Review: Half-Blood Prince (New Harry Potter)

[OhMissScarlett]

Actually, it was a year per book. The mistake the movies made was to go along with that and pick actors that were 11 years old, Harry's age in book 1 rather than 10 years old so the kids would remain youngish looking even if the movie-making fell behind a year--which it did.

Last book has Harry at age 17. The movies were lucky to have gotten kids with faces that haven't matured too much and still look school age, but they're just barely pulling it off (IMHO).

JK sort of helps that situation in Deathly Hallows, by making a point of writing about how Harry practically didn't recognize himself and the others anymore...something to that affect. Though I did like that in this movie, Ginny is taller than Harry and has put on some weight, that's the sort of thing that can happen to high school girls over a summer.

Relatedly, there really wasn't enough Neville Longbottom in this movie. Supposedly, the boy who plays him has gotten so hot that they have to put make-up and fake teeth on him so that he still looks geeky enough.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Jesus! You people need lives.

I'm not proud of many things I've done, but I do take pride saying I've never cracked a Harry Potter book or seen any of the movies.

 

[Recidiva]

JK sort of helps that situation in Deathly Hallows, by making a point of writing about how Harry practically didn't recognize himself and the others anymore...something to that affect. Though I did like that in this movie, Ginny is taller than Harry and has put on some weight, that's the sort of thing that can happen to high school girls over a summer.

Relatedly, there really wasn't enough Neville Longbottom in this movie. Supposedly, the boy who plays him has gotten so hot that they have to put make-up and fake teeth on him so that he still looks geeky enough.

My daughter and I both sorta noticed Neville. That was the biggest "Grow up" shock.

"Um...Neville's hot." "Yeeeah."

 

[Recidiva]

When it comes to wizards I prefer Harry Dresden.

*moment of silence*

Cried when they canceled the show.

 

[Recidiva]

I'm sorry but I left the theatre feeling disappointed. I know the movies can never contain the details of the books but to me the director missed the most important emotional scenes. When Harry caught Draco in the bathroom there was barely 2 seconds of angst before the fighting started. That is meant to be one of the most powerful moments - Harry's shock at finding Draco crying, and Draco isn't just crying he is devastated, emotionally spent, terrified of the task he's been given, conflicted because deep down he admires Dumbledore. The fight begins because he's so angry at Potter for catching him in his moment of weakness. After using such a terrible curse why was there no retribution for Harry in the movie?

Another part that was glossed over was Dumbledore's complete and utter breakdown when he is forced to drink the liquid in the cavern. He cries for his sister (nicely setting up the next book/film) and it was missing from the movie! Instead they went for a Lord of the Rings/I Am Legend type battle.

At the end Dumbledore puts a spell on Harry, immobilising him so that Harry can not help him when the Death Eater's arrive. This IMHO was the worst directorial decision. Are we expected to believe that the Harry Potter we know, the boy who rushes in without thought to save others, tamely hid and watched Dumbledore die? There is no way the character we've come to know and love would've done nothing - hence why Dumbledore had to put a spell on him.

Finally, what was with the add on in the middle - Bellatrix arriving to lure Harry out and the Weasley's house burning down. It was as if Hollywood decided the movie was getting boring and needed a (completely unnecessary) special effects boost.

Did the film manage to convey the importance of the Potions Book, the Half-Blood Prince, the Sectumsempra spell, the search to find out who the Half-Blood Prince was? I think not. I would think that anyone not familiar with the books would be left a little confused.

As I said, disappointed.

I think it's very difficult to appease fans and newcomers, and there's just SO MUCH backstory that fans get shortchanged and newcomers get entirely lost or confused.

I remember my daughter saying "But...nobody will find out in the movie that Rita Skeeter is an illegal animagus..." and I had to smile.

I suffer the same thing in the areas where I've sorta slavishly learned details (have to say I hated the new Star Trek movie for getting it - in my opinion - ALL WRONG)

I liked this movie because it wore down some of the things that make me crazy. I wasn't forced to watch half a movie's content in Quidditch. Harry seemed to be cooler and LEARNED something "To tell the truth sir, after all this time, I just sort of go with it."

The semi-drunk Felix potion thing with Harry doing Aragog's pincers just had me giggling.

Yeah, it's not enough backstory on who Aragog was, and only people who know the books should be giggling at his understatements at a funeral. "Did he have family?" "OOOOH yeah."

I think this was the most successful, but I always miss my favorite bits and I sympathize. I still miss that there were no garden gnomes at the Weasleys and that the Mandrake roots never got to go through puberty and try to sneak into each other's pots.

