Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince *SPOILERS WITHIN*- Page 6

[Taryn]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 2:13pm

Tom Riddle and Harry Potter are basically the same person, one used his powers for evil, one used them for goodness.

That's a very good--and true--point. Both Tom Riddle and Harry are orphans who had lousy childhoods growing up. They have similar personality traits: determination, resourcefulness, etc. The stuff that Slytherin values.

Of course, the thing about Tom Riddle is that we barely see him make that choice, even in the books. He's pretty much a rotten egg from birth, as far as we know.

[humbugfoto]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 5:35pm

Just got back from seeing this and I have to agree with pretty much all the comments here, but I have two things to add: WHEN is Alan Rickman going to get an Oscar for Snape, and am I the only one who thought the kid playing the Tom Riddle at school looked like a girl in drag? And not very well done drag at that??

I wonder if the Academy will do what they did with Lord of the Rings and wait until the final movie has been released before they start handing out Oscars.

[bryan]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 5:48pm

wow this movie was great.

[Taryn]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 6:22pm

I wonder if the Academy will do what they did with Lord of the Rings and wait until the final movie has been released before they start handing out Oscars.

I don't really understand people talking about these movies and Oscars in the same breath. Yeah, they're a lot of fun, but they're so far from being Oscar-worthy. The Lord of the Rings moves were pieces of masterful filmmaking.

am I the only one who thought the kid playing the Tom Riddle at school looked like a girl in drag?

I didn't think he was quite good-looking enough. A bit effeminate. And he played it way too evil. He should be charmingly manipulative, but he was just REEKING of evil.

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 7:48pm

Oh, she said quietly, slinking back into the corner and burying her deep admiration for the girlish-looking actor who played Tom Riddle and his creepy, creepy voice.

[kylejerel17]

Posted: 7/18/09 at 10:32pm

I just got back from the movie theaters and here are my thoughts.

> The camera work and special effects are awesome. In each movie, both qualities strengthen and make the movie(s) more enjoyable. *Special congrats on the people who did the opening scene. The visuals were stunning.*

> The Notable Cast Members:

*Daniel is growing more and more into the role. However, I think he is too stiff in his acting and always makes Harry to me a weaker character (Schmerg, I agree with his voice). Sidenote is when they showed his shoes, I was wearing the exact ones.

*Emma is stunning (Of course I'm a guy). Her acting has always my favorite. Of course, her being my favorite might be because she is what I'd envision what the character, Hermonie, would be (Down to the shoes).

*Rupert is HILARIOUS! He is becoming more and more what I thought of Ron should be. Can't wait to see his scenes in the seventh movie.

*Gambon as Dumbledore was also hilarious. Him being more camp was strangely what I envision Dumbledore to be before Rowling told the world Dumbledore was gay.

*Alan is creepy, moody, dark, charsimatic, and I just want to give him a Oscar! Out of the whole cast, he deserves the Oscar.

*Jim as Slughorn will and should win an Oscar too. He, Alan, and Tom made the movie more enjoyable to me.

*Tom as Draco was the one role in this film that I really wanted to watch. His acting in this film made all the the top leading characters pale in comparsion (Of course Alan and Jim did the same too).

>The story:
I had a couple of friends with me who have seen the movies, but never read the book (I'm the only Potter book fan in my circle of friends). They didn't no what the hell was happening. I had to explain to them what happen when we got coffee. These are their complaints. Here's the list:

*Why was the film about Ron and Hermonie's love and why didn't they kiss for Christ's Sake?????

*Why was the film about Harry and Ginny's love?

*Why was Profeesor Slughorn staring at Harry like candy?

I told them their's more to the movie. I explain to them the movie is about the lost of innocence and showing things are getting worse. They tell me where was that (Which I stop explaining and just went along with what they were saying). The movie, to me, just serves as the dividend, which the book did too. It showed information, but the creative team should of put more information and the film overall felt too slow.

Overall: 3 stars out of 5.
Reason- Acting, camera work, and special effects saves the film. Writing and the plot just makes an endless confusion of "WTH".

P.S. Umm... if I haven't read the book I wouldn't have understand what the half-blood prince was. My friends and most people in the theater didn't know what the hell that was about.
Updated On: 7/18/09 at 10:32 PM

[mauriposa]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 1:57am

Finally saw the movie today after re-reading books 6 & 7 this week. I was warned that I shouldn't re-read the books before viewing because it would make me focus on the negative, but oh well.

Really, I have no problem viewing the books and the movies as two separate animals. Added scenes, when done well, can definitely breathe new life into the magical world we've all come to know and love. However, I take issue when changes are made for seemingly no reason, especially when they leave a hole in this or future movies.

*spoilers*

Added things I liked:
1) Turning the movie into an awkward teen sex comedy at moments. I laughed harder at some of these bits than I have in any full comedy I have seen lately. They really lightened the mood and showed non-readers how enjoyable this world can be.

