Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Review
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Directed by: David Yates
Written by: Steve Kloves (screenplay), J.K. Rowling (novel)
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Jim Broadbent, Helena Bonham Carter
It has been eight long years since the Harry Potter series first debuted on the big screen, and while the hardcore fans are still just as dedicated as ever, it’s hard to say that the same level of magic and wonder remains for the rest of us. There aren’t many other franchises (if any) that have delivered this many installments in such a short period of time, but as Warner Brothers races to finish these movies before the cast outgrows their characters, clearly audience burnout is the furthest thing from their minds.
Truth be told, it’s the formulaic nature of the stories that are starting to wear thin for me. I can’t say for sure if J.K. Rowling is to blame since I have not actually read any of the books, but I enjoyed the first few movies a great deal, and at this point they’re all starting to blur together in my mind. The only thing keeping me interested is the fact that there are brief glimpses of an epic showdown with Voldemort at the end of it all. My hope was that this sixth installment would finally stop peddling meaningless subplots about wacky teachers and concentrate on developing the main story arc. In that sense, it only partially delivers.
Picking up from the intense conclusion of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the story finds Harry still being pursued by Death Eaters and Voldemort’s forces growing more powerful. Dumbledore convinces retired teacher Horace Slughorn to return to Hogwarts, but with an ulterior motive: he previously taught a student named Tom Riddle, aka a young Voldemort. Dumbledore is trying to collect memories related to the big V so as to figure out how he attained immortality. Meanwhile Professor Snape makes a vow to help Draco Malfoy perform a task for the dark lord, and as for Ron and Hermione… well, they’re just experiencing the joys of adolescence.
One of the most noticeable differences with this movie is that it contains more soap opera fluff and romantic elements than any of the previous films. I guess this is to be expected since the kids are growing up, but it feels like the maturity of the characters are lagging a few years behind its primary cast who are now nearing twenty years old. The way that this stuff is handled is pretty goofy and childish. Some of it is genuinely funny and charming, but a lot of it is unintentionally funny and just plain awkward. The Half-Blood Prince definitely stays in light-hearted comedic territory a lot more often than I thought it would, which seems odd considering that these stories are supposed to be getting progressively darker. But I guess the main problem is that the relationship drama really takes up far too much time while offering little in the way of surprises or character development.
The best thing about this installment is that it is the first one to focus 100% on Voldemort. Yes, there is another new teacher with a secret, but it is all very relevant to the overall plot, and the true villains are laid in plain sight from the very start of the film. The flashbacks to Voldemort as a young wizard are compelling and eerie, but they do come a little too infrequently. Aside from a confrontation with the Death Eaters at the Weasley residence, there isn’t a lot of action in this movie up until the finale — and even the finale feels a little bit underwhelming. From what I understand they omitted a big battle scene because (big surprise) a similar battle also happens in the next book. Go figure.
Every time it seems like a Harry Potter flick might go down a slightly different path, it ends up falling back onto well-worn ground. Early on in this movie there is an exciting sense that the dark magic is starting to bleed over into the real world, as illustrated by a Death Eater attack on the Millennium Bridge in London. Somehow after seeing something like this it’s a pretty big disappointment to wind up back at Hogwarts watching Quidditch matches and sitting through potion classes. We already know that Harry is the “chosen one”… does it really matter what he’s learning at school anymore? To be fair, there wasn’t much in the way of funny candy or strange creatures this time around, but it just seems like every character has to make their token appearance, and very little changes within Hogwarts itself.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is directed by David Yates, who also helmed the last film and will be handling both parts of the Deathly Hallows as well. Visually, I like his style a lot and the cinematography by Bruno Delbonnel (Amelie, Across the Universe) makes this quite possibly the best-looking Harry Potter film yet. The performances are strong, especially the addition of Jim Broadbent who plays Professor Slughorn as both bumbling and guilt-ridden. It’s hard to criticize the movie from a technical standpoint, but still… you have to make people care about what’s on screen, right? Then again, maybe that part’s optional when you’ve got so many avid readers bringing their own encyclopedic knowledge and die-hard enthusiasm to the table.
It seems that whenever a new Harry Potter movie comes out, the standard response is for everyone to call it the best one yet… but how often does this end up being true? Surely I’m not alone in feeling that the magic has been wearing off for some time now. There are a few standout scenes that show just how much potential this franchise holds, but when you have to sit through two hours of filler to get them, it’s pretty difficult to recommend the movie (to non-readers, at least). By all accounts, it does seem like the final movie is guaranteed to be the best, but with their decision to split it into two parts, will we have to contend with yet another snoozefest where nothing really happens? All I know is that the final showdown better be worth the wait, because this is all getting to be pretty damn tedious. — Sean
SCORE: 
Recommended If You Like: Harry Potter, The Chronicles of Narnia, Twilight
Comments (88)
Interesting. I had a very different reaction. The first two Potter films just weren’t too interesting to me. They feel very “produced” and far too faithful to the source material. I also absolutely hate Chris Colombus’s gag-inducing sentimentality. When Alfonso Cuaron came on to the scene, I feel he gave the films atmosphere and the film moved with great fluidity. I didn’t like the fourth one a whole lot, but I have really admired the 5th and 6th because they feel more character driven. While I can understand the romance parts bothering some people, I don’t think they are anywhere as cheap as something like “Twilight.” I think it just made the characters more relatable. Yes, they are fighting dark forces, but they’re still just teenagers. Maybe I’m being a bit too forgiving, but a blockbuster that is character focused feels refreshing in a summer dominated by jive-talking robots and dogs with a humping fetish.
Posted by John O'Neil on July 19th, 2009I really enjoyed the movie. That being said I’m looking forward to Jay’s “It was shit” rant.
Posted by Ethan on July 19th, 2009I disagree with this review completely. Since when did having tons of action become a pre-requisite for being a good summer movie? The book had even less action then the movie (Death Eaters attacking the bridge and the Weasley residence were not in the book) even the “battle” at the end of the book was more of a skirmish than a “battle”. Yes the stories are getting darker but that does not mean the characters are going to start acting emo all the time. The world around them is going to shit and they are going to try to find whatever little joy they can in their lives for as long as they can, they are teenagers after all. During World War II people did not stop falling in love or playing sports.
