1,198 reviews
- singingamy09
- Jul 14, 2009
- Permalink
HP6 is a dark and emotionally thrilling masterpiece. It combines magical awes that appeal mostly to children as well as mature and dark themes that appeal to almost everyone. It discovers the dark and mysterious past of you-know-who and leaves the audience aching for more as its two and half hours run time go by in a flash. The film contains dazzling visuals and terrific cinematography. It is indeed a satisfying experience that will please just about everyone. One thing is for certain though: in resemblance to the Rowling novels, the film series seems to get darker and more mature with every passing film while keeping an incredible PG rating (in the exception of HP4 & 5). This film not only has some bangs and booms but also explores the theme of teenage love as the three protagonists find themselves tangled in teenage romances. Overall a top notch film worth seeing over and over. Cant wait for the arrival of the Deathly Hallows.
- MairegChernet
- Jul 15, 2009
- Permalink
If you don't know the book (like me), but watched the trailer before you watched the movie, you could be excused for feeling a bit cheated. The trailer actually promises something that doesn't really happen (real world). But try to free your mind of that. I was a bit confused, but it didn't really throw me off the movie.
Of course, it goes without saying that you should watch the other Harry Potter movies before you watch this. While there is pretty light humor to be found here (and some love stories), it all gets spiced up, by some really dark undertones and some things that happen. I wouldn't say that Harry Potter is getting into an adult phase, but he definitely gets wiser with every movie. Which can't be said, for all his friends. But then again, some are there for comedic relieve, which is pretty obvious. And not a bad thing at all. The effects are great (not that you should have expected less) and the story moves along "fast" (the running time doesn't seem to be a problem or a drag). Of course some might say that he is still too childish (or the whole feeling is childish), but that would be beside the point. The movie does not hide what it's intentions are ...
Of course, it goes without saying that you should watch the other Harry Potter movies before you watch this. While there is pretty light humor to be found here (and some love stories), it all gets spiced up, by some really dark undertones and some things that happen. I wouldn't say that Harry Potter is getting into an adult phase, but he definitely gets wiser with every movie. Which can't be said, for all his friends. But then again, some are there for comedic relieve, which is pretty obvious. And not a bad thing at all. The effects are great (not that you should have expected less) and the story moves along "fast" (the running time doesn't seem to be a problem or a drag). Of course some might say that he is still too childish (or the whole feeling is childish), but that would be beside the point. The movie does not hide what it's intentions are ...
- TheREALBunneh
- Jul 16, 2009
- Permalink
Darker than ever, Lord Voldemort has been revealed in the 'Order of the Phoenix'. The forces of darkness are gathering strength. Fear has spread throughout the wizard world. Harry Potter is now investigating Voldemort's plans through his old teacher Professor Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent).
Director David Yates returns and will for the remainder of the series. It has a more serious tone. The teenage love drama is heating up especially for Hermione and Ron. It comes to a head in this one in a satisfying melodrama.
The reveal of Voldemort's plan is a bit confusing. More effort is needed to explain what a Horcrux is. A scene with Voldemort creating one of the Hocrux would solve the problem. For the big death climax, the action is rather lacking. It needs more drama. I'm reminded of 'Empire Strikes Back'. In that movie, the big scene gets the most iconic treatment. Something like that is needed here. But it still works while following the book. That's probably more important.
Director David Yates returns and will for the remainder of the series. It has a more serious tone. The teenage love drama is heating up especially for Hermione and Ron. It comes to a head in this one in a satisfying melodrama.
The reveal of Voldemort's plan is a bit confusing. More effort is needed to explain what a Horcrux is. A scene with Voldemort creating one of the Hocrux would solve the problem. For the big death climax, the action is rather lacking. It needs more drama. I'm reminded of 'Empire Strikes Back'. In that movie, the big scene gets the most iconic treatment. Something like that is needed here. But it still works while following the book. That's probably more important.
- SnoopyStyle
- Dec 22, 2013
- Permalink
- ZeroCorpse-1
- Jul 14, 2009
- Permalink
I was lucky enough to see a preview of Half-Blood Prince three days before opening day. I saw it a second time with my son who is not quite ten, but who is generally mature for his age and doesn't scare easily. The two viewings give me the unique advantage of both the adult and the child perspective on the movie.
