Children, Harry Potter fans, and fantasy addicts will find much to love in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets", but it might just not be worth it to anyone else.

Director Chris Columbus's follow-up to last year's hit "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" lacks the thrill and charm of the original, relying on the audience's supposed familiarity with the novels to keep interest high. The result is an oddly soulless movie that drags for much of the first half before the inherent strength of J.K. Rowling's story picks up the film and carries it through an exciting and special-effects filled climax.

The story is that Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), upon returning to Hogwarts for his second year, encounters a plot to eliminate students of non-wizard heritage, including his friend Hermione Granger (Emma Watson).

In the novel, the nature of the plot gives us a glimpse into wizard politics and allows for some semi-serious discussion of issues of prejudice. Due to time constraints and Columbus's apparent need to cram in every possible second of special effects, the movie omits these scenes, and the themes that give the book its meaning are merely hinted at.

Beyond that, much of what was wondrous in the first "Potter" has lost its impact. In fact, the movie often seems formulaic.

Several scenes from the first film are repeated: Harry's obnoxious relatives, Quidditch, a trip into the dark forest, Harry cowering under his invisibility cloak, etc. The novels avoid this problem because the depth of the content is varied, even if there is a certain formula for it's presentation, and because, after all, the nature of life at a school is formula. But it is simple truth that what is a non-intrusive formula in a 250-page novel is stifling in a two-and-a-half hour movie.

The actors, on the other hand, cannot be blamed. It is astonishing that a film that relies so heavily on young actors can be so successful in doing so. Radcliffe, Watson, Felton, and Rupert Grint, who plays Harry's friend Ron, all reprise their roles with great success. The returning adult actors do fairly well: Robbie Coltrane and Alan Rickman (Hagrid and Snape, respectively) are again the standouts.

The additions to the adult cast also acquit themselves well. Jason Isaacs is perfect as the sneering, villainous Lucius Malfoy, and Kenneth Branaugh gleefully hams it up. The treatment of minor characters is disappointing: many characters from the novel are included for a brief cameo, as a treat for the book's readers. This has the unfortunate side-effect of making the screenplay feel oddly like a role-call — a character appears in a scene, someone (usually the late Richard Harris) intones their name, they smile and nod, and speak a line or two, and are forgotten.

There's still quite a bit of good in the film. The second half of the movie recaptures the urgency and fun of the first film, and, of course, for Harry Potter fans, it's practically a must see. After all, the book's readers don't need to be drawn into Harry's world, or have the book's points of interest highlighted for them. But the average movie-goer looking for a fantastic adventure would probably do better to wait for "The Two Towers."

• `Frida:' a bit too unconventional
  
• Potter's `Chamber' captures everything but the soul
  
• `8 Mile' a crossover success for Eminem