The romance is supposed to be awkward since these three characters are huge dorks who have never had a boyfriend/girlfriend before. Ginny trying to tie Harry’s shoelaces is SUPPOSED to be awkward and uncomfortable. All the Hogwarts stuff is important character development. The potions classes were supposed to develop Harry’s admiration of the half-blood prince character (a point I will admit was underdeveloped in the movie) which makes his eventual reveal and betrayal even more gut wrenching for Harry. The quidditch match wasn’t there just for the sake of having a quidditch match (the match is shown for less then a minute and the score and the opponent aren’t even told) it was there to show Ron, who has always been an underachiever, finally coming out of the shadow of more successful Harry, Hermione and his brothers.
I feel like you need to like Harry, Ron and Hermione on some level to truly enjoy the film and to me it does not seem you were too big a fan of these 3 characters which makes your indifference to their personal issue understandable however that is what this franchise is about, it is not about Voldemort, yes Voldemort is an important part but ultimately it is about the friendship of these three characters and if you are not invested in them you cannot like the stories. If they spent every waking moment discussing Voldemort the movies/books wouldn’t be that interesting.
Posted by GORT on July 19th, 2009In the context of the series, I feel like this one is second only to Cuaron’s Prisoner of Azkaban. A pleasant surprise considering I hated the fifth movie and really didn’t have high hopes for the sixth.
But, let’s be frank… these movies aren’t very good if you really judge them objectively on their own. They’re probably only cool for fans of the books, and even then they’re pretty disappointing if you really start making comparisons. I’ve still enjoyed them on a whole, but they’re nothing to go crazy about.
Posted by Derek on July 19th, 2009I found myself hating the movie, or at the least, I found myself pretty disappointed, seeing as I’d been looking forward to watching it after a week of exams.
I can’t imagine why they’d take away several important points in the plot, and yet add scenes that don’t make sense. scenes that will inevitably change the plot for the hallows movies. It might seem to some a small detail, but to me bill’s face was one key element in hbp, wherein the war finally leaves a scar on the next generation – and to me, Fleur’s declaration was pretty much the most romantic line in all seven books. There are a lot more things I probably could say, but then this would turn into a rant, and I’ve already posted enough on my own blog.
The movie was jumping from scene to scene, and the only one i found impressive was the locket-retrieval one.
I do agree on the fact that they did a really good job with the atmosphere. It was depressing, mysterious, and foreboding. Tom Felton also really did a good job at that last scene, although I was pretty disappointed with how Alan Rickman delivered the I am the Half-blood Prince line.
I don’t have any comment about the romance, since i thought it was awkwardly written in the book itself, so i didn’t really have high expectations for it in the movie.
I think that if you were a HUGE fan, you might become really disappointed with seeing only half the story, and if you’ve never read a book or know only the basic elements of it, you might find yourself becoming confused as to what exactly is going on.
Posted by G on July 19th, 2009“The best thing about this installment is that it is the first one to focus 100% on Voldemort.”
Were we watching the same movie? Speaking as one who has read the novel, I believe that this installment focused very little on Voldemort.
Posted by Rosie on July 19th, 2009Saw it last night and enjoyed it. Although I think I felt that allot was missing from the story than before (I have only read the first book). The Half Blood Prince plot line was underdeveloped and I’m sure there is allot more to it in the book.
Posted by Swarez on July 19th, 2009What I love about the movies is how they are growing up and getting more dark with the characters and the audience.
Didn’t I hear somewhere that there were plans for extended versions of the films, ala LOTR?
liked it better than all the others, except for Prisoner of Azkaban..But I didn´t like that they put shit in there that doesn´t happen in the book, instead of concentrating on making the ending more worthwile..I thought of Jay ranting when they did the Dumbledore falling in slow-motion in the end =), but there´s supposed to be a big fuckin battle and everyones chasing the deatheaters, not just Harry..As always, the book is a hell of a lot better
Posted by pcch7 on July 19th, 2009My thinking is completely different from others’. I liked first two movies a lot by heart. and i can’t explain my feeling about that. After in third movie I slightly disappointed (very little). But from fourth movie i got disappointed continuously. Fourth movie was someway good. But fifth and sixth is undesirable disappointing for me. Today I think,Daniel, Emma and Rupert can get back to age of 12 do that great performance like first two movies. But it is my thinking. May be I am wrong, but one thing any one can easily get that this movies are loosing its touch by time because of changing of director after first two movies. But finally it is Harry Potter’s movies, and i am hardcore fan of it.
Posted by Ketan on July 19th, 2009I have to say that I am a huge harry potter fan probably reading the 6th book 10 times and I am thuroughly dissapointed with the 6th movie. They made up sceens, and skipped huge parts and didnt focus enough on dumbledores collected memories. Them skipping the fight scene at the end was pretty shitty and from the way the cut and skipped character development of certian characters I can see them having to change the story line in the last two installments as well…I am NOT looking forward to the last two movies
Posted by JILL on July 19th, 2009“I feel like you need to like Harry, Ron and Hermione on some level to truly enjoy the film…”
I’d say this is the truest comment here, since so much of the film is hanging out with these characters, and so much of the series’ appeal for someone like me is watching them grow up.
I like the characters, but I don’t like them so rabidly that I want THAT much time with them. I like watching them scramble through adventures and getting into trouble and fighting bitches with cats in plates on the wall more than what is in this movie. There’s an adventure or mystery indicated in the title that the characters don’t really have much interest in.
Posted by Goon on July 19th, 2009but at the same time, i have a much harder time relating to the megafans who are upset that X was cut out or shorter when the movie is already 2 and a half hours long. the LOTR “wheres tom bombadil” people were annoying enough in one movie, and now I’ve had to hear certain Potter fans do this same crap for 6 movies.
