--- title: "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets" critics_score: 66 critics_reviews: 13 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): what the critics said Critics' score 66 from 13 reviews: 8 positive, 3 mixed, 2 negative. 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. ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 15 November 2002. 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 the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets-2002) ## Radio Times — Tom Hutchinson Rating 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 the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-s5b7l5/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets/) ## Screen Daily Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 8 November 2002. 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 the review](https://www.screendaily.com/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets/4011188.article) ## Evening Standard — Alexander Walker Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. 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 the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/flying-colours-for-potter-7385862.html) ## Sight and Sound Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 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 the review](http://old.bfi.org.uk/features/ultimatefilm/chart/details.php?ranking=24) ## The New York Times — A. O. Scott Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 15 November 2002. 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 the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/15/movies/film-review-an-older-wiser-wizard-but-still-that-crafty-lad.html) ## Empire — Alan Morrison Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 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 the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/harry-potter-chamber-secrets-review/) ## The AV Club — Keith Phipps Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 22 November 2002. 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 the review](https://www.avclub.com/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets-1798198052) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 14 November 2002. 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 the review](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-archives-harry-potter-chamber-of-secrets-review-20170626-story.html) ## Slant Magazine Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 11 November 2002. 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 the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets/) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 12 November 2002. 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 the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) ## Digital Spy — Ryan Love Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 3 July 2011. 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 the review](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a327765/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets-a-retrospective/) ## Den of Geek — Mark Harrison Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 14 November 2019. 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 the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets-looking-back/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets.md