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

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.

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

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.

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.

---

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."

---

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.

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?

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

---

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.

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.

---

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

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.

---

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.

---