Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets [Hindi] (2002) - Dubbed Other movies recommended for you
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets [Hindi](in Dubbed Hollywood Movies) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets [Hindi] (2002) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets [Hindi] on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: Forced to spend his summer holidays with his muggle relations, Harry Potter gets a real shock when he gets a surprise visitor: Dobby the house-elf, who warns Harry Potter against returning to Hogwarts, for terrible things are going to happen. Harry decides to ignore Dobby's warning and continues… Runtime: 161 min Release Date: 15 Nov 2002
NOTE:Unlike mp4 and 3gp, High mp4 is converted in single file. It has better quality and bigger file size compared to 3gp and mp4 This movie is in Dubbed Hollywood Section, Meaning its in Hindi Language.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a huge step on from the first film. In the Philosophers stone we were introduced to the the world of Harry Potter and given a taster of what lies ahead. In the Chamber of Secrets the main story line for the series of books really starts to be told. It is much darker and sinister than the first film and Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint give good performances and give us a glimpse of the fine actors they are becoming.Kenneth Branagh and Jason Isaacs are perfectly cast as Gilderoy Lockhart and Lucius Malfoy and truly bring the characters <more>
from the book to life. Mark Williams as Arthur Weasley while under used in this film is going to be great in the next few as his character has more to do. The Cinematography is again superb and somehow the Quiddich game is better than in the first film. A fine sequal to the first film and should dispel any notion that the first one was just a one hit wonder. A firm 10 in my book.
Stop knocking this masterpiece (by thinkinfairytales)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is superb, and don't listen to those narrow-minded critics who claim otherwise. Those who said it is superior to the first film are right: Philosopher's Stone was wonderful but the sequel does for Harry Potter what the Empire Strikes Back did for Star Wars - elevate it to a higher level where it will be regarded as a masterpiece in it's own right.The plot is tighter and 'cleaner' then the first film, and runs along at a pace brisk enough to sweep the two-hours away with the wave of a wand. The acting from Daniel Radcliffe was <more>
criticised by some in the first film and still others are bleating on about him now. Give it a rest, say I. He was excellent.Hogwarts itself really comes to life, largely due to the camera shots sweeping in through a window or over the castle - it feels a lot more 'rounded' and the Quidditch match benefits from a makeover and improved SFX.Unlike some other fantasy films the CGI is not over used and doesn't smother the screen.If you've read other reviews you'll know Kenneth Branagh is wonderful as Lockhart and you have to stay to the end credits to see what happens to him Jason Isaacs is great as Lucius Malfoy, and overall the film is scarier and darker then the first film, and there is a very touching moment involving Hermione and Ron which was performed with wonderful understatement by Rupert and Emma.Throughout the whole 2 hours I don't think I stopped smiling. The Whomping Willow, the flying car, the duel between Draco and Harry - every scene was a joy to behold.To those critics who keep on comparing Potter to Lord of the Rings and finding the former wanting one person even laughingly suggested Christopher Columbus was ripping it off bear in mind that Philospher's Stone is the second biggest film of all time behind Titanic - beating Rings. I use this only to illustrate the popularity and success of Harry Potter, as so many people seem to find it inferior. I for one was left cold by Rings and was thoroughly bored by it - it was the least magical fantasy film I had ever seen. Give me Harry Potter any day.Anyone who rates this film poorly comparing it to Rings no doubt as they always do has no sense of adventure, no sense of humour, and -most importantly - no sense of wonder.So put that in your cauldron and boil it!
