Better? Maybe. Spectacular? Hardly.

Rating: Null/10 (15 November 2002)

HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS hits theaters this week-end and, as the devoted Potter-er that I am, I was determined to see it as soon as possible.
My opinion?
Well....
The child acting has matured-most particularly that of Daniel Radcliffe who, reprising his role as the title protagonist, appears more at ease in front of the camera the second time round. His timing periodically staggers slightly, but in general his portrayal of Harry has improved (the viewer should realize that due to his abusive past, Harry isn't SUPPOSED to be unduly expressive). Emma Watson is appropriately sprightly as pal Hermione; however, Rupert Grint-so memorable in the previous film-has lost some of his snarky wit and charisma inherent in the first movie. The fault partially falls upon the actor (one can only stand so many terrified expressions) but also onto the script, which seems to highlight Ron as a perpetual coward.
The adult cast can sport some of cinema's greats, including the late Richard Harris, Dame Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane.but, sadly, they were mostly underused. A special mention must be conferred upon Kenneth Branaugh's narcissistic Lockhart and to Jason Isaac's deliciously malicious Lucius Malfoy. Alan Rickman, who proved to be such a superb addition to the cast, was heinously underused as Snape and is especially missed, being one of the most fascinating characters of the series.
Aesthetically, the film succeeds splendidly. Especially the set designs were spectacular-from the castle, to the forest, to the chamber of secrets itself. But without a solid base, the movie cannot remain steady.
The pacing is where the film truly stumbles. The first movie was apt at slowing down its brisk pace at the suitable moments, at once giving the audience a chance to breath and, more importantly, adding a touch of human element where it was needed, an element sorely lacking the second movie.
The second movie tends to over-emphasize the action sequences and replace character development and plot progression with more unnecessary action (the car's aerobatics with the train).
The so-called `plot' in the movie simply plods from one action sequence to the next-most of which have little to do with the actual plot itself. I felt little continuity in the plot. The series of events only drag us through the movie's two-hour, forty-five minute time until we suddenly find ourselves at the rushed climax, which-lo and behold-seems to serve only as another excuse to stick in some more action.
Rather than leaving the theater happy, the movie left me with a sense of dissatisfaction and left me thinking, `What happened to the story?'
I'm looking forward to the upcoming movie, though. I'm definitely keen to see how another director will handle the books. Columbus' clumsy directing coupled with Steve Kloves' jerky, bungling script seriously detract from the film.
It's an entertaining little film. Your kids will love it. But if you're looking for something with plot and character development, look elsewhere. You might find greater enchantment in the books themselves.