Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince movie

Post by **Pearly Di** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:07 am

It's a stupid hour here -- 3am -- but I'm posting my review anyway.

I liked it.

It's not perfect, either as a film or an adaptation but then the book is hardly perfect either.

I am not a HP canon devotee so please bear that in mind.

SPOILERS, OBVIOUSLY

Minor criticisms

- The film had a very episodic feel in the first half. I remember people complaining about the editing in OotP, well I didn't notice that, I liked OotP, but the first half of HBP felt a bit patchy to me. Hmmm.

- The exposition is terribly rushed in places. Although Kloves and Yates and gang did simplify the story admirably.

- The attack on the Burrow: OK, nicely done in itself, but what really was the point of it? It just seemed tacked in for no reason except to amp up the menace. Which is absolutely fine in principle but one minute we see Molly's face filled with grief and shock over her burning house and the next minute Ron's back at school. Buh?

OK, what I liked

- I liked how the teenage romances were handled, it was sweet and funny, and the cheeky innuendoes were fun. Harry/Ginny was very, very nicely done (I much prefer Film H/G to Book H/G!) And I was unexpectedly impressed by Emma: she really made me feel Hermione's pain over unrequited love, nicely done.

- Snape. Rickman's expressions said everything. EVERYTHING. There was real grief in his face when he confronted Harry at the end.

- Draco storyline. This could not have been better. It was the heart of the film, really: Draco's terrible mission and his choice. Great work from Tom.

- Jim Broadbent as Slughorn. Slughorn is an over-the-top character in the book. Jim gave his story, about that oh-so-crucial memory, real emotion and genuine pathos.

But what I liked most about the film was the extraordinary sense of melancholy that suffused the whole thing. I really wasn't expecting that at all. Even underneath the teenage hormonal stuff was this pervasive sense of sadness and darkness. And the film was really very moving and powerful at the end. Almost dreamlike, in fact.

Post by **Rebecca** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:23 am

I'm going to see it tomorrow with theduffster and my younger sister. She surprised all of us by reading all 7 books this summer, despite always saying she didn't like the books that much.

I'll probably drag Holby to go see it in a few weeks, if it ends up being good enough to watch twice in the theater!

Post by **Crucifer** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:10 pm

And I was unexpectedly impressed by Emma: she really made me feel Hermione's pain over unrequited love, nicely done.

That's cuz she wasn't letting the eyebrows do the acting while mumbling at the speed of light...

Post by **Maria** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:55 pm

I was confused by most of the changes from the book. There didn't seem to be a point to most of them.

Post by **River** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:20 pm

In some ways it felt like a highlight reel for the big action sequences in the book. Some of the exposition that they probably needed just wasn't there, namely the Horcruxes - in the book, Harry comes out of his 6th year at Hogwarts knowing what a Horcrux is and having some idea of what objects Voldemort used to make them. In the movie though, he's got much less guidance. But, I gotta be honest, I've never really enjoyed any of the HP movies. The books I love. The movies...meh. But you can't be a HP fan and not see the movies.

S came along without complaint because he thinks Hermione is hot.

Spoilers:
My personal highlights:
*Luna. Didn't see her much but she was awesome when she appeared. As always. I love Luna. She comes across as such a flake but she's actually one powerful little witch and it's best to remember that.

*The teenage relationship silliness threaded through all the darkness. Especially with Hermione and her canaries.

*The lighting of the wands at the very end. Very powerful scene. I choked up a bit.

A couple irritants:
*Burning the Burrow. What was the point?

*Dumbledore's death. In the book, Harry is under his cloak the whole time. Dumbledore hit him with Petrificus Totalus when Draco showed up, giving up his chance of saving himself and leaving Harry an invisible and helpless witness. Very tragic. In the movie, Dumbledore has Harry hide. The effect is the same, perhaps even more tragic because Snape shows up, acts like he's going to make everything better, and then kills Dumbledore. So it's still massively tragic - I guess which version you prefer is a matter of taste.

I must say that Snape's role in Dumbledore's death enraged and confused me in the book. I immediately went into some sort of denial, convinced that Snape was being tricky and then another fan snapped me out of it. and then book seven came out and Snape turned out to be a triple agent and my initial denial was correct. I love fiction.

*The lack of a battle surrounding Dumbledore's death. The Death-Eaters show up and DON'T go on a rampage? A Dark Mark appears over Hogwarts and the DA and Aurors DON'T go on a rampage? Excuse me?

Post by **Maria** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 7:06 pm

Exchanging free will for external pressure and vice versa is what bothers me the most.

When Harry is choosing to stay hidden while Dumbledore is getting killed is just wrong. He would have tried to help, if he could.

And having Ginny hide the book for him and him not put it aside himself changes it from his own action to a "you aren't strong enough to cope with this" comment from her.

Both examples are not consistant with Harry's character as presented so far.

I also don't like that Hagrid agreed to let Slughorn take Aragog's venom. That struck me as wrong, too. Hagrid was burying Aragog as a beloved sentient creature, and certainly wouldn't have let any part of him be harvested like a carcass hanging at the butcher's.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:26 pm

Just saw this with my grandson. Both of us were feeling let down by the film and we both liked the last one. It should have been titled HARRY POTTER AND THE RAGING HORMONES. Teen age love stories are not why I go to see these films.

I like the Potter films for their eye candy --- the set design, the architecture, the arcane glass and metal objects that fill the school.... I love that stuff. There was lots of that - but very light on action and the ending was a non-ending.

Post by **Elentári** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:24 pm

sf wrote:

It should have been titled HARRY POTTER AND THE RAGING HORMONES. Teen age love stories are not why I go to see these films.