A extrodinary adventure through a mystical legend, that will entrall you to laugh, and journey into your deepest fears (by crazykoura)
Christoper Columbus' Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, is a far cry from the preceding Harry Potter movie. For this time, a more fearful mystrey awaits the willing youngsters from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Columbus' witty ideas, the musical score, and the realistic-like visual effects brings true magic to the screen. Also the acting has taken a sharp turn from Sorcere's Stone, the players have grown and taken these films to a more proffesional level.Even John Williams' musical score will keep you in complete suspense as you sit on the edge of your <more>
seat. Although the new movie has a more frightening touch it has the audience anxiously waiting to gasp and gaze at the impressive dramatics of the big screen. With a new approach to the special effects, the movie franchise has introduced a greater excitement in scenes such as the Quidditch game, Aragog's lair, and The Chamber of Secrets. Chris Columbus takes a new perspective on the movie, as he draws away from JK Rowling's literary works. Subtle changes have been made in the movie and have finally created a comfortable enviorment for the wizarding world. The new action sequenes may be quite scary to children below the age of seven, but the tasteful violence will enthrall young audiences as for older ones too. The transition from the first to second movie is smooth,not like a choppy pass on such as The Mummy Returns. This masterpiece deserves much praise for the hard work for the cast and crew, yet there are times when there is not enough background information for one to fully understand the Potter history. This movie will take anyone to hights in the Weasley's flying Ford Angila, and take one to the spooky depths of salazar's chamber. Harry Potter fans will leave not disappointed to the least bit, and ordinary muggles will return with a drop of magical blood in them, for they have been to Hogwarts... and back. A+_crazykoura
The first milestone. Sinister mystery of Hogwarts. (by BiiivAL)
"... The magical power that came to Joan Rowling from a different world, pulls for itself, and the book is read in one breath." Book Review, December 18, 2000The second book about the adventures of the young wizard Harry Potter world waited impatiently. And finally, he waited. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" appears before the reader's eyes with a bright and original work. Of course, it relies on the first book, but it remains individual. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" - a darker and more terrible book, unlike the first. So became the <more>
film. But the film and the book have not lost their charm and easy immediacy. It's still the same kind of fairy tale about the fight between good and evil, where good will certainly win.The magical world of Harry Potter has not changed. All the same oblique streets of London, the splendor of Hogwarts, the Forbidden Forest with its secret inhabitants, The slanting alley, the eerie Lute Lane, the unfriendly Rattling Willow, the huge school yard, the stunning quidditch. All this was preserved and was moved by magic wave in the second film, only slightly transformed. Hogwarts is a bright and active participant in all events. This castle, which became home for Harry, is no less important character than our young hero. Hogwarts carries in itself tying knowledge and great wisdom. This huge, majestic building knew a lot in its time. And all its secrets, its architecture and attract the eye.In "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" we meet the amazing and frightening creatures of the magical world. Dobby's elf is very cute and funny. In such a small, frail body is hidden a wide soul, suffering in vain. He does his best to protect Harry from danger. But Harry Potter, like a magnet, attracts them. Favorite animal Hagrid turns into an unpleasant monster - a giant giant spider Aragog. He is wise, old, but does not inspire confidence. And on top of everything, the mighty, dangerous serpent Basilisk appears on the screen. There are many legends about this snake, and Joan Rowling decided to add it to her epic. And, in principle, not in vain. He inspires reverence and horror, but at the same time a frank desire for Harry to finish him off quickly. Another amazing character in the film is Phoenix Fawkes. Amazing bird flown from the pages of the book to the screen. She is an ancient mythical creature, dying and rising from the ashes. It reminds us of the eternal cycle of life and death. Special effects in the film, in other ways, as in the first, not at altitude. But even seeing a few implausible spiders and a snake, you believe everything that is happening on the screen. The magical, mysterious, magical and frankly amazing world of Harry Potter draws and you just do not want to return to reality. Chris Columbus, who became the director of the Potters for the second time, could not lose the charm and atmosphere of the first film. Just the movie "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" became more sinister, frightening and full of dangers.Characters have not changed. Bright, alive, emotionally embodied on the screen of their heroes magnificent English actors. The cold and tough Potions master Severus Snegg performed by Alan Rickman, the same adamant Minerva McGonagall, the wise director of the Hogwarts School Albus Dumbledore the eternal memory of Richard Harris, who died three weeks before the premiere of the film , the kind-hearted forester Hagrid. Pleased with new characters. Lucius Malfoy performed by Jason Isaacs is cruel, adamant. It just blows something negative and extremely unpleasant. Zlatopust Lokons is the life-builder, reclining on the laurels of others. He turned out to be too sugary, pretty, I would even say sugary. And, undoubtedly, the actor Kenneth Bran is on top. His character, or rather his performance, is very ironic. The unchanged trio of the main characters remained the same. Harry Potter is the star of the magical world, the orphan boy, who grew up in disgusting muggles, displays remarkable courage, desperation and determination. The one with which courage he rushes into battle, you can just envy. I'm torn by internal contradictions, his similarity with Lord Voldemort, his knowledge of the snake tongue. He is afraid of all this. And Harry desperately tries to understand himself. But when you need to become a hero, he is ready for this, because he is a hero in the full sense of the word. He is ready to give his own life for others. Is this not the highest manifestation of heroism? But Harry does not boast of it. And this is a huge plus to his character."I'm sure that Mr. Potter will always be there to save us." - "Certainly." Lucius Malfoy and Harry Potter.Ron Weasley remained absolutely the same except for the character. He transformed, becoming better. His behavior towards Hermione, when she was insulted by Draco, calling her a Mudblood, his courage in the Forbidden Forest among not one hundred spiders, whom he fears until his death, causes respect and approval.Hermione Granger is still the same smart girl with a lively mind and a great intellect. She is very natural and sincerely wants to help others. With her character there are certain metamorphoses. Hermione clearly ceases to be such an avid guardian of order."We are badly influenced by it." Ron Weasley, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Tom Narvolo Reddle is the past of the cruelest magician of the magical world of Lord Volan de Mort. This character is interesting with his striking resemblance to Harry. They are like halves of one whole. Harry has collected all the good and positive, in Voldemort everything is bad and negative. They are very similar, but they are very different. The choice. That's what makes Harry the way he is and distinguishes him from a dark magician. Choosing Harry to live the life he wants. His choice."Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" - a magical, mysterious, full of magic, amazing and terrible creatures canvas director Chris Columbus. For the second time we stepped into this unique world full of mysteries and terrible discoveries. Music, Gothic entourage, Hogwarts and unchanging heroes in the fight against evil: welcome to the magical world of Harry Potter, created by the hand of a fabulous storyteller Joan Rowling.
