Harry Potter et la chambre des secrets

160 minutes est trop long. La deuxième partie est à nouveau brillamment filmée, les personnages n'ont rien perdu de leur charme et la robe plus sombre du film convient également, mais elle semble tout de même plus routinière et plus statique. Étant fan de J. K. Rowling, je suis certainement enthousiasmé. Cependant, en tant que spectateur impartial, j'ai parfois ressenti le manque de rythme dans le déroulement de l'histoire. (12/12/2002)

While sticking to his usual understated style, this time Columbus has a tremendous foothold in the original book which is one of the best (and best that works independently) of the series. Moreover, he “darkened" the atmosphere, and thanks to the well-cast duo of Branagh/Isaacs, he manages to partially correct the impression of the central trio which the camera closely follows the whole time, and who are still more like cute mannequins than real lead actors. It is still a mere illustration of the original, but this time at least a well made illustration which the extended version does no harm to (but nor does it add anything positive). Which is not to say I can't imagine it being cut down significantly. And even though it worked out for Columbus this time, thanks god for Cuarón next time! OST score: 3/5 (21/11/2010)

Well, this is definitely more watchable than The Philosopher's Stone... The atmosphere is a few shades darker, with the story thrown into a kind of Gothic gloomy and mysterious garb. For the first 40 minutes, I kind of yawned through the shower of digital effects and purely illustrative films that didn't do much for me as a non-reader of the books, but during the rest of the runtime it was a much fresher experience. It's just too bad that Columbus can't give the film more charm and poetry than the visual effects and artwork give it. And, of course, the actors, of whom I was most pleased by the eccentric egotist Kenneth Branagh... Unfortunately, the director is a routinist in every way, the author is every inch a conservative and a loner, which may benefit the film as a book illustration, but not the film as a film... Some scenes have a huge charge in them, which Columbus zeroes out with unruly and mechanical direction without a hint of invention (e.g., the spider scene in the Forbidden Forest) and sometimes it would benefit the film more to cling to the storyline and not overwhelm the viewer with details as much. In the end it's quite amusing, though quite stretched, and it's nice-looking, but it lacks more pronounced poetics... There is something good waiting in there, and when a handy director wakes it up... well, let's wait for the next films. (13/06/2004)

Better than the first one in every aspect, much darker and therefore much closer to my tastes. Radcliffe as Potter is once again dreadfully plankish, the actors playing Ron and Hermione are better, they are undeniably talented. Some of the scenes are so scary that little kids must get the creeps. For example, as an arachnophobe, I barely made it through the scene with the spiders. And back to Radcliff, I’m surprised they gave such a big role to a wooden actor like him. But when I see that one of the producers just happens to be called Radcliffe, I'm wonder if there wasn’t some nepotism involved. Anyway, in conclusion, I would just like to add that my desire for the Nimbus 2000 has passed. Now I want the Nimbus 2001, it’s supposed to have better aerodinamics. (22/06/2003)

Chris Columbus’s film is a bit better than The Philosopher's Stone and has better visual effects (though far from perfect), but the greatly exaggerated running time and the weak lead actor, who started to bore me after about thirty minutes, bring it down to mediocrity. If it weren't for the brilliant Kenneth Branagh and Jason Isaacs, it probably would have been even worse. (13/12/2002)