You know what happens when you speed things up to try and cram EVERYTHING in? You get the Golden Compass, a movie that has all the important stuff, but because of such means you have little to no investment in the characters, and inherently makes every weird thing in that universe infinitately more ridiculous.
Posted by Goon on July 19th, 2009I really would like to enjoy this series with all its hocus pocus and such, but I cannot for some reason. Maybe my opinion will change when the series ends. When all the films are on DVD in a set, I’ll acquire it and watch it start to finish.
Otherwise, I’m looking forward to “District 9″.
Posted by Tomas on July 19th, 2009The problem with this review comes that the author didn’t read the books. It mind seem like pointless “filler” in the movie but to everyone that has read and loved the books it (for the most part) is following the text. You can’t just add things without making the true fans that started with the books and are now into the movies mad. Maybe you should read the books and with it understand the movie alot more.
Posted by Nate on July 19th, 2009and just saying GORT, the bridge attack was actually in the book. You have to go back to the first chapter where Fudge is talking to the Prime Minister. It just wasn’t as big of a deal when she wrote it.
Posted by Nate on July 19th, 2009I think we should forget to compare these movies with the books bcoz the books will always win. Why dont we understand that at one side it’s a WHOLE DAY READING (removing the texts which describes the locations & looks of the characters) & the other side it’s just TWO & HALF HOURS if we compare them ? I accept that some unwanted scenes are added in this movie but those scenes were not boring at all & this doesnt make sense in us to say that we are disappointed with this installment. I also know some people who hadn’t read any book bcoz of their lacking English & still like the whole movie francise. Honestly, my most favourite movies are third & second and this is my 3rd most favourite movie. As this is not my favourite movie, still I m not disappointed at all eagerly waiting for the last two parts of the movies
Posted by Azhar on July 19th, 2009“14.The problem with this review comes that the author didn’t read the books.” – Nate
This is not a problem. The movies should be able to stand on their own. A regular moviegoer should be able to go into this (after seeing the first 5) and be able to follow it.
Posted by John O'Neil on July 19th, 2009its all well and good if a person who reads the books gets more out of it and/or can read between the lines of things that are inferred or omitted, etc, but its not really fair during a movie review to criticize someone who doesn’t know better. it shouldnt be a requirement to read the book when its a movie.
Posted by Goon on July 19th, 2009You can’t tell me that my opinion isn’t valid because I didn’t read the books. This comes up time and again, and the movies have to be able to stand alone. If they don’t, they have failed in their adaptation. I don’t expect fans to agree with my assessment, and I get that they have a totally different perspective. Sadly it sounds to me like the stuff they added/ changed was the best stuff in the movie, and yet it’s the stuff all the fans are complaining about.
Posted by Sean on July 19th, 2009“Sadly it sounds to me like the stuff they added/ changed was the best stuff in the movie, and yet it’s the stuff all the fans are complaining about.”
Indeed, it made it more interesting for me at that moment. It reminds me of what Jay said about what if the Watchmen ending was the original in the book and they changed it to a giant squid for the movie… people are so hung up on any original version of anything being so flawless that any change is bad simply because its a change.
Posted by Goon on July 19th, 2009Why the FUCK would anyone have to read a book to understand the movie.People fucking love The Lord of the Rings because they are well made and coherent. It makes no god damn since for anyone to HAVE to view the source material.
This movie is an adaptation and the thing I don’t understand is why they have to get these movies perfectly parallel to the books.
IF YOU WANT AN EXACT ADAPTATION OF HARRY POTTER READ THE GOD-DAMN BOOKS!
Zack Snyder shouldn’t have kissed fanboy ass so much and made an entertaining and cerebral adaptation. He should have just taken the concept and rolled with it.
I’m glad he’s doing his own project now because obviously people don’t want to see an original style applied to something.
People bash 300 because of him and say it lacked emotion. SO DID THE COMIC!
Maybe people should blame the source material and not the movie.
That is all.
Posted by David Wilson on July 19th, 2009I’m a huge Potter fan but the movie was too slowly paced. I was squirming in my seat.
Posted by Ryan M. on July 19th, 2009To be honest, Sean, I’ve always viewed the movies as supplements to the books. I appreciate seeing them and enjoy them, but never really have the urge to revisit them ever again. I’m curious, too, because from what I gather from your review, you are interested in the Harry Potter world (and I mean this in a purely non-confrontational way and not a OMG-YOU-SHOULD-READ-THE-BOOKS) with how easy of a read they are, you don’t go through the series. I’m just wondering if it might make the movies more enjoyable.
Regardless, though, the wizard flirting is pretty ridiculous and over-the-top in either form (book or movie). Ah, adolescence…
Posted by Falsk on July 19th, 2009“You know what happens when you speed things up to try and cram EVERYTHING in? You get the Golden Compass, a movie that has all the important stuff, but because of such means you have little to no investment in the characters, and inherently makes every weird thing in that universe infinitately more ridiculous.”
That’s a great point, Goon. I try to put off watching a book-based-movie and read the book first and watched the movie just after finishing “Golden Compass” and was surprised to see everything sort of following along with the book… and realized it was ruining the movie. Taking a book and neatly “transforming” it into script form is not necessarily (if not never) the right move. You experience the two things in completely different ways and as such the story has to be told differently. I think the purists on any front (LotR, HP, etc) need to take a class in screenwriting before they go on to the IMDB message boards to moan and groan about how the movie “ruined” the book.
Posted by Falsk on July 19th, 2009movies are about entertainment and this one offers exactly that. in ample amount. i really dont think this was a bad movie at all. i might venture to say this was the best of the potter movies. the cinematography was consistently good throughout, some of the scenes were stunning to say the least, and the performances were superb. i dont know how u could trash a movie such as this. maybe because you havent read the books, but i think harry potter books have a certain element of humour in all the novels, even in deathly hallows. if the movie is able to portray it, why blame the director?
this was truly an emotional roller coaster, stunning, hilarious and shockingly dark at times. must watch for every potter fan.