I only recently started counting myself a true Harry Potter fan after my son introduced me to the movies a couple of years ago. I finished the last book only three weeks before seeing the movie adaptation of Half-Blood Prince the first time.
With all the book details very fresh in my mind, I had high expectations of the movie. And Yates, the production crew and the cast definitely delivered. The movie impresses on many levels from an artistic point of view. The stripped landscapes and washed out colors convey a constant feeling of dread and foreboding. The standard train trip to Hogwarts was particularly stark, seen against a landscape scorched by a hot summer sun and dotted with dark pools of water. The usual lush greenery and joyous train ride are nowhere to be seen.
Personally, I felt the pace was spot-on and that the movie elegantly made time for all key plot points. But only if you enjoy a plot line driven by character and emotion. For the younger lot, looking for frightening wizard duels and attacks by magical creatures, the first hour and a half of the movie drags on a bit. My son certainly became fidgety, and didn't appreciate the finesse and sophistication of the plot and cinematic approach.
Most of the threatening and darkening tone of the movie was also lost upon him, whereas I reveled in the finer details contributing to a general sense of ever-encroaching darkness. There are worse things in life to be afraid of than big hairy spiders. My son missed seeing those - I was a lot more intrigued by the ominous undercurrents made palpable by the indomitable trio of David Yates (director), Steve Kloves (screenplay) and Delbonnel (photography).
Some people feel that the romantic comedy aspects played too large a role in the movie, but I felt this aspect added some much-needed lightness and human drama to the movie. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) all find themselves dealing with the vagaries of young love - from dealing with unwanted advances to finding love in unexpected places. The romance was aimed perfectly at the young teen market, and I found myself cringing ruefully at some of Lavender Brown's love-obsessed stunts and smiling wistfully at the tenderness between Harry and Ginny. Haven't we all been there at some stage of our lives?
All in all, Harry Potter is growing up. And so is the market for these movies. If you've seen all the movies up to now or read all the books, and your are at an age to appreciate the adult themes and movie techniques, this movie should fall pitch-perfect on your ear. You are likely to leave the cinema filled with a heart-wrenching sadness for innocence lost.
Purist fans will most certainly complain bitterly about numerous sub-plots, events and characters that were cut from the movie and the odd scene that doesn't exist in the book. But Yates' truly gutsy adaptation really works and brings a depth and clarity to the main themes of the book that is quite extraordinary. He manages to capture the lingering lightness of that time before the serious business of adulthood sets in, alongside the relentless buildup to the final showdown between The Dark Lord and The Chosen One. And the lack of closure at the end of the movie is no accident, I believe. Just like the book, this movie leaves you aching to see how it all ends (never mind the fact that you already know).
I must also commend the acting. The young leads have all matured in pace with the maturing content of the books and their acting shows it. Rupert Grint shines brightly in the somewhat Shakespearean love comedy he finds himself in, and makes the most of his new-found sport hero popularity. Emma Watson hits the spot, portraying Hermione's emotional vulnerability with gentle confidence and softness.
As for Radcliffe, it's easy to miss the evolution he's undergone as Harry, since there are other actors ostensibly given more to do in this outing, like Tom Felton and Bonnie Wright, both of whom get the opportunity to take their characters to a new level. Tom Felton, especially, does a remarkable job. But Radcliffe's task of playing the steadfast and courageous, yet not flashy or arrogant hero, remains a difficult one. Especially on second viewing, it becomes clear how his understated and controlled performance speaks very much to the type of man Harry Potter is shaping up to be. A man who is left with a tremendous responsibility at the end of this movie and takes it up without flinching. The boy-wizard is no more.
Of the older guard, Alan Rickman's Snape was a consummate performance, ... obviously. And Michael Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore never felt more right than in this movie. Jim Broadbent's Slughorn is deliciously played with just the right mix of off-putting sycophancy and endearing pathos.
All in all - a triumph all around!
I only recently started counting myself a true Harry Potter fan after my son introduced me to the movies a couple of years ago. I finished the last book only three weeks before seeing the movie adaptation of Half-Blood Prince the first time.
With all the book details very fresh in my mind, I had high expectations of the movie. And Yates, the production crew and the cast definitely delivered. The movie impresses on many levels from an artistic point of view. The stripped landscapes and washed out colors convey a constant feeling of dread and foreboding. The standard train trip to Hogwarts was particularly stark, seen against a landscape scorched by a hot summer sun and dotted with dark pools of water. The usual lush greenery and joyous train ride are nowhere to be seen.