 

[Belegon]

I think that there are certain stories and worlds out there that have reached a point where it is truly impossible to satisfy everyone.

Out of the first three that come to mind, two have already been talked about here, one being the subject of the thread....

Harry Potter, Star Trek and The Lord of the Rings have so many devoted followers that it is simply not an achievable goal to say that you are going to make everybody happy.

The 3 LOTR movies are arguably the best executed film trilogy of all time and yet there are legions of Tolkien fans who abhor them. Potter has fared better in many respects, but there are always going to be problems.

For myself, I enjoyed this movie as I have the others. I don't see them as literal translations to film so much as variations on a theme. I find myself able to enjoy them without getting upset about things that were left out or that I disagreed with how they were portrayed.

Like Rob popped up with Dresden... the tv show was my first exposure to Harry Dresden and I have since become a fan... but I will never have an issue with the way they portrayed Bob in the television show and yet I remember that it initially threw Rob.

I'm curious to see the next two. No getting around more screen time for Neville there, either... oh, and Jomar, no worries about getting started... they are already filming the next two. The actors have been talking about how weird it feels to be ending their involvement while being interviewed to support this movie.

 

[3113]

What is a grand slam but hitting the ball out of the park at the just the right time?

We have different definitions of a grand slam. By your definition, the movie Rocky is a grand slam because even though it was a generic boxing movie, and other people had and would write far better boxing movies, it was the one that came out at just the right time and so made tons of money and got tons of people to see it. To me, however, that doesn't qualify as for that "grand slam" term--and we will grant that this is my bias in regards to defining the term.

To me, a grand slam is something that not only catches fire (in it's own time or some other time), but transcends a genre, a generation, and transforms utterly it's "species" (so to speak). Jackson Pollack is a grand slam. Shakespeare is a grand slam. If generations from now people look back on Harry Potter and still say, "Wow" about MORE than just the fact that Rowling got a huge amount of people to read these books, then they will be, to my mind, a grand slam.

The HP books, whatever else, are certainly a phenomenon, but so was the tulip craze back in 1637. The only part of "grand slam" that I'd agree with is that these books have changed the publishing world in making children and young adult novels lucrative. But they're not a grand slam to me if they haven't also taken the genre of both fantasy and children's literature to a new and different level.

 

[Verdad]

I'll admit I didn't read further than the second book. I feel guilty in the name of keeping current, being plugged into the Zeitgeist, and all that, but I wasn't able to make myself read more.

The movies, though, are a lot of fun. So many movies that promise pure entertainment turn to be torture instead, but I'd gone to see The Chamber of Secrets on a whim and enjoyed myself like a little kid. The next two movies didn't enthuse me as much, but I'll likely see the current one too, on DVD if not in a theater.

 

[xPoisonx]

I've never been a big fan of the movies even though I love the books.

I did like this one the best of the lot though and really enjoyed it.

However I was really disappointed in how much they cut from the end of the book, including some of my favourite parts.

Looking forward to the last in the series though, I believe making the 7th book into 2 movies is really the only way to do it justice.

 

[matriarch]

My daughter and I both sorta noticed Neville. That was the biggest "Grow up" shock.

"Um...Neville's hot." "Yeeeah."

Indeed. Who'd have thunk it!!

http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Matthew-Lewis-harry-potter-721051_483_604.jpg

 

[3113]

Indeed. Who'd have thunk it!!

http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Matthew-Lewis-harry-potter-721051_483_604.jpg

Whoa. Betcha he gets snatched up by movies to be the next action hero Who needs Harry when he can come to the rescue?

 

[Recidiva]

Whoa. Betcha he gets snatched up by movies to be the next action hero Who needs Harry when he can come to the rescue?

Talk about massive plot cuts, I was annoyed during the last movie when nobody mentioned that it might have been Neville who was "the chosen one" (I snicker internally while saying this, of course...)

Turns out it's probably true. *wolf whistle*

 

[jomar]

We have different definitions of a grand slam. By your definition, the movie Rocky is a grand slam because even though it was a generic boxing movie, and other people had and would write far better boxing movies, it was the one that came out at just the right time and so made tons of money and got tons of people to see it. To me, however, that doesn't qualify as for that "grand slam" term--and we will grant that this is my bias in regards to defining the term.

To me, a grand slam is something that not only catches fire (in it's own time or some other time), but transcends a genre, a generation, and transforms utterly it's "species" (so to speak). Jackson Pollack is a grand slam. Shakespeare is a grand slam. If generations from now people look back on Harry Potter and still say, "Wow" about MORE than just the fact that Rowling got a huge amount of people to read these books, then they will be, to my mind, a grand slam.

The HP books, whatever else, are certainly a phenomenon, but so was the tulip craze back in 1637. The only part of "grand slam" that I'd agree with is that these books have changed the publishing world in making children and young adult novels lucrative. But they're not a grand slam to me if they haven't also taken the genre of both fantasy and children's literature to a new and different level.

Fair enough on different definitions. And actually, while Rockey was a good and inspiring movie, I don't see it as a grand slam...a home run for Stallone, yes. HP has done all those things we've mentioned, including single-handedly getting kids all over the world interested in reading. And not only children, these books and movies appeal to adults as well. So in the whole, HP counts as a grand slam in my view.

Now Shakespeare, he's what you call a franchise player, the Michael Jordon of litrature.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I'm a book purist, and I didn't like this movie. While I'm sure the movie was well done, they deviated too much from the book for me, especially at the end.

Some observations:

Slughorn was mis-cast. He was supposed to be a very round man that looked like a walrus.

Narcissa Malfory was mis-cast. WTF was that with the half black, half blonde hair?

The bathroom scene has already been covered....

The whole ending was wrong and it sucked. Harry was under the invisibility cloak when Dumbledore died. No one knew he was there. The whole deal with Snape finding him then shushing him was stupid.

Dumbledore was buried with the Elder Wand. That's a huge part of the remaining story, but with this one they showed Harry picking up the wand in Dumbledores office after he'd died. They didn't even show any of the funeral scene and the white tomb.

The whole battle that took place after the death eaters appeared at Hogwarts was left out.

The whole story line of the vanishing cabinet was changed. Mr. Weasley knowing that it was a vanishing cabinet was half way through the movie, yet no one connected the dots weakened the movie.

As I said, I'm a purist to the books, so this one went way too far off the book for me. Had I not read the book, I probably would have thought it to be a good movie.

The only not so good special effects that stood out to me was the background of the quittich match. It looked very fake to me.

 

[Recidiva]

I'm a book purist, and I didn't like this movie. While I'm sure the movie was well done, they deviated too much from the book for me, especially at the end.

Some observations:

Slughorn was mis-cast. He was supposed to be a very round man that looked like a walrus.

Narcissa Malfory was mis-cast. WTF was that with the half black, half blonde hair?

The bathroom scene has already been covered....

The whole ending was wrong and it sucked. Harry was under the invisibility cloak when Dumbledore died. No one knew he was there. The whole deal with Snape finding him then shushing him was stupid.

Dumbledore was buried with the Elder Wand. That's a huge part of the remaining story, but with this one they showed Harry picking up the wand in Dumbledores office after he'd died. They didn't even show any of the funeral scene and the white tomb.

The whole battle that took place after the death eaters appeared at Hogwarts was left out.

The whole story line of the vanishing cabinet was changed. Mr. Weasley knowing that it was a vanishing cabinet was half way through the movie, yet no one connected the dots weakened the movie.

As I said, I'm a purist to the books, so this one went way too far off the book for me. Had I not read the book, I probably would have thought it to be a good movie.

The only not so good special effects that stood out to me was the background of the quittich match. It looked very fake to me.

I just called my daughter over to read this post and she's shouting "Yes! I thought Slughorn was miscast also!"

"Narcissa is supposed to have platinum hair! What the hell was with that half this, half that Alice in Wonderland crap!?"

She loved your points and agrees with all of them. "IF I were to allow myself to dislike the movie, THOSE REASONS would be totally why."

 

[silverwhisper]

i actually thought that this film showed greater fidelity to the original work than the more recent films, the torching of the burrow aside. that's actually a very strange decision, given that's where book 7 is supposed to start!

this was a long film, almost 2.5 hours, IIRC. if LOTR films could be longer, i'd argue that the potter films also could be--but clearly, yates felt differently. perhaps when the DVD is released, a director's cut will be available?

i agree that the scene when harry discovers draco should've been given a few more seconds for the impact of draco's situation to register. i felt a bit cheated. the actor did a decent job i thought of showing what he was going through, but just another 2 seconds would've allowed the emotions to register, i felt.

but other than that, i think there were some good and desirable deviations from the original work in this film, such as some of the dialogue.

re: casting, i thought narcissa wasn't mis-cast, merely rendered poorly: the distinguishing malfoy trait is that they're practically albinos. coloring her hair wouldn't be so difficult. my bet is that the director figured the hair color was a way to reinforce visually that narcissa and bellatrix are supposed to be sisters. i thought slughorn was just fine, and have been a fan of jim broadbent's work. i felt his performance worked.