A wonderful journey into a world where magic is, indeed, real. (by ivony)
Having three daughters I have a choice when a great book comes out: buy three of them EXPENSIVE!! , force someone to wait until the other is done before they can read the book sure, I enjoy breaking up fights! , or read it to them. I chose to read it to them so we could ALL enjoy it...and we did! Naturally, the kids were excited when the movie came out. However, when I saw the first Harry Potter, I was terrified it was going to be "butchered" like most "books to movies" are; but was pleasantly surprised by the relatively "stick to the book" script it displayed. <more>
Sure, some things were left out undoubtedly due to time constraints, but overall, it conveyed the story well.Chamber of Secrets did this even better.As an avid reader, I am quite hesitant to see my beloved books displayed on screen only to have the directors do them no justice. However, with both Harry Potter movies, the visuals were spectacular, the acting well done, and the characters almost perfectly matched. The set design for Diagon Alley and the Weasley house was fabulous! How wonderful to see these places come to life outside of our imaginations! This stays true for nearly every aspect of Hogwarts...from the greenhouse, to the moving staircases, the dorms and Dumbledore's office. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson do superb jobs of playing Harry, Ron, and Hermione. The movie undoubtedly draws you in and makes you forget that this isn't real...quite an acheivement!Of course, not all moviegoers will enjoy this one. It is not for the die-hard action fan, the horror-only fans, or those that dislike a bit of magic, imagination, and fantasy. But for the rest of us, Chamber of Secrets accurately depicts what until now, only our imaginations could see. Children will love this for the wizardry and magic, the struggle between Harry and his foes, the friendships that abound, and the simple fun of it all; while adults will love it for bringing them back to a time when magic was, indeed, real.All in all, I give this a 5 out of 5...fantastically done. Of course, I would have liked to see a bit more scenes from the book added, but I understand time restrictions. Great film and a definite must see!