Personally, I felt the pace was spot-on and that the movie elegantly made time for all key plot points. But only if you enjoy a plot line driven by character and emotion. For the younger lot, looking for frightening wizard duels and attacks by magical creatures, the first hour and a half of the movie drags on a bit. My son certainly became fidgety, and didn't appreciate the finesse and sophistication of the plot and cinematic approach.
Most of the threatening and darkening tone of the movie was also lost upon him, whereas I reveled in the finer details contributing to a general sense of ever-encroaching darkness. There are worse things in life to be afraid of than big hairy spiders. My son missed seeing those - I was a lot more intrigued by the ominous undercurrents made palpable by the indomitable trio of David Yates (director), Steve Kloves (screenplay) and Delbonnel (photography).
Some people feel that the romantic comedy aspects played too large a role in the movie, but I felt this aspect added some much-needed lightness and human drama to the movie. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) all find themselves dealing with the vagaries of young love - from dealing with unwanted advances to finding love in unexpected places. The romance was aimed perfectly at the young teen market, and I found myself cringing ruefully at some of Lavender Brown's love-obsessed stunts and smiling wistfully at the tenderness between Harry and Ginny. Haven't we all been there at some stage of our lives?
All in all, Harry Potter is growing up. And so is the market for these movies. If you've seen all the movies up to now or read all the books, and your are at an age to appreciate the adult themes and movie techniques, this movie should fall pitch-perfect on your ear. You are likely to leave the cinema filled with a heart-wrenching sadness for innocence lost.
Purist fans will most certainly complain bitterly about numerous sub-plots, events and characters that were cut from the movie and the odd scene that doesn't exist in the book. But Yates' truly gutsy adaptation really works and brings a depth and clarity to the main themes of the book that is quite extraordinary. He manages to capture the lingering lightness of that time before the serious business of adulthood sets in, alongside the relentless buildup to the final showdown between The Dark Lord and The Chosen One. And the lack of closure at the end of the movie is no accident, I believe. Just like the book, this movie leaves you aching to see how it all ends (never mind the fact that you already know).
I must also commend the acting. The young leads have all matured in pace with the maturing content of the books and their acting shows it. Rupert Grint shines brightly in the somewhat Shakespearean love comedy he finds himself in, and makes the most of his new-found sport hero popularity. Emma Watson hits the spot, portraying Hermione's emotional vulnerability with gentle confidence and softness.
As for Radcliffe, it's easy to miss the evolution he's undergone as Harry, since there are other actors ostensibly given more to do in this outing, like Tom Felton and Bonnie Wright, both of whom get the opportunity to take their characters to a new level. Tom Felton, especially, does a remarkable job. But Radcliffe's task of playing the steadfast and courageous, yet not flashy or arrogant hero, remains a difficult one. Especially on second viewing, it becomes clear how his understated and controlled performance speaks very much to the type of man Harry Potter is shaping up to be. A man who is left with a tremendous responsibility at the end of this movie and takes it up without flinching. The boy-wizard is no more.
Of the older guard, Alan Rickman's Snape was a consummate performance, ... obviously. And Michael Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore never felt more right than in this movie. Jim Broadbent's Slughorn is deliciously played with just the right mix of off-putting sycophancy and endearing pathos.
All in all - a triumph all around!
- maritza-15
- Jul 11, 2009
- Permalink
- sixdayssouth
- Jul 14, 2009
- Permalink
Like all Harry Potter fans I have read all of the books and seen every film so far. I would have to say that this film is not my favourite so far and leaves you feeling that some vital parts of the book are missing. However this is worth watching and I feel this will only disappoint the most hardcore Harry fans!
With all of the films you can notice that the acting is improving with the maturity of the characters. You can tell that there is a close bond between the actors of which all pull of their roles well. The directing and visual effects, like all of the films to date does not disappoint.
In all a great family film, a pleasure to watch and I would recommend this film to most people. I am glad that the final film will be split into two parts, to be honest they could have done it with this film!
*** For people who have never seen any of the films or read the books I took my friend with me who has not seen or read any of the books and he was completely lost throughout the film (Although he still enjoyed it!). If you wish to see this I would recommend you need to see Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix first. Otherwise you may find this film a little confusing.