Posted by Arnab Das on July 19th, 2009Falsk, I know one movie adaptation that people complained about back when it came out was Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, which was especially bothersome to people because its based on a true story. But if it had followed the book it would have been endlessly long and clearly not have worked as a film. But some people just dont care about that, they want their book transcribed page for page.
Maybe the worst adaptation I ever sat through was of Elmore Leonard’s “Be Cool”, and that is simply because the book itself was not great to begin with, but the movie changed everything that was good and kept everything that was bad, until only the Rock’s character even remotely resembled its source material.
Posted by Goon on July 19th, 2009Too much hyperbole from die hard fans and too many expectations from casuals. This movie’s audience resembles WoW’s.
Posted by Dave on July 19th, 2009****SPOILERS*****
****SPOILERS*****
****SPOILERS*****
****SPOILERS*****
****SPOILERS*****
What I want to know is why was Dumbledor’s hand “withering” at the start of the film. I looked at the fifth film and there was nothing there that messed his hand up. I’m sure that’s something that was cut from the release print of the film.
Posted by Swarez on July 19th, 2009u lot are idiots, read the books, oh and stop pretending your all critics cuz no1 cares wot u fink
Posted by paul on July 19th, 2009I found the movie didnt properly explain why Potter didn’t go to Dumbledore with his information about Snape. I mean sure a couple people just say “trust Dumbledore and his plans!” but that doesn’t really fly with me. Do the books better cover this?
Posted by Goon on July 19th, 2009Swarez– I’m surprised they cut it out because it WAS a big plot point– in the book his hand was burnt from destroying that ring horcrux we briefly see. There was a huge chapter about learning about Tom Riddle’s parents and weird sister. Thinking about it now though, it really isn’t that essential to the main story… they should’ve just not used it all. Maybe it’ll be in the special features…?
What are you referencing, Goon?
Posted by Falsk on July 19th, 2009forgive me if i’m messing things up, but I remember Potter seeing Snape talking about his unbreakable oath and then making some inquiries with people, but the Weasley father told him not to make anything out of it.
SPOILER WARNING FROM MOVIE/BOOK 6 & BOOK 7
SPOILER WARNING FROM MOVIE/BOOK 6 & BOOK 7
SPOILER WARNING FROM MOVIE/BOOK 6 & BOOK 7
SPOILER WARNING FROM MOVIE/BOOK 6 & BOOK 7
Seeing as Snape killed Dumbledore, but is working as a double agent, I actually don’t know how they’re going to get this across in a movie without it coming across as really really stupid, ESPECIALLY considering what you guys just mentioned about the lack of explanations about the curse affecting Dumbledore’s hand/lifespan
Posted by Goon on July 19th, 2009Hi,Swarez
about “Dumbledor’s hand “withering””, it would be revealed in the last book or say last movies, it would also explain Dumbledor’s behaviours in the whole 6th movie.
Posted by Xu on July 19th, 2009Saw the movie in the opening night, feeling so so
The orgin of DARK LORD fascinated me the most in the not so memorable 6th novel, and they only got two tiny piece left in the movie for the reason I can understand
The romance never worked in the novel, nor in the movie, for one thing, this would be more to blame on Miss Rolling than Mr. Yates
Finally the WAND POINTING sequence blew me away, but they couldn’t just end the movie on this point which would be a EMPIRE STRIKES BACK reminiscence
Michael Gambon is significant better in this movie which has worried me a lot by his previous performance, and Jim Broadbent is just another great British old guy
My ranking for all six would be 3=4>5>6>2=1
anyway, 2 parts for the last piece should be a good idea, a lot more air to breathe
Posted by Xu on July 19th, 2009This was without a doubt the worst of all the movies. The cinamatography was the worst I’ve seen in any movie in a long time. They cut off peoples head at the forehead many times. They did a good job of setting the mood by the lighting but that was as far as it went.
No, the bridge scene was not in the book nor was any of the other attacks that were shown in the beginning of the movie. They were just mentioned in a conversation in the beginning of the book. This change was bad, it would have been more effective and informative if they would have just presented the way the book did. But Hollywood had to go with the action and glitz instead of good dialog.
This happens through out the whole movie. But then, what do you exspect when the makers cater to the brain dead movie goers of today.
The ending was totally changed in the movie, for what purpose. It was more dramatic in the book. I would love to here an explaination from the makers as to the reason for these stupid unnecessary changes.
They wastes screen time on scenes that where of no value to the story. This wasted screen time could have been better used smoothing out the jumping from one scene to another.
Just an eratic movie. The only ones that would like this movie are diehard fans who just will accept anything even if the title was “Harry Potter and The Crappy Movie”
Posted by bob on July 19th, 2009the lack of understanding from some of these things such as Dumbledore’s hand will be revealed in some of the final moments of the final movie and then it will all come together and make sense. What is getting me about this movie is that it doesn’t accurately portray what all this horcrux stuff is about and doesn’t accurately describe what is going on so i’m hoping the pensieve moments in the end will help out filling in some of the holes.
SPOILERS!
SPOILERS!
All these lessons with Dumbledore and the memories are supposed to be a mission for Harry and the audience is supposed to understand that but it kinda feels like at the end of the movie Harry is going in to all this blind just to do it. not to mention they are going to have to come up with something to bypass the whole first part of Deathly Hallows 2 since The Burrow blew up (wtf was that about anyways? couldn’t cast bill and fleur into the movie so just do away with the burrow? retarded). that and i don’t think i saw the diadem at all in the room of req. they gonna just go back to hogwarts just to go at the end of the movie or what?
What I’m also concerned about is Kreacher’s tale and Dobby. we see kreacher for a grand total of 10 seconds in OOTP so there really is no character development there so people who haven’t read the books are going to be like wtf. dobby as well. havent seen him for 7 years on screen are people even going to be upset when it all goes down at malfoy manner?
they surely have some things to overcome in the next 2 movies.
Posted by Brando on July 19th, 2009“This was without a doubt the worst of all the movies. The cinamatography was the worst I’ve seen in any movie in a long time.”
The first movie is far worse than this one. Columbus has no flair at all. The cinematography is just fine, especially in the cave sequences.