Spoilers herein.I did not like the first Potter film. Indeed, I've been generally unimpressed by all the manufactured Hollywood spectacles that have been moving through the promotional pipeline. So this one caught me unawares. One element of its craft was done so very well, that it alone had me captured for the three hours or so: Architecture.Film is about more than just recording a play. It is all about using tricks unique to film to place us within the story. The most powerful and unique of these is the placement of the camera within the space of action: psychologically or <more>
architecturally. Shakespeare was all about this psychological placement, which is why reading one of his plays is in many ways better than seeing it. Directors have certain tricks to place the camera within the shared mind of the actors when the matter of the film is deep enough. But that's possible in only a handful of films. In most cases, the opportunities are architectural: namely placing the camera within the physical space of action in extraordinary ways.But alas, doing so requires skills and funds that are generally lacking. On blockbuster films, they are spending a gazzillion dollars anyway so why do it right? That's why I hit `Spider-Man' so hard on IMDB: it had every excuse to use architecture well with all the vertical cityscapes and swooping within them. Well, our wait is over. Someone in Potter, Inc has made the decision to instill this film with an architectural eye. I presume that is because they are looking at the long run of the franchise, which after all is up against some well-financed competition. Longevity could mean over ten billion dollars.So we finally have something worth watching from a spatial perspective. The notion of an architectural film, started with Orson Welles' `Othello,' on which he spent everything he had over many years. Until then, the camera was attached to a virtual human who acted as a ghost or god. All the shots were nominally at eye level and when they weren't, they were at places you would imagine being if you were a ghost. That is to say, they were all in generally possible places or perches. Welles' camera already in `Kane' was placed in locations that no ghost would pick because they were impossible: below the floor for instance.In `Othello,' the camera is not attached to any human, but to the buildings themselves. Every camera is attached to a surface and moves with that surface as if the building itself were alive, perceiving what was going on, and reporting it to you. Walls, floors, corners, posts, various embellishments take on roles as characters in the shots, so a frame would as likely include one of these elements as a human and every shot has some explicit reference to the space. Some interesting experiments have been made since then by Tarkovsky, Greenaway, dePalma and Gilliam, and in single films like `Liebstraum' and `Million Dollar Hotel.' But no attempt ever had the art and special effects budget of this film. Watch how often they `establish' the complex at Hogwarts, sometimes seamlessly entering the scene. Watch how often the camera covers the interior space more than the kids. Watch how the position of the camera is in places that only the building would know about. Watch when the camera moves, it moves in the plane that a surface of the space would have.They decided to do this because they could afford people who could do it, and it subtly improves the effectiveness of the magic. Lucas doesn't know how to do this, even with his amazing structures.This decision is driven home with the Shakespearian approach and references:--Harris here plays Prospero, in a very literal sense; the player/magician in his last real performance. Some of the shots are taken from Greenaway's `Prospero's Books,' which also deals with a book that animates characters in the film that enter the world and space of the film. Many references here from `Books.'--The cinematographer Roger Pratt is Gilliam's. Now that Sacha Vierny is dead, he's probably the most architecturally aware experienced man in the business.--He's also worked for Branaugh who is the best filmer of Shakespeare ever. His `Frankenstein' was both architectural and Shakespearean. Branaugh appears here in a parody of his `Wild West' role with was a parody of Professor Marvel in `Wizard of Oz' who it is widely believed was based on the Shakespearean of `Huck Finn.'--Even in the minor role of Father Weasely is Mark Williams, who is defined by his role as the inept performer in `Shakespeare in Love.' Fits how redheads are used in Shakespearean productions.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
Chris Columbus said he wanted to make a 2,5 hour movie that feels like 30 Minutes. Well, in my case he surely succeeded! I saw the movie as a member of the press and couldn't get enough of it. I would have gladly sat in the cinema for another two or three hours with a biiiig smile on my face.Like part one, "chamber of secrets" stays true to the book. I don't know about you - but I HATE it when movie makers change the storylines, add or remove characters and do it for the "sake of the art". I think they do it because they are too lazy to create their own storys, so <more>
they rip off other peoples ideas and crush them to make it more comfortable... If a book is loved by millions of readers there must be a good reason for that. Chris Columbus has captured the essence of the book on screen. So, after "philosophers stone" he delivered again!When reading the book I always envisioned Michael Crawford playing Gilderoy Lockhart. His broad smile and clumsiness à la Frank Spencer would have been perfect for the role. But instead we get to see Kenneth Branagh, so of course you won't see ME complain. The great find of the movie is Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy. In his short scenes onscreen he makes your blood freeze. And again: all the casting is brilliant. Every character just feels right - even if you imagined something different when you read the book. There also has been talk about the young actors getting older. Well, let me remind you that this also happens in the books. In every book Harry Potter and his friends are one year older. So there's no excuse to take the roles away from Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. I couldn't imagine someone else playing their parts.Go see "the chamber of secrets". It's pure fun and excitement! And it will wet your appetite for more to come. Richard Harris couldn't have asked for a better movie and legacy to be remembered by.
