The magician seemed to have cast a stronger spell with this one

Rating: 8/10 (21 July 2003)

HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS / Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson / Directed by Chris Columbus and Written by Steve Kloves / Rated PG / ***

Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry was once a thing of beauty, in some ways playing like a resort beach house, a vacational spot which happened to be occupied by kidlets of the magical kind. However, that time has passed, and Hogwarts School is under an attack from it's own past. For when Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) receives warning of this dark force by an extremely worried house elf called Dobby, he is determined to save his magical school, not without, though, the help of his friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson).
With Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, it's clear that director Chris Columbus is taking the safe way with the beginning chapters of the film franchise based on J.K Rowling's bestselling book series. Of all the 161 minutes I had witnessed of this second movie adaptation, I do not believe seeing any piece of the material dismissing what actually happened in the original source. Columbus is a rather uninspired director and this, like Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, is a cut-and-paste job. There was no bravery in making this film, but what I did see still entertains. Even though the movie barely differs from the book, it's magic lies in the ability to entertain young and old.
The real pleasure in Chris Columbus' direction is that he seems to be a brilliant artist. He paints in the corners of the screen. There are very few scenes with at least a touch of computer animation or digital work. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is beautiful to look at. The images conjured in the head of a reader while reading Rowling's original novel is magnificently brought to life on screen. Watching these images unravel themselves on screen alone makes this movie worth recommending. The scenery surrounding the majestic Hogwarts is lush and utterly captivating. This is a movie about transporting you to a new world full of strange and illogical rules, much like Alice in Wonderland or even 2002s Spirited Away. In terms of the fantastic, it's vastly superior to that other big-budget franchise called Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones but never reaches the stunning images and affection found in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.
But what about the story? With all these fantastic images, the story is king, right? The story here is, I think, a little bit better than the first installment. Chamber of Secrets is a more narrative arc than The Sorcerer's Stone. Anticipation leads to a stunning climax battle with a deadly snake, the only trouble is getting there. I think it can be argued that the plot in this movie unfolds much more slowly than it's predecessor. It is a mystery tale, plain and simple, with little touches of Quidditch and other magical activity. Much of the detail in this movie is focused on Daniel Radcliffe, and really, why shouldn't it be? Radcliffe plays Potter with more elegance and confidence. He is the enemy in his own story. As his classmates claim him to be the dreaded Heir of Slytherin, Harry is even more determined to clear his name. Radcliffe shows much, much promise with his acting here.
This movie, like the last, includes an array of supporting characters. The two most notable are Ron and Hermione, Harry's closest friends. Even with only two movies in her filmography, Emma Watson is probably the most talented young actress in the film world today. I hope many other producers notice her role in these two films and snatch her up for their own. Grint, on the other hand, has trouble with the script. Screenwriter Steven Kloves has Grint doing nothing but standing around, looking scared. What's more of a tragedy is that Watson is absent from all of the film's third act. The adult actors get a bit more screen time than they did last time, however. Still, the greats like Alan Rickman, John Cleese and Robbie Coltrane are reduced almost to mere cameos. The saving grace of this cast is Richard Harris in his last screen role as headmaster Albus Dumbledore. Unlike his sleepwalking role in the first film, he brings grace and presence in his role. I just wish he had a lot more to do.
With Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets as a sequel, there are much new dazzling sights to see and new things to hear about. There are many nifty digital effects in nearly every scene, giving us more insight to the world of wizardry. Though aside from the technical magic, Kenneth Branagh as the flamboyant Gilderoy Lockhart is the greatest addition to the film. Much like the Wizard of Oz, Lockhart is only a cover-up, style over substance as he fails to generate any magical power throughout the movie, covering up as he goes along. There is also Professor Sprout of the greenhouses and Madam Pomfrey of the hospital wing.
Even with all the ga-ga sets and spectacular special effects, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, I think, betters the original "Potter". This story goes a little deeper, the acting stronger and the art direction gorgeous. However, it still feels hollow in the core, that this maybe isn't the real Harry Potter we should be seeing. It isn't strong enough to stand as it's own movie franchise. Many who have not read the books I think will find very little in the film to enjoy. The entertainment is mostly in the visuals. It does remain a solid piece of enchantment for the 161 minutes, but that's all it is. The books created this vast world, complete with fully fleshed-out characters and interesting subplots. The movies follow the main story, not daring to turn the camera off the story and into the deeper interactions between Rowling's vivid characters. But then again, at 161 minutes, maybe we're lucky not to experience the full Potter.