With all of the films you can notice that the acting is improving with the maturity of the characters. You can tell that there is a close bond between the actors of which all pull of their roles well. The directing and visual effects, like all of the films to date does not disappoint.
In all a great family film, a pleasure to watch and I would recommend this film to most people. I am glad that the final film will be split into two parts, to be honest they could have done it with this film!
*** For people who have never seen any of the films or read the books I took my friend with me who has not seen or read any of the books and he was completely lost throughout the film (Although he still enjoyed it!). If you wish to see this I would recommend you need to see Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix first. Otherwise you may find this film a little confusing.
- jamesrobertfreeman
- Jul 16, 2009
- Permalink
- harrypup-28436
- Aug 19, 2020
- Permalink
It's a real shame that I could never give a film featuring Harry Potter the status of a perfect film. Each tale relies so heavily on those that came before or after that one can never be a truly all-encompassing work. Sure, the three-act structure can be utilized, but without the background info, nor the knowledge that more will be coming, watching a middle installment alone will leave you confused and disorientated. The reason I bring this up is the fact that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is good enough to warrant the praise and to put the idea in my head about whether to call it a masterpiece. The tone is perfect, the laughs are many, the darkness is charcoal black—how could this be the same director as the abysmal—in comparison to the rest of the series—Order of the Phoenix, David Yates? Two words
Bruno Delbonnel.
Who is Delbonnel you may ask? Well, he is the brilliant cinematographer behind the camera. I may have blamed the failures of the fifth film on its screenplay as Steve Kloves was glaringly absent, (he being the writer of each other film, including this new one), but a film is a team effort. Therefore I guess maybe I shouldn't put all the accolades on one man now; I just feel absolutely compelled to do so because so many moments linger in my mind due to the beauty of their composition and use of their environments to stay interesting and exciting at all times. Visually, you cannot be bored. It just goes to show that it is never the director alone, but also the team he or she brings along. I like Yates and was surprised at how much I disliked his first foray in the Potter universe, granted, I felt the book itself was sub-par at best. Thankfully, he did not disappoint with his second of three, (make that four as book seven goes to a two-part finale), because, as it was with the novels, Half-Blood Prince is by far the best of the series—until Deathly Hallows of course. And adding the pedigree of a guy like Delbonnel, with films such as Across the Universe, A Very Long Engagement, and Amelie in his back pocket—all stunning works of art—only makes his job easier.
I can't get over the use of close-ups throughout, or the multiple instances of framing used to hide something on screen. Oftentimes, the camera pans or cuts to reveal something in the fringes, to highlight the focal point when it's not centrally located, or literally move our eyes to exactly where the filmmakers want them to be. The blocking is superb with some scenes blurring the edges and keeping only our main object of interest in focus, timing and positioning executed with aplomb. And did I mention the close-ups? (Yes, I know I did.) One sequence, with Harry and Ginny running through a field of tall grass after intruding Death Eaters, is shot with a high speed pan to keep the characters crisp as the foliage darts and blurs in their wake. I'd be remiss not to mention the special effects as well, especially when dealing with the black smoke trails from Voldemort's flying goons as well as the wispy pensieve. Whether completely computer generated or practical dye clouds in water, the effect is pitch perfect, even dissolving each memory in sections, leaving important pieces, like young Tom Riddle, to be lingered on just a second longer than the rest.
As for the leads, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson are solid as usual, (Radcliffe showing some solid comedic chops after taking luck elixir), and Rupert Grint's Ron Weasley gets some room to break free. But it is the supporting roles that deserve notice. Helena Bonham Carter will scare children, so kudos to her, and Michael Gambon's Dumbledore will win even more hearts as his leader finally allows Potter into the inner circle of the plan to rid the world of Voldemort, it now being a circle of two. It is newcomer Jim Broadbent, however, as Professor Slughorn who steals the show. Broadbent is known for his many comical expressions and his rubber face is utilized to great effect here. A blowhard and man with many "friends", his jubilant smile and need to collect powerful and famous wizards for his Slug Club are ever-present, bringing some levity as well as effectively hiding the dark secret that lies beneath.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince succeeds in the details. It is an exercise in minimalism and showing only what is necessary to the plot. Condensing the novel better than ever done before, Kloves has given Yates the tools to make a film and not just a visual representation of the words. What had previously been done best by Azkaban's Alfonso Cuaron, this one works better at retaining more subplots and not stripping it quite so bare. Subtle hints are planted so no longwinded exposition is needed to make us, as an audience, feel stupid and lectured to. Instead Yates and crew allow us to show our intelligence and ability to use our eyes and memories to piece things together, making the experience more enjoyable as we believe we are solving the mysteries and not the director who is skillfully guiding us through. I'd say it couldn't get better than this, but my confidence in Yates has been renewed and my hopes that Deathly Hallows is treated with respect is at one hundred percent, so who knows what the future has to offer?
