the fresh films reviews

S I N C E   1 9 9 7










 

Harry Potter and the 
Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Preceded by: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)
Succeeded by: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Director:
Chris Colombus
COUNTRY
UK/USA/Germany
GENRE
Fantasy/Comedy/Childrens
NORWEGIAN TITLE
Harry Potter og mysteriekammeret
RUNNING TIME
161 minutes
Producer:
David Heyman
Screenwriter:
Steve Kloves


Cast includes:

CHARACTER ACTOR/ACTRESS RATING
Harry Potter Daniel Radcliffe ½
Ron Weasley Rupert Gritt
Hermione Granger Emma Watson
Uncle Vernon Richard Griffiths
Molly Weasley Julie Walters
Ginny Weasley Bonnie Wright ½
Draco Malfoy Tom Felton
Lucius Malfoy Jason Isaacs ½
Rubeus Hagrid Robbie Coltrane
Professor Gilderoy Lockhart Kenneth Branagh ½
Professor Snape Alan Rickman
Albus Dumbledore Richard Harris
Professor Minerva McGonagall Maggie Smith ½
Nearly Headless Nick John Cleese

 

Review

The second coming of many, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets has the feel of insignificance running through its overlengthy running time. When Harry eventually faces the showdown in the chamber of secrets, it is a sequence almost devoid of suspense.  Rowling/Kloves' constant looting from the vaults of literature and narrative techniques makes the plot unfresh and often predictable, and leaves the film relying on excessive use of cgi effects and inventions. This is sometimes effective, but more often than not, it just becomes fussy show-off action - as with the annoying, mandatory cgi-character Dobby (who never becomes as annoying as Jar-Jar Binks, but still). The Chamber of Secrets has its strength in the interaction between the kids, and the constant warmth endorsing it. The world of Hogwarts is a pleasant venue, and when interesting characters are visiting, the film is vivacious. One of these is Gilderoy Lockhart in the presence of Kenneth Branagh (who easily steals every scene he's in). Unfortunately, this second film isn't as neat or free of caricatures as its predecessor. And of course, it lacks the quality of being something new and fresh. Something it desperately would have needed.

Copyright © 3.12.2006 Fredrik Gunerius Fevang

[BACK TO INDEX]

[HAVE YOUR SAY]