Maybe it was keeping on Chris Columbus as director- he helmed the first Harry Potter and did an OK, if not that terrific, job at it- or in making it about as long as possible (whether or not everything in the book, as someone who's seen the films but not read the books, I can't say, though it feels like they crammed it all), or in making it a wee bit too corny, but Chamber of Secrets is a bulky kids movie. It has an appeal for the whole family, as does the first one, and it has some charm and excitement in its Quiddich battle scenes, but it isn't really always the sort of material that might stay with you long after it's over (unless, of course, you're a hardcore fan). It works at best in the form of the atypical sequel: same characters that like Potter just as much- his closest friends Ron and Hermonie- and those that don't like Snape and Malfoy.
Although the film/story does set up "he-who-mus-not-be-named" in a good and ambiguous way, this is more in hindsight of the more recent Potter stories, where that is made much more clear and sinister. It does have some rousing bits in there, as I recall, John Cleese is particularly good as Nearly Headless Nick (basically plopping a Monty Python performer in the midst of it all, which is the case) and there's always Richard Harris as Dumbledore (I still prefer him over Gambon, even though the latter is still good). But a lot of it seems much too cliché, even coming from the decent lot of Rowling subversions, and the whole bits with the character Dobby is just really cheesy. In short, it's the only one of the Potter movies I don't have a desire to see too soon, and if I ever do read the books I only anticipate it can only go up from here in quality.
Although the film/story does set up "he-who-mus-not-be-named" in a good and ambiguous way, this is more in hindsight of the more recent Potter stories, where that is made much more clear and sinister. It does have some rousing bits in there, as I recall, John Cleese is particularly good as Nearly Headless Nick (basically plopping a Monty Python performer in the midst of it all, which is the case) and there's always Richard Harris as Dumbledore (I still prefer him over Gambon, even though the latter is still good). But a lot of it seems much too cliché, even coming from the decent lot of Rowling subversions, and the whole bits with the character Dobby is just really cheesy. In short, it's the only one of the Potter movies I don't have a desire to see too soon, and if I ever do read the books I only anticipate it can only go up from here in quality.