Who is Delbonnel you may ask? Well, he is the brilliant cinematographer behind the camera. I may have blamed the failures of the fifth film on its screenplay as Steve Kloves was glaringly absent, (he being the writer of each other film, including this new one), but a film is a team effort. Therefore I guess maybe I shouldn't put all the accolades on one man now; I just feel absolutely compelled to do so because so many moments linger in my mind due to the beauty of their composition and use of their environments to stay interesting and exciting at all times. Visually, you cannot be bored. It just goes to show that it is never the director alone, but also the team he or she brings along. I like Yates and was surprised at how much I disliked his first foray in the Potter universe, granted, I felt the book itself was sub-par at best. Thankfully, he did not disappoint with his second of three, (make that four as book seven goes to a two-part finale), because, as it was with the novels, Half-Blood Prince is by far the best of the series—until Deathly Hallows of course. And adding the pedigree of a guy like Delbonnel, with films such as Across the Universe, A Very Long Engagement, and Amelie in his back pocket—all stunning works of art—only makes his job easier.
I can't get over the use of close-ups throughout, or the multiple instances of framing used to hide something on screen. Oftentimes, the camera pans or cuts to reveal something in the fringes, to highlight the focal point when it's not centrally located, or literally move our eyes to exactly where the filmmakers want them to be. The blocking is superb with some scenes blurring the edges and keeping only our main object of interest in focus, timing and positioning executed with aplomb. And did I mention the close-ups? (Yes, I know I did.) One sequence, with Harry and Ginny running through a field of tall grass after intruding Death Eaters, is shot with a high speed pan to keep the characters crisp as the foliage darts and blurs in their wake. I'd be remiss not to mention the special effects as well, especially when dealing with the black smoke trails from Voldemort's flying goons as well as the wispy pensieve. Whether completely computer generated or practical dye clouds in water, the effect is pitch perfect, even dissolving each memory in sections, leaving important pieces, like young Tom Riddle, to be lingered on just a second longer than the rest.
As for the leads, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson are solid as usual, (Radcliffe showing some solid comedic chops after taking luck elixir), and Rupert Grint's Ron Weasley gets some room to break free. But it is the supporting roles that deserve notice. Helena Bonham Carter will scare children, so kudos to her, and Michael Gambon's Dumbledore will win even more hearts as his leader finally allows Potter into the inner circle of the plan to rid the world of Voldemort, it now being a circle of two. It is newcomer Jim Broadbent, however, as Professor Slughorn who steals the show. Broadbent is known for his many comical expressions and his rubber face is utilized to great effect here. A blowhard and man with many "friends", his jubilant smile and need to collect powerful and famous wizards for his Slug Club are ever-present, bringing some levity as well as effectively hiding the dark secret that lies beneath.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince succeeds in the details. It is an exercise in minimalism and showing only what is necessary to the plot. Condensing the novel better than ever done before, Kloves has given Yates the tools to make a film and not just a visual representation of the words. What had previously been done best by Azkaban's Alfonso Cuaron, this one works better at retaining more subplots and not stripping it quite so bare. Subtle hints are planted so no longwinded exposition is needed to make us, as an audience, feel stupid and lectured to. Instead Yates and crew allow us to show our intelligence and ability to use our eyes and memories to piece things together, making the experience more enjoyable as we believe we are solving the mysteries and not the director who is skillfully guiding us through. I'd say it couldn't get better than this, but my confidence in Yates has been renewed and my hopes that Deathly Hallows is treated with respect is at one hundred percent, so who knows what the future has to offer?
