Beautiful effects and a great plot add up to make a wonderful movie

Rating: 9/10 (17 November 2002)

Possible spoilers.
"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets," the second movie out of a possible seven absolutely delighted the audience. I've only been to a few movies that earned applause at the end, and this was one of them.
After being sorely disappointed in the first Harry Potter movie, the second, "Chamber of Secrets," was a wonderful surprise. First of all, the graphics and special effects were great. Hogwarts Castle no longer looked like an obvious computer generated image and the Quidditch Match was very believable. Add the dozens of other effects, and "Chamber of Secrets" really came to life.
Unfortunately, the first movie sorely lacked in acting talent in the students, with the exception of Hermione. Although her character is much more of a prat than a caring friend in the movies, Emma Watson does a wonderful job with it. Grint greatly improved from the "Sorcerer's Stone," and absolutely lighted up the screen in his few moments, especially the Aragog scene. The only problem here was the small amount of time we really got to see him in the movie. Radcliffe also improved A LOT from the first movie, in which he seemed more like a wooden board. Harry had emotion in this movie, which made an obvious change. Kenneth Branagh as Professor Lockhart was perfect. I can't even find anything wrong here.
Dobby seems to be taking a lot of undeserved bashing. I don't know how people expected him to appear, but he was exactly what I imagined a house-elf to look like. "Annoying?" Yes, he is quote annoying. He is SUPPOSED to be annoying. It is how Rowling meant for him to be. But looking beyond that, you really have to love him. Everyone in the theater I was in laughed at his antics. He is a very important part of the story, and brings more mystery into it. What it would be without him, I can't even imagine.
One thing I was upset about was the basilisk. The snake wasn't supposed to physically look like a monster; its terror was in its size and power. The basilisk in the movie looked like a relation of Godzilla.
The second most common complaint is how closely if follows the book. Hmm, well, now that I think about it, the movie is supposed to follow the book. Could that possibly have anything to do with it? If any of the major events were changed it wouldn't be predictable, but it wouldn't be how Rowling meant it to be. As a big fan of Harry Potter, I would be outraged if the movie DIDN'T follow the book. The movie is just meant to give the reader a clearer view of characters, which it successfully does. And it was far from unexciting. As a high school student, I can say that I not only laughed during the movie, but I also screamed (really) and jumped many times. The Aragog scene was absolutely terrifying, as were many scenes in the chamber.
When you look at negative reviews, they are obviously biased- most say it straight out. I admit it is no "Lord of the Rings," but "Harry Potter" has its own wonderful aspects. The two shouldn't even be compared as they are meant for different audiences.
Overall, even though I wasn't expecting very much, I was pleasantly surprised. I can't wait to go see it again.
4 1/2 stars out of 5. Wonderful plot, special effects, music, and improved acting.