Fair enough comment, but I would imagine that you guys are somewhat outside the target audience for these films - I am sure the fan girls are loving all that stuff

I will be taking my teenagers to see it on weds evening...

...and if Di liked it, that's a good enough recommendation for me

Post by **River** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:44 pm

The raging hormones were in the book too. You can't write a book about 16 year-olds that doesn't include raging hormones. It's part of being 16.

Post by **Crucifer** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:33 pm

What River said. I, for one, thought that Rowling played down the hormones in the books waaaaaay too much. I should know. I was the same age as Harry for a lot of it!

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:22 am

<has 16-year-old>

<plugs ears> La, la, la, la, la. . . . .

Post by **Elentári** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:34 am

As an aside, tho' still, hopefully, on-topic, I read an interview with Michael Gambon today, in which he says he still hasn't picked up a copy of Harry Potter:

"There's no point in reading the books because you're playing with the screenwriter's words," argues the craggy 68-year-old. "Besides, you'd get upset about all the scenes the script is missing from the book, wouldn't you?"

He points out that Harry Potter co-stars Alan Rickman and Ralph Fiennes have also eschewed reading the best-sellers."

I guess he does have a point...

Wonder what the HP fans think about it, remembering how we all enthuse when the LotR stars profess their deep love and knowledge of Tolkien's works...

Post by **Crucifer** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:54 pm

Well, Gambon and Rickman are probably the two best actors in the series, so it clearly doesn't matter that they haven't read them!

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:12 pm

I'm trying to put this carefully, because I do enjoy the Harry Potter books very much and would never diss them.

But I think the element of difference is that LotR is set in a complex and interconnected world, and you can understand any part of it better—any event, any character—if you know more about the whole. Whereas this is not true for every element of Harry Potter's world. As much as I like the books, there are clearly parts of them, even whole characters, that were thought up on the spur of the moment and tossed in because Rowling thought they would be fun. It doesn't all connect, not all of it.

So the LotR actors who really did read LotR deeply and understand it were also, possibly, deepening their performances, using elements that weren't necessarily on the page of the script. Whereas there wouldn't be so much of that available to the Harry Potter actors.

Not to mention that for most of the films, up until this one, the actors didn't know how the story was going to end!

Post by **solicitr** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:45 pm

Hey, none of the actors in 'Empire Strikes Back' even knew how that movie was going to end! (Mark Hamill was briefed immediately before shooting the "No, I am your father" scene-- but David Prowse in the Vader suit was reciting bogus 'cover' lines. James Earl Jones' taping of Vader's 'genuine' lines was one of the very last things done, and under nuclear-secrets level security.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:11 pm

And I had the experience of sitting in a crowded theater in San Francisco and hearing the audience gasp when that line was spoken. That kind of surprise is much more rare now.

Post by **Pearly Di** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:22 am

Elentári wrote:Fair enough comment, but I would imagine that you guys are somewhat outside the target audience for these films - I am sure the fan girls are loving all that stuff

I'm a hopeless fangirl. I loved all that stuff.

I especially liked Hot!Angsty!Tormented!Draco.

And Freddy Stroma as Cormac, what an arrogant Alpha male. Good-looking, though.

...and if Di liked it, that's a good enough recommendation for me

Thank you, Elen!

I do hope you enjoy it.

The reaction from the HP fans to the film has been mainly positive (somewhat to my surprise, because that is one pernickety fandom, and the fans moaned endlessly about OotP. Not that Tolkien fans are ever pernickety, of course.

)

Primula Baggins wrote:I'm trying to put this carefully, because I do enjoy the Harry Potter books very much and would never diss them.

But I think the element of difference is that LotR is set in a complex and interconnected world, and you can understand any part of it better—any event, any character—if you know more about the whole. Whereas this is not true for every element of Harry Potter's world. As much as I like the books, there are clearly parts of them, even whole characters, that were thought up on the spur of the moment and tossed in because Rowling thought they would be fun. It doesn't all connect, not all of it.

I agree completely, Prim. I adore Rowling's characters, I really do, and her stories are a cracking and exhilarating read.

But she is not the craftsman that Tolkien was. She just isn't. There are lots of holes in the Potterverse, really. So I take it at face value.

As for actors reading the source material, I can only cite the example, again and again, of Sir Michael Hordern, a truly wonderful stage actor who made a truly wonderful Gandalf in the 1981 BBC radio dramatisation. Hordern had never read LotR and had no clue what it was about, and didn't care either.

You would never guess that from his performance.

I will always love Sean Astin for reading the book, because he argued with PJ about not making Sam into too much comic relief.

I want to trout young Elijah for NOT reading it. He had three hours to kill while they put on his hobbit-feet each morning. So what does the boy do? Read American Psycho, that's what. Epic fail, Mr Elijah Jordan Wood.

I wonder where Mithluin is? She's a Snape fangirl, like me, and I'd like to know what she thought of the film.

Post by **Crucifer** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:31 pm

Read American Psycho, that's what.

I'll have you know that American Psycho is a bloody awesome book! So nyah!

And Freddy Stroma as Cormac, what an arrogant Alpha male. Good-looking, though.

Excellent casting there. I hated him!

Post by **Maria** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:05 pm

I don't think any male under about 35 or so is "good looking." They are just too unfinished before then. Sure some of them are pretty that young, but certainly not attractive.

Post by **River** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:51 pm

You know, Snape seemed rather toned down in the bile department this time around. In the book, he had enough page time to be his usual hateful self so you could really believe he'd been a traitor. But, then again, the book is through Harry's eyes. In the book, you wouldn't see the sorrow and horror in Snape's face when the time comes to kill Dumbledore because Harry didn't.