Posted by Goon on July 19th, 2009I agree with you when you say the first ones were good. That is when we learned all about Harry Potter, hogwarts, and the wizard world. But then the movies started to drag on. It was the same every time. Voldemort is almost resurrected then he is stopped.
In this movie I finally felt like the story was going somewhere with the Voldemort story line. Also I liked the love interests too. It made the story feel fresh and help the movie keep moving during the slow parts.
All in all I would give it 3.75 wands. lol
Posted by Nick McD on July 20th, 2009C’mon guys. I liked the first two Harry Potter movies directed by Chris Columbus. I feel he is an excellent director. Only his movies were the replica of the book. Others have scenes added or replaced so much and there is no continuity in the last movie, the 6th part. I dont say David Yates is not good. But the screenplay was horrible in the last movie – the half blood prince. Only the slughorn part was given importance throughout and Voldemort’s past. Even Dumbledore’s death was not as painful as Cedric Diggory’s or Sirius’ death. Dumbledore does deserve some respect after all he is the hero of Hogwarts. I was deeply disappointed. Hope at least the next movie would give space and allow us to view Fred, Lupin’s and many others death in a more remorseful way.
Thumbs down for half blood prince.
Posted by Gracie on July 20th, 2009“The best thing about this installment is that it is the first one to focus 100% on Voldemort.” -> This book was supposedly to be a view in Voldemort’s past, through the use of the “lessons” with Dumbledore. In that sense, it has failed miserably and the film never really showed us that glimpse into Voldemort’s past, only showing two. This aspect really left holes in the plot.
Other than that, I completely agree with this review.
Posted by rf121 on July 20th, 2009i haven’t read any of harry’ book i just like the movies, all 5 before this i loved but this one was like a waste of time for me
Posted by john on July 20th, 2009i just like the movies
Posted by atifaslam on July 20th, 2009“I feel he is an excellent director. Only his movies were the replica of the book.”
First off, the books of the movies he adapted were hundreds and hundreds of pages shorter than the other books, he had the easier job, and so making a ‘replica’ in no way shape or form makes him a better director. The only thing he did was making it passable enough to retain interest for the series to continue.
Columbus has never been a good director, he’s simply always been a hired gun who does exactly what he is told. He is the ultimate example of a paycheck director.
Posted by Goon on July 20th, 2009“u lot are idiots, read the books, oh and stop pretending your all critics cuz no1 cares wot u fink”
Really? This is your contribution?
Posted by Swarez on July 20th, 2009“no1 care wot u fink”? Are you retarded or something? Clearly reading all the books hasn’t done allot for your spelling.
“and just saying GORT, the bridge attack was actually in the book. You have to go back to the first chapter where Fudge is talking to the Prime Minister. It just wasn’t as big of a deal when she wrote it.”
thankyou! nate for pointing this out i knew i wasnt being crazy when i thought this! lol
Posted by heather on July 20th, 2009I’d like to raise the point guys that most the people who are die hard fans of lord of the rings that i talked to hated the movies.
i could sit here and rant about everything they didn’t explain, and left out(seeing how i am a die hard hp movie). but i’m just going to say that this movie just further my belief that they need to start making a movie with everything in it and explained fully and shown accurately to the degrees of the book. release that and a second movie that is cut down to standard viewing time and then people can make the choice as to which one they go see. the people who are in it for just the movie can have thier shortened version not knowing what thier missing anyway. and the die hard fans can have something that can accurately depict what they already know.
I hope to god they release a extended version of the movies like they did for lord of the rings… it is also my belief that these movies LOTR, HP, super hero movies are made for the fans anyway. so you should try to get them close as possilbe to the original story because if it wasn’t for the fans that go and support the movie even though they know it won’t even be near as good as the book then none of these things would make any money.
Posted by rick on July 20th, 2009Re: Snape acting as double agent.
There is a scene in the movie, lifted from the book, in which Draco’s mother goes to Snape for help. Bellatrix goads Snape into performing the Unbreakable Vox, a binding spell the forces Snape to protect Draco and carry out his task should the boy falter.
*SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER*
*SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER*
Snape tells Dumbledore about this Vow, so Dumbledore knows that it would be far better if Snape performed the deed rather than damage the soul of Draco, who could still be saved. Snape doesn’t like it, and thus we get the scene in the movie where Harry walks in on Snape and Dumbledore having a pow-wow. At the end of the movie, Dumbledore implores Snape not for help, but to carry out the act so Draco will not have to and Snape can fulfill the conditions of the Vow.
Yes, I am a huge nerd. One more thing: if one of your main nitpicks at this story is asking why Draco was allowed back into Hogwarts when his father was imprisoned as a Death Eater, then you’ve exposed yourself at being radically conservative and need to go back to thumping Bibles in the mid-west instead of running a movie blog. You know who you are.
Posted by Dave on July 20th, 2009I think John has just been conditioned by comic books and fantasy that all children of bad guys are also bad guys, and vice versa.
All that said, the Draco thing would be easier to deal with if Draco wasn’t such a vicious twit in every other movie.
Posted by Goon on July 20th, 2009It’s one thing to openly act like your on the Dark side, it’s something completely different to be a part of it. Draco grew up in a time where Voldemort was seemingly dead to the world; he’s a prick because his father is one, but being a prick is much easier to live with than killing someone.
I get what you’re saying, though, Goon. I might be a little biased, I guess, in having read the books. Instead of hurting the movie, that just enhanced it for me. Also, I think John’s religious conditioning has more influence on his worldview than being a fanboy. By all accounts he’s never been more than just a fan of the visual medium. If he was actually into comics and other written forms of fandom he might have a more broad outlook. Instead he married his nerdom with his faith and what you see now is the result.
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto blogs the things that are douchebag’s.
Posted by Dave on July 20th, 2009I have been reading over these comments and agree with what many of you are saying, alot was omitted from the movie which I feel was crucial to the plot, things were left unexplained and the burrow being burned down was completely pointless and not a neccesary plot change, voldemorts childhood was not touched on nearly as much as it should have been , and did anyone else think it was a slap in the face to dumbledore that they did not give him his funeral? I DID!!!!
