Review of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) by Michellep. — 16 Nov 2002

I've read the reviews, and plenty have said, "It was boring". I've read the book (how many times?) and saw the movie at the evening premiere, and it was NEVER boring compared to the first one, but that was all Richard Harris' fault since he had no exspression whatsoever in the first one, unlike this one where he's a much better actor.

It's funny, but I thought the first book, in my opnion, was better than the second one, but I thought the first movie was worse than the second one. It felt lifeless and fake, whereas the second one had better acting, special effects, and even the Hogwarts setting felt better, while in the first one it felt cold, dirty, and some where you don't want to live.

I was suprised at the lack of intelligiance the S.F. chronicle had when trying to "support" their opinion. Basically, all they were saying was, "Harry Potter is supposed to be a SWEET, cute, little movie.

There are some scenes that should have been deleated like the snake and spider scenes". First of all the Harry Potter series (both book and movie) didn't intend to be sweet. It's actually quite dark, especially the 3rd book, Harry Potter isn't supposed to be a cute fairy tale.

It's dark fantasy. And secondly, about the spider and snake scenes, well, if they didn't have those scenes then: 1. The movie would be EXTREMELY unfaithful to the book. 2. It wouldn't have a plot without those two scenes.

That person either hasn't read the books, or hasn't even heard what they're about. Then again, the S.F. hates all the best movies (well, they did like Lord of the Rings, but that was the only time) and love all the ones people hate or don't even deserve to get the highest score (like "The Ring".

) It was fun seeing this one too. I screamed (for the first time in a movie) at the part when ..... Not to mention I had a few energetic laughs as well. Kudos to you Columbus and co., for not screwing this one up like you did with the first one.