The Chamber of Secrets has been opened at long last!!!! (by Aberlass)
Lessons learned since the 1st film! Clearly this film was edited at script stage rather than the cutting room floor stage!! This story reads as film narrative, rather than a book illustration, which was the big mistake of the 1st film. Anyone can watch this film and follow it without knowing the book. The 1st hour is pure laugh out loud fun the adults in my Cinema audience were shouting with laughter! . The last hour is scary, wand dropping tension.The problem is: how do we convince muggles put-off by the 1st film to go see this one? Why should they give this one a chance? Answer: If you <more>
know someone who likes Fun, make them see this film! This film is not about 'Oscars' & Acting, despite the fabulous performances by all the adults, it is about enjoying the overall effect of the film, this being to give the viewer a long lasting buzz. Brilliant! The staging is very theatrical in it's minimalism, yet extravagantly arty in visual specifics. In the not to distant future I see fans going to a regular weekend slot at their local cinema for Audience Participation fun. Wands, swords, sorting hat, spiders, mandrakes & crucial ear muffs as standard props! Lots of gaps for us to shout out funny quips. A Rocky Horror Show Audience Participation Show for kids! Long overdue.My Rating: 8/10. Not a masterpiece of cinematic potential, but such jolly good fun that no one should be denied the joy of a "Bloody Marvelous" frolic. A film for the child within us adults. Go see it with a predominantly adult audience if you want to experience the real buzz of unfettered emotion. Only three children were present at the Preview I witnessed and they were silently spellbound whereas the adults evoked emotion noisily throughout and then stood up, cheered and applauded at the end! I shall never forget this truly magical experience. Richard Harris you can not be replaced, you will always be Dumbledore, and hence Omnipresent. Thank you for the fantastic finale to a wonderful life that you gave us. Thank you. And Thank you JK & Chris. You did it, the Chamber is well & truly open now!
Not the target of this movie...but still enjoyable. (by aussie-21)
Not being a fan of the Harry Potter Movies, I toddled along to the first showing of this movie at my local UGC Cinema and sat down and thirly enjoyed this movie, but not in the way that I would enjoy something like the Lord of The Rings or Spider-Man. Of course Harry Potter's target audience is of a younger age so I can see how I might not have enjoyed it as much as a slightly younger audience, but to say the least it is a lot better than some of the crap that is fizzled out these days. Crap this is not and a year on the main characters are a lot older, taller and voices broken. Many of <more>
the original cast return and a few new characters appear in this such as Kenneth Branagh and Jason Isaacs. Kenneth Branagh plays a wonderful part of Gilderoy Lockhart who seems to think he's adored by all and quite frankly he is adored by women for his charm and bravery. He was one of the better bits in the movie as was Jason Isaacs who played Lucius Malfoy father of Draco. Jason sports a nice long wig and plays the evil father/villian down to a T. He plays it much like his villian in The Patriot. I was sometimes phased by Rupert Grint's "Ron". He isn't that great an actor, but he could play his part satisfactory. He could have done better, but then again I have not read the book so I would not know how Ron would have behaved. I guess the scenes he played a scary person which was quite a lot in weren't convincing enough for me, but kids should get a good laugh out of him more than I did. I suppose you can't hold it against the kids who aren't up to par because they're just young and learning the actors trade, but for those who play their part well they should get a pat in the back. The SFX were impressive, especally the character of Dobby. He was well great. I couldnt tell he was CG by his bad creation, but through the fact there was no way they could have done it otherwise. In fact the CG character of Dobby is very similar looking to Gollum in Lord of The Rings and the CG Asgard in television series Stargate SG-1 speaking of textures which which speaks well for Stargate SG-1 if it can do just as good as a top movie like this...and top it is. The CG Spiders were incredibly creepy and realistic looking. Not being too scared of Spiders, they kind of made me jump. I felt by body tense up as the gave case to Harry and Ron, which is a good thing because not often do I find myself doing this in movies. The person I had sat beside seemed pretty scared of the spiders as well. John Williams score was very much like his original score with old themes returning and some of the music sounding like music from his Indiana Jones scores. I found myself whistling the main theme of Harry Potter for most of the night and on occasion not realizing I was doing it until someone else pointed it out to me. This movie certainly had better action sequences and a lot more action geared than The 1st Potter movie. I found myself clenching up at points as they were really tense. The story wasn't too difficult to understand from a non-potter-fan point of view and the film was a lot shorter than I expected. I had thought it ran for three hours when it was more like 2 1/2. In some cases I found that you had to have seen the 1st movie to understand some of what was going on, but that was mainly due to the back story of he who shall not be uttered and some of the gags. The only thing that annoyed me was that the cues in the Foyer were too long and I couldnt get an ice cream and there was some little toddler crying down the front row for a few minutes mid-way. Why bring a toddler who's going forget about the film by next week? You may ask this yourself. If you're not a mad-potter-fan then I would suggest you wait a few weeks so that you're not over run with humans who stand 4 feet tall...ie. CHILDREN! I'm not talking about Dwarves I'd give it 8.5/10. But I am not a huge fan of these movies and I am not the target audience. That's a good thing in case you were wondering.