- jaredmobarak
- Jul 12, 2009
- Permalink
If you love the series like I do you will know that in every movie they have to cut parts of the book out. Most of the time they manage it without compromising the integrity of the film. This time they fall very short of the mark. For those that have not read the book this movie will impress. The effects are top notch and it is a very engrossing film. I understand the need to cut the movie in order to fit it into a realistic time frame. In doing so, it seems as if they cut key parts in order to allow for more comedy. They also cut out a large action scene at the end of the movie. This scene could have been added if not for the adding of a scene in the middle that was not part of the original book. Furthermore, the scene makes no sense because during which they destroy something that is key to the book in the seventh volume. Not only do they cut scenes, but they change others to suit what purpose you might ask? The unfortunate answer is I don't know. Another minor point that I noticed during the movie is, although there is not as much violence as previous movies the overall film includes adult content that in my opinion warrants the pg-13 rating.
Do not misunderstand me. I recommend seeing the movie as it is enjoyable, but trying to change a masterpiece like J.K. Rowling's book is a mistake and I think this movie suffered from it. If I didn't have the book to reference I would've rated this movie an 8, but the simple fact is I do and it unfortunately falls short.
Do not misunderstand me. I recommend seeing the movie as it is enjoyable, but trying to change a masterpiece like J.K. Rowling's book is a mistake and I think this movie suffered from it. If I didn't have the book to reference I would've rated this movie an 8, but the simple fact is I do and it unfortunately falls short.
- becky-92346
- Dec 17, 2022
- Permalink
Let me say this. Half Blood Prince as a movie alone was very good. It stands it's ground as a film better than any of the others of the series. But only as a film. And only because there are so many parts to a film. This installment obviously stepped everything up a notch: the cinematography, the special effects, the darker score, the improved acting, etc... But the key element which was boosted this franchise into world-class fame, is the story. And in this one, it's just not there. As a fan of the books and having had no SERIOUS gripes with any of the other films, I must say i HATED the screenplay for this one. Everything that made the book amazing was ripped from the film, and instead replaced by annoying large quantities of romantic subplot. Yes, there is romance in the sixth book but not shoved down your throat. JK Rowling masterfully crafted a novel that was perfectly balanced. The romance was there although it didn't detract from the main plot and at times was intertwined with the larger goings-on at hogwarts. In the movie the romance takes up most of the screen time. Not to mention the ending of the film was brutally butchered.
So much time could have been detracted from the silly romances to focus on more important things which were completely ommitted or deliberately changed. The ending is extremely anti-climactic and once it's over it'll leave you in your seat thinking "it's over?"
My final gripe with this movie is that it really should have been PG-13. If you've read the novel then you know the subject matter is MUCH darker and the story would have been done greater justice with just a higher rating(and a better screenwriter, yes i'm looking at you Steve Kloves).
Overall as a movie i'd give it an 8 out of 10.
But as a HARRY POTTER movie it gets 4 out of 10. And that's pushing it.
Well heres to 2010 to see how they screw up the finale. Oh wait, they already did. I didn't know there were 8 years at hogwarts...
So much time could have been detracted from the silly romances to focus on more important things which were completely ommitted or deliberately changed. The ending is extremely anti-climactic and once it's over it'll leave you in your seat thinking "it's over?"
My final gripe with this movie is that it really should have been PG-13. If you've read the novel then you know the subject matter is MUCH darker and the story would have been done greater justice with just a higher rating(and a better screenwriter, yes i'm looking at you Steve Kloves).
Overall as a movie i'd give it an 8 out of 10.
But as a HARRY POTTER movie it gets 4 out of 10. And that's pushing it.
Well heres to 2010 to see how they screw up the finale. Oh wait, they already did. I didn't know there were 8 years at hogwarts...
Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince sets a couple of milestones in the film series. Harry and sidekicks Hermione and Ron are coming a bit late into puberty which is understandable considering all the adventures they've had. But they're now starting to see what the opposite sex is all about.
Helping them along is an old colleague that Dumbledore has brought back to the Hogwarts one Professor Slughorn, a new character into the Potter saga played by Jim Broadbent. Slughorn (how I do love J.K. Rowling's use of Dickensian names in the Harry Potter series) is a master of potions and of course when you talk potions, it's love potions that are most in demand. But they do have only a short term effectiveness and at least one of the trio gets overdosed on it. And the cure almost kills as well.
The Half Blood Prince also provides us with some insight into the life of the younger Lord Voldemort back when he was a Hogwarts student named Tom Riddle. Broadbent and he bonded back in the day and that's why Dumbledore wants him back.