Posted by Natalee on July 20th, 2009The destruction of the Burrow should have grave implications in the next two movies. People need to remember that this is the penultimate chapter of a larger story. Half-Blood Prince wasn’t made with a “let’s worry about Deathly Hollows when we get there” attitude.
Also, I don’t seem to recall nearly as much outrage when Shelob was moved from The Two Towers to Return of the King. Plot elements and scenes get shifted around. Has it ever occurred to any of you that the funeral scene would be a really good way to start the next movie?
Posted by Dave on July 20th, 2009How could they start of the next movie with the funruel when the ending was what happend after the funruel?
Most importantly they left out the part where dubmledore comes to the dursley’s house in the sixth book and reveals alot of necessary need to know information. very very important information relevent to the plot
Posted by rick on July 20th, 2009Haven’t seen this one yet, but having read the books, I think most people who managed to reach a certain age during/prior to reading the books, would agree that the most interesting aspects of the goings on are the ones that are seen from the adult perspective, and that features the adult characters, and their past.
“where is Tom Bombadil”-momentwarning: I more or less lost faith in the movies, when they omitted the true authors of the Marauder’s Map, and that entire portion of the story. To me, this was one of the only interesting aspects of Harry Potters character, and what gave the series its heart, but the movies gave it up, Cuarón is to blame, and I think it significantly hurt the films.
Posted by Henrik on July 20th, 2009I completely agree. It gave it a huge emotional boost twords harry and to harry himself having that piece of his father revealed. Not to mention sirius and lupin
Posted by rick on July 20th, 2009The Burrow seems to be able to move around as it wasn’t near this field in any of the other films. And it seems pretty strange that people would be devastated by its destruction since a simple magic can put it all together again, as was shown at the start of the film.
Posted by Swarez on July 20th, 2009“How could they start of the next movie with the funruel when the ending was what happend after the funruel?”
It’s called adaptation. The same reason Shelob is in the second act of The Return of the King and not the third act of The Two Towers. The Harry Potter movies are adapted for both fans of the books and non-readers alike. Expand your outlook beyond the rigid confinements you seem to have set for yourself and these things can make sense.
@Swarez – what do you mean The Burrow wasn’t in any field in previous movies? It’s always been out in the countryside when it appeared in the films.
@Henrik – I don’t understand how the identities of the Maruader’s Map authors enhances anything. In the films, Harry has the pictures of his parents and (until movie 5) the living, breathing presence of his godfather. What sort of significance does the map portray?
Posted by Dave on July 20th, 2009“The same reason Shelob is in the second act of The Return of the King and not the third act of The Two Towers.”
I rank that change as one of the all time great adaptation decisions.. when Jackson and crew reorganized things based on what is supposed to be happening at the same time.
Posted by Goon on July 20th, 2009Yeah, and by the end of the movie (Half-Blood Prince) nearly 2 and a half hours are gone from the viewer’s life. A big send-off would have made the film longer, thus I could very well see it being pushed back to open part 1 of The Deathly Hollows.
Posted by Dave on July 20th, 2009“What sort of significance does the map portray?”
It tells him about his fathers past, and thus his own. It’s not about having a picture of them, that’s the pathetic reader’s digest version of being an orphan, it’s one inch deeper, which isn’t amazing or anything, but I would think with the Harry Potterbooks, you’d want to take ANY hint of depth available.
Posted by Henrik on July 20th, 2009It tells him his dad and three of his friends made a prankster map that let them get away with a bunch of shenanigans. How does that trump any time Harry got to spend with Sirius? I think you’re really reaching with this one, Henrik.
Posted by Dave on July 20th, 2009Get Quentin Tarantino to make the last two. ; )
Posted by Dr. Sesiom on July 20th, 2009“what do you mean The Burrow wasn’t in any field in previous movies? It’s always been out in the countryside when it appeared in the films.”
In previous films it has been in a forest. There was not a tree in sight in this film, just a corn field or something. Wesleys mom also mentions that they have been hiding, having to move regularly which seems to indicate that they can move around with their house.
Posted by Swarez on July 21st, 2009Okay well, I might have missed that part, so that’s on me. However, Dumbledore putting back together the interior of a house that’s been ransacked is one thing; seeing your entire home go up in flames *and* realizing you can’t hide anymore is particularly more devastating.
Posted by Dave on July 21st, 2009dave have you read prizinor of azkaban?
The map is one of the biggest points of the book. with out it you just have the conclusion of the end that sirius did not kill his parents. and seeing how that the third movie was the worst one made so far and how they refer to sirius as padfoot several times in the other movies, it was a mistake.
It makes him feel closer to his father. That he also has alot in common with him. disregaurd for the rules. wandered around the castle. why they were called moony, wormtail, padfoot, and prongs. thier adventures pertaining to the creation of the map. How the map came into being. why his partonus is a stag. And gives one of the reasons why snape hates Lupin, sirius, and James so much. True you get a little bit of the past in the fifth one, but that doesn’t even begin to touch it.
and at the end of the sixth one you see fawx fly away. that happends after the furuel. And the seventh one again starts off the middle of the summer at his house. To back track to the funruel then to show him at the dursley’s later on. i mean come on it doesn’t make sense. not to mention all the stuff happends between that time and malfoy manner they have alot to explain.
Posted by rick on July 21st, 2009i mean seriously, why can peter and sirius turn into animals. how can they turn into andimals? THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE BOOK. you have the revelation at the end, but the whole point of the movie is the map and the maakers estabilishing even more emotional attatchement to harry potter and his want to learn everything of his father and releshing the fact that he is.
and on muglle net in an interview with David Hymin he said that there is not going to be the funruel…so HA!
Posted by rick on July 21st, 2009hehe… definately read the books. start at order of the pheonix if the whole lot seems to daunting.
Posted by Sheridan on July 21st, 2009there is SOOO much there… and perhaps, after reading The Deathly hallows, you will be surprised at the surprises and unexpected twists in the plot that finally leads to the conclusion.
brilliant
though, i DO wonder, as they completely changed the scene where HARRY hides the potions book… which leads him to a first glimpse of a very important object ( book-fans, you know what im talking about!) that has major relevance later on. i understand why the scene was configured that way ( saves the detention scenes and quiddich finals that would have taken at least another hour to reach in the film – not to mention that film -goers want constant movement and action, rather than deep story development ) yet after the duel between malfoy and harry, i (and most fans movies or b ooks) was very unconvinced that the director knows the characters enough. … snape NOT giving detention/demanding the potions book was a huge character betrayal for me.
Posted by Sheridan on July 22nd, 2009and TOnks!? what did he they do to her?!?!? hehehe
anyhoo. despite the ways we would have all had it, i think they did a good job..kinda like a companion movie than a true interpretation.
also… one last thing, the burning of the Burrow?! perhaps to push the fear-momentum… but i felt that was placed in a little carelessly.
I’m not sure the director/scripters see this as any more than a franchise at this point.
i could be wrong, but it doesnt seem that the writer cares for the characters/knows them well enough on this film.
great…but butchered.
aaha, YES i agree with Dr. Sesiom. tarrentino would smoke these films hehe
Posted by Sheridan on July 22nd, 2009Well and the same thing with that sheridan is that they skipped past alot of the penisive scenes in the book so he doesn’t know what any of the other objects are besides the locket thats out there some where. So now he doesn’t know what to look for, or where to begin. It just asstounds me they would skip over something like that when it’s so crucial to the story
Posted by rick on July 22nd, 2009Rick:
I’ve read all the books. Once again you’re trying to apply direct ideas and scenes from the books and trying to apply them to what is a visual ADAPTATION. You seem to be unable to separate the books from the films, which is the great flaw of your arguments. The emotional attachment you’re talking about is what you the reader have assigned to the characters. What you consider crucial to the books is not necessarily “crucial” to the movies. You should accept the movies for what they are, adaptations, but since you can’t seem to do that you’ll never get what you want.
Posted by Dave on July 22nd, 2009i can fully accept that they have to change or delete things, to fit the time restraints of the movie better.
i can understand that and have no problem with leaving something out and having dialouge about it later on. it saves up time
i love the movies don’t get me wrong
But if you don’t have the emotional attatchment between you and the character and you don’t feel what the character feels then the movies have failed. Adaptation or not.
Getting involved with the characters and hitting the key points of the movies is neccessary for any adaptation. The map is the key point of the book and not to offer any information about it what so ever, thats just wrong. ispescially sense they could of cut the scene with the willow and the bird and easily put in the dialouge between lupin and potter.
Posted by rick on July 22nd, 2009Yes but you, and apparently Henrik as well, inferred more about the map than I did, which is fine. Conversely, you’re lack of connection to the characters in the movies is, well, your problem and not mine. You see them one way and I see them another and that’s the only place this debate is ever going to end up.
Posted by Dave on July 22nd, 2009Well, all i can say is, like all the other movies, compared to the book it’s disappointing. Removing the battle and dumbledore’s memorial was just a stupid think to do. Plus the removal of key characters like Kreacher and Dobby, and the new Minister of Magic, I was really looking forward to see how they would make that character appear, especially seeing as I had trouble picturing the character in my mind, he’s the only one i cant really imagine. I guess it’d be a great film if they explained the plot more and didnt cut out so much crucial “filling” to the plot.
Posted by randomguy on July 23rd, 2009Everyone here has great posts from the adaptations to the full devotion to the books and how it should have translated to the movies (even though the movie would have been 2 extra hours). I was disappointed with the movie but only because I expected some scenes and didn’t get them (I’ll have to watch the movie again without the expectation that it follows the book).
The beginning of the 7th book is quite brilliant (when he leaves the Dursleys or the 7 HP’s, the 1st 2 chapters will more then likely be left out), so opening the next movie with the funeral would leave that opening out (which would be sad). Who really knows except the director right?
Good quick read about the deathly hallos (http://www.kansascity.com/stargazing/story/1327322.html) gives some insight to the new movies.
Posted by Rock on July 23rd, 2009“Who really knows except the director right?”
Pretty sure the writer and producers have full knowledge as well.
Current evidence points to Bill and Fleur’s wedding as definitely being in the movies but there is no evidence for or against Dumbledore’s funeral. David Heyman and Steve Kloves have already admitted that one of the reasons to split the seventh book into two movies was to allow enough time to give each character a proper send off.
Posted by Dave on July 23rd, 2009“Once again you’re trying to apply direct ideas and scenes from the books and trying to apply them to what is a visual ADAPTATION. You seem to be unable to separate the books from the films..” -that is a dumb arguement. You can make a movie that better explains what going on whithout losing the flavor of the book. It has been done thousands of times and still have a creative movies.
This director and the screen play writers did a lousy job Too much was inadequately explained or not explained at all. Far too mauch to mention here.
This movie was a bust, sence after scene were completely discontected from each other. The cinamatography was the worst I’ve seen in any movie in a long time. They cut off peoples head at the forehead many times. That is just amature stuff. Unbelieveable for a multimillion dollar movie. If you can’t see that, then I have to question your judgement. You have no independent thought. As I said before, even if they call it “Harry Potter and The Crappy Movie” you diehard fans will fall all over yourselves praising it.
Posted by bob on July 23rd, 2009Ok Dave, the writers and producers have full knowledge, good job calling me out on that one. The comment was meant as a no one but the people developing the movies truly know the final cut.
Based on an Interview with Producer David Heyman,
“The seventh book is a long book,” he continued, “but it’s a book in which there is almost nothing that isn’t related to Harry and almost nothing that you could cut out so Steve (Kloves writer) working away in the vacuum of his house was struggling in some ways to figure out what to cut out. Together, all of us made the decision—obviously the studio were rather happy with that decision, let’s not kid ourselves—but we made the decision to make two films.” (Quoted from http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=57013&offset=25)
Sounds like Dave is correct (about the wedding), but also that it seems they maybe putting most of the book (especially since there is 2 movies). Personally there were really only a few chapters in the final book that didn’t have a lot of action, but for the most part was exciting from the beginning to the end. Once can only hope that these quotes and rumors are 85% true.
