlikely to rise above acceptable expensive copies despite intelligent casting and production values. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-archives-harry-potter-chamber-of-secrets-review-20170626-story.html) - **Slant Magazine** (20/100, inferred): The review mocks the film as a long, redundant episode full of unnecessary elements like Dobby and Lockhart, with Columbus's direction including gratuitous shots and familiar tropes. It portrays the adventure as raucous but ultimately tiresome and overstuffed. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets/) - **Eye for Film**, Angus Wolfe Murray (75/100, inferred): The critic finds the second Harry Potter film benefits from familiarity, feeling more like a story than a showcase. They single out the natural performances of the three young leads and the film's steady pacing toward its impressive climax. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) - **Digital Spy**, Ryan Love (70/100, inferred): Notes the film's darker tone, strong new performances including Kenneth Branagh and Jason Isaacs, and its commercial success as a solid sequel that left the franchise in good shape. Highlights some critics' praise for the adaptation while noting issues with excessive length from sticking closely to the book. [Read](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a327765/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets-a-retrospective/) - **Den of Geek**, Mark Harrison (65/100, inferred): Praises the film's production design, especially sets like the Burrow and Chamber of Secrets, and improved CGI such as the Basilisk. Criticizes the hit-and-miss humor, mawkish emotional beats, and overly reverent adaptation that feels pedestrian and cheesy in tone. [Read](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets-looking-back/) ## Details - **Director:** Chris Columbus - **Director:** Chris Columbus - **Screenplay:** Steve Kloves - **Novel:** J.K. Rowling - **Cinematography:** Roger Pratt - **Editor:** Peter Honess - **Music:** John Williams - **Production design:** Stuart Craig - **Costume design:** Lindy Hemming - **Producer:** David Heyman - **Cast:** Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter; Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley; Emma Watson as Hermione Granger; Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart; Toby Jones as Dobby (voice); Robbie Coltrane as Rubeus Hagrid; Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore; Alan Rickman as Severus Snape - **Runtime:** 2h 41m - **Certificate (MPA):** PG - **Release (the US):** 15 November 2002 - **Genres:** Adventure, Fantasy - **Budget:** $100 million - **Box office:** $877 million - **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE11U5iBnH0 ## Where to watch in the US - Peacock: streaming, hd - HBO Max: streaming, uhd - Hulu: add-on, hd - The Roku Channel: add-on, hd - Amazon Prime Video: add-on, uhd - Amazon Prime Video: rent $5.99, uhd - Amazon Prime Video: buy $9.99, uhd *Checked 2026-09-19.* Also available in: AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EC, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, HK, HR, HU, ID, IE, IL, IN, IS, IT, JP, LT, MX, MY, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PE, PH, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SG, SI, TH, TR, US. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country. ## Awards - 2003 MTV Movie Awards 2003: 2003 MTV Movie Awards (nominated) - BAFTA Film Awards 2003: BAFTA's Children & Young People Award - Feature Film (nominated); Best Sound (nominated); Best Special Visual Effects (nominated) - Hugo Awards 2003: Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form (nominated) - Japan Academy Prize for Outstanding Foreign Language Film 2003: Japan Academy Prize for Outstanding Foreign Language Film (nominated) - Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Movie 2003: Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Movie (nominated) - Saturn Awards 2003: Best Special Effects (nominated) - Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Composer 2002: Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Composer (nominated) - Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Family Film 2002: Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Family Film (won) - Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Young Performer 2002: Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Young Performer (nominated) - Saturn Awards 2002: Best Costume (nominated) ## If you liked this - *Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban* (2004), Fi1m 82: The next one, with a director who cuts pages and finds a mood — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/harry-potter-and-the-prisoner-of-azkaban.md) - *Matilda* (1996): A gifted child, a monstrous school and a headmistress worth fearing - *Kiki's Delivery Service* (1989), Fi1m 86: A young witch leaves home and the film trusts her to manage — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/kikis-delivery-service.md) - *The Witches* (1990): Roald Dahl by way of Nicolas Roeg; frightens children and means to - *Coraline* (2009), Fi1m 85: Another house with something behind the walls, and far more nerve — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/coraline.md) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets