Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince *SPOILERS WITHIN*- Page 5

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 3:04am

I think my expectations were a little too high. While I did thoroughly enjoy the movie, I wasn't totally blown away. I think the pacing was a bit off and the movie was slow to get started. For the first time, I felt like the movie could have easily been at least a few minutes shorter. The transitions were also awfully abrupt, but I think Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban is the only movie in the series that does a nice job with scene-to-scene transitions.

But as I said, I really enjoyed it. The cinematography is beautiful. Jim Broadbent was a lot of fun and surprisingly touching as Slughorn, Helena Bonham Carter is a blast to watch as Bellatrix, and I've never loved Rickman's Snape more. I've always liked Gambon as Dumbledore. I want to love Daniel Radcliffe as Harry, I really, really do, but I wish he'd give us a little more. He did a nice job with the climactic scenes, though. Emma Watson was less mediocre than usual, and Rupert Grint is still the best actor of the three leads. I can't wait to see his face-off with the locket in Deathly Hallows. The actors playing the younger and older versions of Tom Riddle were great.

LOVED the humor in the movie, especially (unexpectedly) in the Felix Felecis scenes. That sequence was really well done overall. I think the cave scene and Dumbledore's death on the tower were thrillingly executed. I was especially impressed by Felton's Draco, who I found completely believable throughout, but Gambon and Rickman were also perfect. It honestly didn't bother me a bit that Dumbledore didn't immobilize Harry the way he does in the book...on the contrary, I think it adds a pretty interesting dimension in terms of how much faith Harry has in Dumbledore's orders.

I'm definitely excited to see it again, and I think I might even come out liking it more the second time.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 3:50am

"Also, Emma Watson has turned into a great actress"

Really? I thought she and Bonnie Wright were both horrendous. Together, they nearly ruined the movie for me.

However, Tom Felton was magnificent.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 6:05am

I agree, Priest. Felton's performance was such a nice surprise!

Emma Watson's not good, but I didn't find her distractingly bad this time the way I have in the past. Updated On: 7/16/09 at 06:05 AM

[nygrl232]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 6:45am

Watson doesn't have much of a future as an actor, imho. But she's probably set for life having done these movies, so hey. Must be nice making all that money in such an enjoyable job at which one is not particularly skilled. What, me jealous? Sure.

Radcliffe will probably find success behind the camera. I see him marrying and starting a family in his late 20's. He'll be fine--he's got such a sturdy support system and he's a delightful lad.

Rupert Grint will do well as an actor. Probably not so much in Hollywood as England. But he's a natural, as shy as he is in interviews.

Haven't seen the movie yet. Not sure if I want to. Something about them always leaves me totally cold--maybe they feel too "forced" and over-budgeted. I prefer the movies I cooked up in my mind while reading the books, weh. Emma and Bonnie kind of disrupt the dynamic, the rogue's gallery of British acting royalty is kind of annoying and distracting. The movies never quite work for me.
Updated On: 7/16/09 at 06:45 AM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 9:42am

I'm as big a fan of the books as anyone. I've read them repeatedly, and was one of the crazies in Barnes and Noble at midnight the night they were released.

That being said, this business about "they left such and such out" is getting irritating. The films are adaptations of the novels, and will never include every little detail. I remember the ridiculous outcry from some people when it was announced that SPEW was not making it into the films. You have to judge and appreciate the movies as entirely separate entities from the books. Are the books better? Of course. The books are some of the finest novels of the past 20 years.

Rowling has enormous creative control over these movies and works closely with the directors to make sure no large plot holes exist. If she had an issue with someone one of the directors was doing, she'd say so.

[jessica0414]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 10:11am

"That being said, this business about "they left such and such out" is getting irritating. The films are adaptations of the novels, and will never include every little detail"

^ I could not agree more. I feel like so many people have read the books at this point that it's kind of assumed that the majority of the audience are also Potter book fans. My friend's boyfriend hasn't read the books and was confused by movies 3-5 because of plot holes and such, so I understand some complaints but...just read the books! lol

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 11:25am

I'm not reading the spoilers as I haven't read the book in a while, so I will probably enjoy the film a bit more without being so acutely aware of what is missing this time (big mistake I made with HP4 as it is my favorite book in the series). I have tickets for Saturday and I'm too excited. I wanted to go sooner, but my new bedroom closet is being delivered and installed today and tomorrow and as much as I love Harry Potter, I love this closet a bit more.

I would really love to see a Harry Potter film get a Best Picture nod. I was hoping HP5 would accomplish the feat, but unless the last two films perform a miracle even the Academy can't ignore, it'll probably never happen.

PS - Rottentomatoes.com gives it 88% and 90% for Top Critics.

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 1:01pm

Oh, I did love the bit with Cormac McLaggen licking his fingers. And when he ate the 'dragon balls' and vomited on Snape's shoes. Good times...

I thought Tom Felton was perfect for the role of Draco. He looked and acted exactly as I imagined the character when I read the book.

It makes me uncomfortable to watch Dan Radcliffe as Harry. Maybe because he's nothing like the Harry I picture when I read the books, but he's just so awkward. It's not that he's not a good actor, just that he's not Harry for me. I love his personality in interviews, but his performances always kind of rub me the wrong way.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 2:04pm

How are people not bothered by the immense plot holes!?!?!

This isn't even about whether or not it's a worth adaptation of the novel, it's about the screenplay leaving gaping story holes that destroy plot coherence.

No matter how pretty the movie looks, without a plot that makes a lick of sense, this cannot possibly be called a "good film."

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 2:14pm

See, I found Emma and Rupert the best of the three in regards to acting. Daniel is really good in scenes where he is pissed off or sad. But, in "normal" scenes he lacks something.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 2:35pm

The one thing that's disappointing to me is that there's no basis in the movies for Snape's true motivations. Leaving out his memory scene in Order of the Phoenix was a huge missed opportunity, and I was hoping that they'd do something to make up for it in this movie.

[Testing1232]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 3:52pm

Saw it, and liked it... will probably see it again this weekend, and most likely will enjoy it more (Same thing happened to me with the last "Trek" film)

Do agree that it was a tad too long.

[Taryn]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 3:59pm

Leaving out his memory scene in Order of the Phoenix was a huge missed opportunity, and I was hoping that they'd do something to make up for it in this movie.

You mean the scene that WAS in OotP, just shortened?

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 4:01pm

I did wish they included the scene where Harry learned from Trelawney that it was Snape who overheard the Prophecy and told it to Voldemort... that was important. But I understand Emma Thompson had other commitments and couldn't be in this movie.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 4:20pm

Maybe the 8th movie's screenplay and will be written by fanfic writers, consisting entirely of Snape's Lily memories.

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 4:23pm

Eurgh. That subplot and Harry using Unforgiveable Curses were the only things I didn't like about the seventh book. I feel like Snape doing brave and good things solely because he had a Sydney Carton crush on some married chick cheapened his character... not to mention, it excited all of those scary Snape fangirls who are convinced, despite very detailed descriptions that say otherwise, that Severus Snape is the sexiest thing ever created.

[broadwayjim42]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 7:27am

I don't think disappointed is the right word, but I was left a little wanting by this one. Like SweetestSiren, I thought the pacing was off but I also found the tone of the movie scattershot and inconsistent.

Did I still like it? Yes...the whole series has never been less than "good," but this and "Order of the Phoenix" have left me a bit colder than the first four.

I happen to like Emma, but she pretty much sealed the deal in the first movie with the look she gave Rupert Grint after the "light reading" line.

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 12:54pm

"I would really love to see a Harry Potter film get a Best Picture nod. I was hoping HP5 would accomplish the feat, but unless the last two films perform a miracle even the Academy can't ignore, it'll probably never happen."

Keep in mind that the Academy has decided to increase the number of Best Picture noms to ten this year. Not saying that this or any Potter film will get a nom, but the chances are much better.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 2:44pm

I thought it was enjoyable if too long for my taste. My problem is that they make the movies unnecessarily long (IMO) while still seeming like they are rushing through the motions. My main problem with all the HARRY POTTER movies, this one included, is that you never get a sense of how much is at stake. I feel what made the books so successful for me was that I felt there was SO much at stake and like this was really such an important battle. When the sixth book starts, and Muggles are being attacked, and Harry's dealing with the death of his godfather, I mean, you feel they are at war, there's an immense sense of fear, and I always felt like there was an imminent danger that would lead up to the ultimate battle in the seventh installment.
This is why I got invested in reading seven books throughout the years. The movies do a brilliant job at getting you involved in Harry's fantasy world (and I think this is my favorite film in that sense) but I don't think they do a good job in terms of portraying how much is at stake.
Having said that, I thought it was a beautiful film, the special effects were out of the world, IMO, and apart from a few poorly-acted moments (that I blame partly on the actors' inexperience and partly on direction), I enjoyed all the actors. The girl who plays Ginny is not necessarily great, but I think she has great chemistry with Radcliffe. Radcliffe is adorable, funny, and a star, he makes me root for Harry in ways that I didn't necessarily did when reading the books since book Harry got really annoying at most points. He also has a lot of chemistry with Watson which I'm glad this movie took advantage of. And I don't remember her name but the girl who plays Luna steals all her scenes and Yates really gets the character and has fun with her.
The adults are great. Loved Broadbent as Slughorn and well, Helena Bonham Carter is pure evil perfection as Bellatrix.

[singingwendy]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 3:35pm

See...now what I think I appreciated most was that you got a "final look" at Hogwarts. I think we sometimes forget that through all the prophecies and life or death battles, Harry is still a student. I felt that Hogwarts was his respite from the "real world"--where he could be safe, learn, and prepare for the battle ahead.

I always thought Dumbledore was acutely aware of Harry's age and inexperience and always did what he could to give him the most "normal" life while he was at Hogwarts, even though he knew who Harry was and what he had to do. By the end of this book/movie, Harry realizes that too...and makes the decision not go go back.

[BillFinn]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 9:22pm

Cormac McLaggen = yum. yum.

The reason people are in a uproar about the things cut from the movie is because of CHARACTERIZATION. Tom Riddle's characterization is suffering throughout these films. Yes they are adaptations of a book, but you also have to take into account how to translate characters. Right now, Voldemort/Tom Riddle is this archetypal figure. The only memory, providing depth to the character, that we have seen is the 3-minute orphanage. So we assume he was poorly abused as a child and that validates his actions later in life? The Gaunts memory was important because THAT was the true back story you needed to understand where Tom Riddle's scary-ness began. And the Lily/Snape memory follows the same train of thought. My guess is they'll force feed you that Snape was into Lily, etc. etc. and that's why he's not really so bad.

My biggest problem with the film is the scene they included between Dumbledore/Snape before the Cave stuff. They kind of spelled it out to you, "SNAPE IS GOOD!" People put 2 and 2 together when Snape said "Master, please. You ask too much of me." and later when Dumbledore said calmly, "Severus, please..." Not to mention, when Snape told Harry to stay quiet and didn't kill him on the spot (under the Astronomy Tower). The thing about Snape, in the book, is that he is neither bad or good. He's a little of both and it was interesting to withhold our judgments of Snape as long as we did. Now that is gone in the movie adaptation.

A lot of people seem to be complaining that there was too much love/hormonal/My-So-Called-Life stuff, but these are 17 year olds and the movie IS rated PG. Some mothers around me thought the scene with Ron convulsing was too strong for their children to watch. Considering this is a series of books leading up to a final battle with the Hitler figure? I found it tame.

The plot holes didn't really bother me. I agree, it looked sort of ridiculous to build up Malfoy's secret to "just letting the Death Eaters in and that's about it." However, I found the scene with Bellatrix walking all over the House tables and breaking things important. They were showing us, again, the end of innocence and a change coming into Hogwarts. ALL OF THESE MOVIES have told us, "The only thing Voldemort fears is Dumbledore. We're safe in Hogwarts as long as Dumbledore is around." Bellatrix breaking stuff in the Common Room, on top of all the House tables, was incredibly symbolic. If they could break into Hogwarts, then no one could stand up against them.

Updated On: 7/17/09 at 09:22 PM

[Taryn]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 10:36pm

"My biggest problem with the film is the scene they included between Dumbledore/Snape before the Cave stuff. They kind of spelled it out to you, "SNAPE IS GOOD!" People put 2 and 2 together when Snape said "Master, please. You ask too much of me." and later when Dumbledore said calmly, "Severus, please..." Not to mention, when Snape told Harry to stay quiet and didn't kill him on the spot (under the Astronomy Tower). The thing about Snape, in the book, is that he is neither bad or good. He's a little of both and it was interesting to withhold our judgments of Snape as long as we did. Now that is gone in the movie adaptation."

But that scene of Dumbledore and Snape arguing IS IN the book, just not as explicit. I believe someone tells Harry about overhearing it? It's more explicit in the movie just because there isn't as much in there to pad it out, but people still figured it out from the book. Without the inclusion of this scene in the film, you'll just end up force-fed in the DH films that Snape was following Dumbledore's orders.

"The Gaunts memory was important because THAT was the true back story you needed to understand where Tom Riddle's scary-ness began."

See, I disagree there. I certainly think that Tom Riddle used his personal history as a means and personal validation for his actions, but it's not what MADE him evil. The fact of the matter is, he started out as a rotten egg, had a rotten childhood in a rotten orphanage, and wound up a person too broken to care about anyone else or even care to try. What makes him special, really, is that he happens to be an amazing wizard who has the ability and the willingness to go much further in his pursuit of darkness than anyone else. Voldemort felt no reason to change from the person he was as a child, he didn't become evil when he stumbled upon his family history.

[BillFinn]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 11:58pm

In my random group of friends, college, etc. etc., we all were debating whether or not Snape was good after "Half Blood" because of that line (Severus... please). It wasn't explicit to us. I don't think it was explicit Snape was good after "Half-Blood"? But maybe that was just me. I think if that scene was cut, things would be a lot more... elusive but not SO elusive that we're thrown out to left field? That moment where Snape is pointing his wand at Harry and then mouths "SHHHHH". That says a lot. His allegiance should be unclear---> is my point.

Right. I'm sorry I typed it out the way I did. I don't think that part of Tom Riddle's history MADE him evil, but it certainly played a factor. My point was, going solely on the films, Tom Riddle's characterization blows. It just does. He's an archetype. That Gaunts memory would have made the character more specific and given the audience a better connection. Also, the thing I hated that was lost in the film, is Dumbledore's message to Harry at the end. It goes something like "Harry, the reason I'm showing you all these memories is so you realize Tom Riddle is just a human being with faults just like everyone else. He's a half-blood. He had a rotten childhood. HE IS HUMAN." Dumbledore wanted Harry to understand that before he left. I didn't see that message in the movie at all and it was an important one.

[jessica0414]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 2:38am

Saw it again tonight and, upon a second viewing, I agree that it's a little long. The friend I went with hasn't seen a Potter film since the first and also hasn't read the books but enjoyed it enough and thought it wasn't too hard to follow even without knowing the entire detailed backstory and plot of the book. Too bad the major...


***SPOILER***


...of Dumbledore dying is now forever ruined for her if she ever decides to read the books lol but I'm not sure she will. She said she tried the first a few years ago and was bored.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 2:56am

Tom Riddle and Harry Potter are basically the same person, one used his powers for evil, one used them for goodness. That's what the ultimate battle is about, and I don't think any of the movies do a good job at really letting the audience know that this is what's at stake. Also, there's one point at which both wizards (especially Harry) could have been good or bad, they made their choices, again, I don't think the movies make it seem like Harry or even Voldemort made choices that depended on where their respective lives took them. It all seems so unquestionable, I'm just reluctant to really fall all over the movies because of that.