ed

 

[Recidiva]

i actually thought that this film showed greater fidelity to the original work than the more recent films, the torching of the burrow aside. that's actually a very strange decision, given that's where book 7 is supposed to start!

this was a long film, almost 2.5 hours, IIRC. if LOTR films could be longer, i'd argue that the potter films also could be--but clearly, yates felt differently. perhaps when the DVD is released, a director's cut will be available?

i agree that the scene when harry discovers draco should've been given a few more seconds for the impact of draco's situation to register. i felt a bit cheated. the actor did a decent job i thought of showing what he was going through, but just another 2 seconds would've allowed the emotions to register, i felt.

but other than that, i think there were some good and desirable deviations from the original work in this film, such as some of the dialogue.

re: casting, i thought narcissa wasn't mis-cast, merely rendered poorly: the distinguishing malfoy trait is that they're practically albinos. coloring her hair wouldn't be so difficult. my bet is that the director figured the hair color was a way to reinforce visually that narcissa and bellatrix are supposed to be sisters. i thought slughorn was just fine, and have been a fan of jim broadbent's work. i felt his performance worked.

ed

I like Jim Broadbent too, so I liked him. I appreciate talent.

I was bound to have impertinent thoughts. When the Burrow was burning I thought "Well, Dumbledore can just do one of those reconstructing spells that he did at the beginning...he'd think that was fun."

When Harry said "You look the same to me, sir." I immediately thought "He doesn't look anything like Richard Harris.

Also, the cabinet holding the Pensieve memories looked exactly like the cabinet that held the triwizard cup (and melted)...I thought they were recycling props.

 

[silverwhisper]

recidiva: i didn't think the cabinet looked very similar--didn't this one have glass to show all the vials containing memories?

ed

 

[Recidiva]

recidiva: i didn't think the cabinet looked very similar--didn't this one have glass to show all the vials containing memories?

ed

I'm trying to find pictures, but I can only find the cup itself.

Same prop builder, maybe.

Unfortunately youtube clips with harry potter searches are giving me clips of dubious fanvids I don't really want to see.

 

[silverwhisper]

well, i plan on seeing it a second time, so i'll try to pay attention when i do. :>

ed

 

[Recidiva]

well, i plan on seeing it a second time, so i'll try to pay attention when i do. :>

ed

Cool, thanks.

I'd just rewatched the Goblet of Fire (to further my devotion to my daughter's fictional pursuits, I actually read Twilight and saw it with her and Edward Cullen is the same guy who dies in "Goblet")

So we watched that one a few times. It's the melty bit, not the fire they throw their names into or the goblet itself.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

And another thing:

Fenrir Greyback was never even mentioned by name. He's such an integral part to the story. He was in a few scenes standing around in the background, but wasn't even mentioned.

He's the one who bit Lupin. He mangles Bill in the book. Bill and Fleur aren't mentioned in the movie, but their wedding and the cottage are important parts later on. Greyback is one of the leaders of the group in the final battle scene that never made it to the screen.

One thing I would have love to have seen would be the opening scene of the book where the new wizard PM comes to see the muggle PM. I think it would have been great if they'd gotten Tony Blair to play the muggle PM. LOL. But before the movie came out, I didn't think they'd include that scene for time constraint purposes.

The more I think about the movie, the more disappointed I become in it.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

You know what I find very funny about book purists in the case of Harry Potter? J.K. Rowling is right there working on the script along with another writer, and helping out the makeup artists, and the the wardrobe department, and casting... She, the original writer and creator of the universe, is right there approving everything. Yes, some decisions gt made without her, or against her wishes, but for the most part it is her project, and it usually gets done to her liking. And yet people are criticizing her for not being true to her own work? Ha!

 

[amicus]

Geez, JBJ you ain't never babysat a grandkid through one of those things? I got to hate "The Emporers New....something" after watching it a dozen times with a bitty granddaughter who just had to be curled up in my lap....

and Emma Watson, Hermione, is now 19...

Emma Watson was on hand to check out the London premier of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" last night when a nasty incantation blew her frock to the side, exposing her dumble-drawers.

Oops! Where's the house elf when you need to him to keep these fancy dresses in place?

Such a deal!

ami

 

[silverwhisper]

wildcard, i'm curious about something. you already understand i presume that not everything in the book can appear in the movie, correct? on some level, any script is bond to be an abridgement of the original work. what key elements of the book that were missing would have needed to be present in the film for you to have been happy with it?

the scene involving bellatrix and other death eaters torching the burrow lasted maybe 3-4 mins, so there's a decent amount of time you could re-purpose.

ed