Posted by Rock on July 23rd, 2009Bob
At least I can present an argument without hyperbole and direct confrontation. That you choose to complain about the cinemtography of the film is one of a few reasons making it hard to take you seriously.
Rock
Wasn’t meant to be insulting; I just don’t like statements that deal in absolutes.
The wedding is confirmed because there are pictures floating around the net showing that scene. The movie was spotted filming in Piccadilly Circus with the three main actors in their “wedding” clothes. I think in either that same or another interview on CS Heyman talked about how splitting the seventh book into 2 movies made they reapproach how they were going to make movie 6.
Posted by Dave on July 23rd, 2009They are too old for the movie. The half blood prince is below my expectations.
Posted by Greg on July 27th, 2009I whent into the movie with a buddy who’s only seen the first movie and never read the books so she was missing a lot. Having said that, I was trying to see that movie as if I hadn’t read the book and I found the scenes were choppy and too quick paced and left me confused. I liked the ambiance and didn’t mind the romance. It had to be done, they’re teens!! I think they should have made two movies out of this book seeing as it was a brick-of-a-book and full of vital information where as the other books were much smaller. They really should have focused more on the potions book …. and the new spells found in it and figuring out who the HBP was. Also, they should have focused more on the memories seeing as it’s so vital for Potter to figure out how you know who ticks, it should also be a focal point in the movie. The destruction of the bridge and the three death eaters running a mock in the muggle world was a good opening scene also.
I know you can’t cram everything in but I know I would have done a better job at it than they did!! Haha.
Posted by Bubbly on July 28th, 2009Personally, I did not hate the movie. However, I was thoroughly disappointed with the fact that important plot points were changed and also that certain scenes were added (for example, the attack on the Burrow). I also did feel that there was too much focus on the romantic aspects of the book, though I do concede that it was done to highlight the characters’ journey through normal teenage experiences. I think they may have trouble tying up some loose plot ends in the last 2 movies, especially relating to the Horcruxes. However, that does not mean that I did not find the movie enjoyable. It was VERY well-made…
Posted by AK on July 29th, 2009Absolute garbage. Stilted dialogue, inexplicable romantic hijinks, random emotional distresses, Lord of the Rings thefts aplenty, not a sympathetic character among them and an ending like the flush of a weak toilet. Malfoy is always pissed off and apparently blind – he cant see Potter following him ten feet away all through the movie. Malfoy teleports a white bird in the `vanishing cabinet` and it comes back dead. He vanishes the black bird and it comes back alive but he forgets to let it out. Harry and forgettable new Harry love interest discover black bird and it flies out. No explanation. Awful drivel. Franchise exhausted. Stop making these movies. Now.
Posted by Roj on August 2nd, 2009Ive never gave ratings of any less than 3/5, well other than a few others… This movie, i have the super strong urge to give it 1/5 but the excellent acting of alan rickman barely allowed to give it a rating of 2/5.
There were parts in the movie which was totally redundant and expendable for eg the scene of ginny typing the shoelaces and how ginny got tgt with the other guy(whose name ive forgotten) and suddenly ends up kissing harry. Furthermore, all i can feel is that the scene is just jumping through the entire book and sadly it didnt even make it through. Thought the movie lasted over 2hrs it seriously didnt felt like it. At the end of it i was anticipating the BIG battle which obviously didnt came which was a big shock to any reader of hp out there. Lastly, why isnt there any harry potter music? (the orchestra music that we’ve heard over the past 5 music) It utterly turned me off. And most of all.
Posted by Azure on August 6th, 2009There was no climax in the movie. None. And i wont accept a 20s scene of swirling fire in the middle of a cave to one.
I have just been to see the film and I thought it was quite bizarre. I havent read the books but the film was totally nonsensical, there was no story at all from start to finish. I was left with 2 1/2 hours worth of questions about what was going on. I kept thinking that eventually all this will be explained…and then the film just ended.
Posted by Tony on August 8th, 2009It’s a bunch of scenes stuck together without a main plot.
2 1/2 hours of filler between HP5 & HP7, no wonder the cimema was half empty.
there were so many things that just felt wrong with this movie. for example the sexual tension they tried to showcase between the main characters was totally wrongly done. the dialogs at many points weren’t really that good which was highly off putting and it added to the already lacking coherence of the film. the acting of the trio, which i thought would improve, really didn’t. that was probably a big disappointment for me. overall i still enjoyed it despite the flaws it had. but i give it props for pulling off a fairly entertaining movie out of a book where not a lot of things happened (compared to the other Harry Potter books).
Posted by modesilver on August 8th, 2009I just have 2 say I really enjoyed this movie! I think it’s the best one yet, I mean let’s face it the acting and special affects are a big improvement. Yes I think they did missed a bit from the movie but NO movie ever follows the WHOLE book not even the lord of the rings and it won oscars. I loved the acting of alan rickman (he is never been a
Posted by Ali on August 24th, 2009Disapoinment)! I rate this movie 4/5 stars and
I have the read each of the books plenty of times! I can’t wait for the half
Blood prince to come
Out on DVD !
Holly molly! I have no words.
Posted by johnatan on September 16th, 2009What was the movie about? The movie makers could have skipped this movie and jump to the next. The next movie will definitely be better because it is impossible to make worse – or maybe the movie makers will overcome themselves.
I have read these books time and time again, and i have to say, this movie was aboslute crap. It was rushed and many important things were left out. I gess thats a problem when you are dealing with a story a large as this.
Personally, i reckon that they should have made this movie into two parts, or atleast. But no, they gotta do it for the last book, which is dull right up to the end.
Theve done a great job on the first and fourth movies, rushed through the others, with nice endings though, and now they are going to drown on the seventh one.
If i ever find the director of that movie, im going to punch him in the face.
Posted by Corey on October 31st, 2009Leave a Reply