Critics Scoreboard
All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review. Learn more...
Average Critic Score:
63
(35 sources)
63
(35 sources)
-
100
Chicago Sun-Times
Brimming with invention and new ideas, and its Hogwarts School seems to expand and deepen before our very eyes into a world large enough to conceal unguessable secrets -- What a glorious movie. Read Full Review » -
90
Dallas Observer
It's definitely an enchanting spectacular for Potter fans anxious to ride the Hogwarts Express toward a new year of magic and mischief. Read Full Review » -
83
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Best of all, the second Potter movie reunites its adult cast: Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, John Cleese, Alan Rickman, Julie Walters and others -- a veritable Who's Who of British actors that single-handedly elevates the proceedings out of the kid's movie genre into something special. Read Full Review » -
83
Entertainment Weekly
And among the things this ''HP'' does very well indeed is deepen the darker, more frightening atmosphere for audiences of all ages already familiar with the intricacies of the ''Potter'' landscape. (This is as it should be: Harry's story is supposed to get darker.) Read Full Review » -
80
Wall Street Journal
Has its flaws, but it's better, as well as darker, than the first. It's also longer, by nine minutes, but hold that protest to the Kidney Foundation; the time flies, albeit in fits and starts, like players on a Quidditch field. Read Full Review » -
80
Variety
Darker and more dramatic, this account of Harry's troubled second year at Hogwarts may be a bit overlong and unmodulated in pacing, but it possesses a confidence and intermittent flair that begin to give it a life of its own apart of the literary franchise, something the initial picture never achieved. Read Full Review » -
80
Chicago Reader
Columbus beautifully realizes many of Rowling's fantastic conceits -- but for the last hour I was searching for a spell to make the credits appear. Read Full Review » -
75
Boston Globe
Moves the franchise even closer to Indiana Jones territory, with bloodcurdling action scenes and a passel of climactic computer-generated slime beasties unparalleled in their potential ability to -- I'm quoting from both book and film here -- '' rip, tear, rend, kill. '' Read Full Review » -
75
Philadelphia Inquirer
The Chamber of Secrets -- darker, scarier and somewhat better than "Sorcerer's Stone." Read Full Review » -
75
ReelViews
A fun, fantastic adventure, but, watching it, I had the sense that it could have been even better than it is. I was diverted and entertained, but never truly absorbed. Read Full Review » -
75
Charlotte Observer
Plusses and minuses work out about evenly, if you compare the sequel to "Sorcerer's Stone." The three young leads act with more assurance; Radcliffe emerges as a leader, rather than one leg of a triangle. (Too bad he no longer expects to make all seven of the proposed pictures.) Read Full Review » -
75
The Globe and Mail (Toronto)
There's a missing element whose absence, forgive me, I can't help but lament. This is a movie about magic that ultimately lacks the magic of movies." Read Full Review » -
70
Village Voice
Chamber's charm lies in the sheer visualization of Rowling's weirder inventions: pots of shrivel-phizzed screaming treelets, Harry's arm gone boneless from a bungled spell, a scolding letter from home that leaps to life as a yapping paper mouth. Read Full Review » -
70
TV Guide
While this is just as long as the first film, more convincing special effects help make time fly. Read Full Review » -
70
Washington Post
Nothing from the book is left to wither away. That should please the vast reading audience that'll watch the movie. Read Full Review » -
70
LA Weekly
Columbus' sequel is faster, livelier and a good deal funnier than his original, due to the presence of some new characters. Read Full Review » -
67
Austin Chronicle
Columbus never quite captures the depth, the rich complexities of Rowling's novels. She's written four Harry Potter books for kids that adults swoon for, too. Columbus has made two Harry Potter movies for kids … and we'll leave it at that. That isn't bad. But I suspect there's something better just around the bend. Read Full Review » -
63
New York Post
Screenwriter Steve Kloves still seems overly dedicated to cramming in every detail of J.K. Rowling's novel - while tacking on a schmaltzy Hollywood ending. Read Full Review » -
63
New York Daily News
Chamber is chockablock with action (including a far more exciting game of Quidditch) and crafty special effects. Read Full Review » -
63
Chicago Tribune
It remains an expertly assembled companion piece to its source material, with charms you can't overlook. But the great Harry Potter should be casting a more powerful spell. Read Full Review » -
63
Baltimore Sun
Drags on and on and could frighten little kids. But Kenneth Branaugh is one bright light in Chamber of Secrets. Read Full Review » -
63
San Francisco Chronicle
Scenes that should have been cut are included, so as not to disappoint anyone. What could have been a small, sweet and genuinely scary film is instead a full hour too long and many millions too fat. Read Full Review » -
63
Miami Herald
Doesn't feel quite so lengthy as its predecessor. And while it still falls short of becoming the classic fans so badly want it to be, the film is livelier and better overall than "The Sorcerer's Stone." Read Full Review » -
60
The New York Times
By the end, instead of feeling stirred to a high pitch of anxiety and excitement, you may feel battered and worn down. But not, in the end, too terribly disappointed. Read Full Review » -
60
The Onion (A.V. Club)
A well-chosen cast helps make the wild notions convincing, and director Chris Columbus presents it all in an attractive, thoroughly watchable package. But try imagining a universe in which the Harry Potter series existed only in film form. Read Full Review » -
60
New York Magazine
This time around, Harry Potter has more to worry about than the Dark Arts -- though parts of The Chamber of Secrets are spellbinding, he seems to be suffering from a bit of sequelitis. Read Full Review » -
60
Los Angeles Times
The film's scary moments are too monstrous and its happy times have too much idiotic beaming, making the film feel like the illegitimate offspring of "Alien" and "The Absent-Minded Professor." Read Full Review » -
60
Film Threat
May just be the most quintessential Steven Spielberg movie Steven Spielberg never made. Read Full Review » -
58
Portland Oregonian
Not much in the way of captivating magic, but all the expected notes are duly played. Hope springs eternal for the next film in the series, though: Columbus is handing the reins over to Alfonso Cuaron, an actual movie director. Read Full Review » -
50
Newsweek
Before it degenerates into Indiana Potter and the Chamber of Doom, the movie holds promise -- it hints at why the Harry Potter movies aren’t half as wonderful as they ought to be, why they feel created from the outside in. Magic isn’t made by committee. Read Full Review » -
50
Salon.com
After its deceptively fleet opening 20 minutes or so, Chamber of Secrets settles into a plodding amble, a rickety framework in which many allegedly exciting things happen -- and are forgotten only minutes later. Read Full Review » -
50
Christian Science Monitor
It's fun to see the regular gang on hand for new adventures, joined by fresh characters who add touches of novelty and spice. But the secrets in this chamber aren't all that amazing once you get a glimpse of them. Read Full Review » -
40
Slate
I can't think of a movie this long that has left me so starved for a movie. Read Full Review » -
40
Film Threat
With “Chamber of Secrets,” all we get is a f____ "Scooby Doo" episode. Boo on everyone involved...BOOOOOOOO! Read Full Review » -
30
Washington Post
Big, dull and empty -- nobody associated with this production appears to have thought hard about storytelling. Read Full Review »
You Say
click on a star to rate
