Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets vs. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

11 comments

13 comments

on 10/29/2009

I hate that annoying rat thing so the first one wins

on 2/16/2010

John Cleese got fourth billing for what barely qualifies as a cameo appearance on the first movie because nobody knew who the three main actors were. As a huge fan of John Cleese, this disappointed me immensely. The second book contains an entire chapter devoted to Nearly Headless Nick (John Cleese's character), so I was very excited to see the movie. Sure enough, what happens? They cut it to keep the movie a decent length. Cleese still gets star billing, but his entire output in the movie is him being a frozen ghost, and then at the end where he was unfrozen and saying "HellO!" to eveybody. In every interview I've seen him give, he's always seemed thrilled to be involved in the movies. To see his role reduced to practically nothing (and really, you could eliminate his appearances and not take away anything from the movies) makes me very sad. And yes, I am basing my judgement of the two mediocre Harry Potter movies based on my level of disappointment in not having enough of a comedic actor whose heyday was in the '60s and '70s. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone wins this one.

on 10/28/2010

I'm quite the Harry Potter fan and I do enjoy all the movies. My rating may change. I'm going with CoS for now.

on 10/28/2010

Chamber of Secrets may be the inferior book, but it's the superior movie.

on 2/3/2011

I've only seen the first four movies, but I vastly prefer both Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire to both of these. Amazing, the jump in quality there. Sorcerer's Stone has the advantage of being first.

JRM
JRM

on 4/9/2011

Probably my least favorite Harry Potter movies. While on the surface they seem faithful to the books as far as events go, they lacked that sense of wonder and 'magic' I felt in their respective novels. Azkaban got it perfectly right.

on 6/3/2011

Neither are great. I'm inclined to be more lenient with CoS because the source material is inferior, but the first one doesn't have Dobby, so ... Sorcerer's Stone, by an inch.

on 6/20/2011

Another point against Chamber: the hideous, HIDEOUS last scene. It was gag-worthy.

on 12/11/2012

Iconic scene after iconic scene after iconic scene. THAT is the sign of a great movie. The first Harry Potter movie may not be the best, but it certainly is the most memorable.

on 12/12/2012

I have to go with my childhood on this one.

on 9/9/2013

I think both are great and receive a lot of garbage. It's a tie for me though.

on 7/14/2014

I've always thought Chamber of Secrets was far superior

on 9/26/2015

These two are pure nostalgia for me, which is probably why I prefer the older movies to the newer ones. I think Sorcerer's Stone just barely gets the nod for me.

on 9/26/2015

Despite being my two least favourite HP movies, I love both. Yep, Philosopher's has more nostalgia for me, but Chamber of Secrets' story was faaaaar superior imo. Both are pretty much on par with one another, plus Chamber I found had a better score, with more great characters. Philosopher gets props like the first LOTR and Star Wars though because of the sense of awe and wonder they have introducing these worlds to us. Slight edge to Chamber I suppose, for Dobby's storyline and being longer.

on 11/30/2015

Chamber of secrets imo.

on 11/30/2015

Chamber again.

on 11/30/2015

chamber ftw

on 11/30/2015

That's weird.. it popped up three times. Huh.

on 8/19/2016

Sorcerers stone is boring and poorly paced. Chamber of secrets is clearly better.

on 11/29/2016

Sorcerer's Stone is quite a bit better. Big plus, it doesn't end in a pointless slow-clap.

on 12/6/2019

Chamber of secrets

on Feb 7

While Chamber of Secrets is a fun story, nothing can top the sheer magic, splendor, childhood innocence, and accuracy of Sorceror's Stone.

ear
ear

on Feb 7

Sorceror's Stone

ear
ear

on Feb 7

Sorcerer's Stone

on Feb 8

This one could go either way but at the moment I prefer Philosophers Stone!