2) Slughorn's story about the fish he gets from Lily. This never happened in the book, but it worked to establish just how special Lily was and explained Slughorn's motivation for giving Harry the memory.

Changed things that made me want to throw my shoe at the screen:
1) The ridiculous attack on the Burrow. It's almost as if the filmmakers were thinking, "This stretch of film is a little boring, so let's spice it up by burning down the Weasley house. Nevermind the fact that Bill & Fleur get married there in the next book. We'll solve that problem later." But I wasn't that upset by it until they cut the battle scene at the end. While I can understand that two Hogwarts battle scenes may seem redundant, I think everyone who's read the books would agree that they're not. At least, I wasn't bored in the 7th book because the fight took place in the same location as the 6th. But my biggest beef about it was that it made the ending seem completely anticlimactic and unrealistic. Are we supposed to believe that the biggest Deatheaters would work that hard to get into the castle just to run into the night afterward? Besides, the only two who acted in that scene were Draco and Snape, who have been at Hogwarts for THE ENTIRE FILM. It made no sense to even bring the others there.

2) The sense of mystery. There are two big mysteries in the book. What the heck is Draco Malfoy up to? and Who is the Half Blood Prince? The movie spends absolutely no time with either of these questions. Instead, they show Draco with the cabinet in one of the first scenes and then have Mr. Weasley very clearly tell us what it is about halfway through. There is also no mention of the identity of the Half-Blood Prince until Snape blurts it out in the end, at which point, nobody even cared anymore. I guess that Christmas Burrow Fire was supposed to add the to the tension of the film after the filmmakers sucked it dry by these omissions. Whatever.

3) Having Ginny hide Harry's book for him. This complaint is extra-spoilerish because it reveals info about the 7th book, just fyi. But when Harry hides his potions book in the novel, he marks the location with a tiara he finds in the room, which just so happens to be the long-lost diadem of Rowena Ravenclaw and one of the horcruxes that leads to Voldemort's undoing. So, it would have been nice for the filmmakers to have not cut that out. I think their job as storytellers would be made a heck of a lot easier if they just stuck to what J.K. Rowling wrote instead of struggling to fill the plot holes they made by changing things around for no good reason.


Whew. Feels good to get that off my chest. Sorry it was so long.

[Taryn]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 2:21am

Added things I liked:
1) Turning the movie into an awkward teen sex comedy at moments.

Why does everybody talk about this like it wasn't already a huge part of the book? The book is either OOH VOLDEMORT MEMORY or OOH PEOPLE MAKING OUT or OOH PEOPLE WISHING THEY COULD MAKE OUT.

[Dre2387]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 10:34am

Why does everybody talk about this like it wasn't already a huge part of the book? The book is either OOH VOLDEMORT MEMORY or OOH PEOPLE MAKING OUT or OOH PEOPLE WISHING THEY COULD MAKE OUT.

while this is true, I think most people have a different way of viewing it in their minds when they read the book. or skim through it to get to what they think is the interesting part of the book. But when it comes to life on screen, it's there and they have to watch it and can't ignore it and they complain that there is too much when, like you said, the novel was full of it.

<--- the set of A Midsummer Night's Dream that I was assistant stage manager for during the 2007 season at the STNJ outdoor stage.

-Dre- You must remember all the same that at the crux of every game is knowing when it's time to leave the table... And it's important to be artful in your exit. No turning back, you must accept the con is done... It was a ball, it was a blast. And it's a shame it couldn't last. But every chapter has to end, you must agree.
~Dirty Rotten Scoundrels~
There's a special kind of people known as show people. We live in a world full of dreams. Sometimes we're not too certain what's false and what's real. But we're seldom in doubt about what we feel.
~Curtains~
It is a far, far better thing I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest I go to, than I have ever known.
~A Tale of Two Cities ~

[mauriposa]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 12:25pm

Why does everybody talk about this like it wasn't already a huge part of the book? The book is either OOH VOLDEMORT MEMORY or OOH PEOPLE MAKING OUT or OOH PEOPLE WISHING THEY COULD MAKE OUT.

I didn't mean to imply that all of the snogging bits weren't in the book. Of course, they are. However, we didn't see Lavender Brown making goo goo eyes at Ron until they got together. There was no cute subway babe. Cormac didn't lick his fingers across the table from Hermione. Ron never pushed himself between Harry and Ginny on the couch at the Burrow. These parts WERE added. And quite successfully, I think.


Updated On: 7/20/09 at 12:25 PM

[Ariella]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 5:06pm

I think this is my favorite Potter movie thus far. The art direction and visuals were quite effective, and until the end (which felt slow and anticlimactic to me), the pacing worked very well.

I did resent the non-canon scene at the Burrow. Somewhere I read that this was intended to convey all of the Death Eater attacks in a single moment involving Harry, but I found it clumsy and wished they hadn't felt the need to add something so dramatic to the story.