The Half Blood Prince keeps up the high standard of film making that the Harry Potter series is known for. It even got a nomination for Cinematography from the Academy. Broadbent is a nice addition to the Hogwarts stock company even if only for the two remaining films in the series.
No sense telling you to see it, you probably have and enjoyed same.
Helping them along is an old colleague that Dumbledore has brought back to the Hogwarts one Professor Slughorn, a new character into the Potter saga played by Jim Broadbent. Slughorn (how I do love J.K. Rowling's use of Dickensian names in the Harry Potter series) is a master of potions and of course when you talk potions, it's love potions that are most in demand. But they do have only a short term effectiveness and at least one of the trio gets overdosed on it. And the cure almost kills as well.
The Half Blood Prince also provides us with some insight into the life of the younger Lord Voldemort back when he was a Hogwarts student named Tom Riddle. Broadbent and he bonded back in the day and that's why Dumbledore wants him back.
The Half Blood Prince keeps up the high standard of film making that the Harry Potter series is known for. It even got a nomination for Cinematography from the Academy. Broadbent is a nice addition to the Hogwarts stock company even if only for the two remaining films in the series.
No sense telling you to see it, you probably have and enjoyed same.
- bkoganbing
- Aug 28, 2011
- Permalink
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - A footnote: Funny thing about Harry Potter reviews. If you peruse enough of them, you'll notice that "lack of nit-picks" is a substitute for praise. Everyone comes from different points of view when they go in to see these films. Some people read the books, some haven't. Everyone has their favorites, or hates the films in general. I have never experienced the films without having read the books first so I cannot comment on how hard it is to follow any of them. For some they are too long, for some not enough. I have enjoyed all of the films to varying degrees all for different reasons. David Yates continues from where he left Order of the Phoenix, arguably the weakest of the seven books but one of the stronger films.
In the sixth Harry Potter, Harry works with Dumbledore to unlock a key secret about Voldemort. To do this, Harry has to get close to Professor Slughorn (played with aplomb by Jim Broadbent). What interested me most about the way this is played out are the quiet similarities presented between Harry and Tom Riddle. Dumbledore actively wants Harry to act more like Tom in an attempt to defeat him. This enhances the idea posited back in the 2nd film and book. The sub-plots surrounding this are delightful. Quidditch has never been done so well. The Slug Party is also delightful. Harry's fancying Ginny and Ron's troubles between Lavender and Hermione round out the film. A small downside of this is there is less room for some of the best talent in the UK, many of whom merely supply the garnish on a good meal.
Michael Gambon is wonderful in this turn as the greatest wizard Dumbledore. He just needed the screen time to shine. I hope this nails the lid on the doubters. Alan Rickman plays Snape to perfection, much as it would have been fun to see him momentarily lose his cool. Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane have wonderful cameos. I seem to be the only person that appreciates Daniel Radcliffe post-Equus. I think the young man has really come into his own. Rupert Grint has also become a fine comedic actor. Tom Felton slowly freaks the hell out as a young man given an impossible task. My favorite little scene stealer is Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood.
The film plays fast and loose with the source material, and, unlike with Prisoner of Azkaban, the results are not disappointing. On the contrary, this might be, next to Goblet of Fire, my favorite of the films. Part of the reason this time is the film's atmosphere is so appropriate, the characters so well acted and written, that it makes us yearn for more of everything that IS in the film, not lament what was cast aside. I can forgive plot simplification as film is a different medium. I would not have made all the choices Yates has, but he nails the beginning and end of the film, includes many touching character moments, and the movie on the whole is FUNNY damnit! True Potter fans should see that Yates has broken the letter to preserve the spirit of Harry Potter.
One note from the Potter die-hard within the competent film critic: it is disappointing to miss out on one crucial flashback that would have given Ralph Fiennes a terribly awesome scene to do with Michael Gambon. As for the rest. Potter-ites, Yates has this well in hand. Put aside the canon-charts, and enjoy watching small variations on a story you know and love. I know, given the choice, I prefer a story that pops to life over one nailed down to a strict regiment of plot points and exposition. A-
In the sixth Harry Potter, Harry works with Dumbledore to unlock a key secret about Voldemort. To do this, Harry has to get close to Professor Slughorn (played with aplomb by Jim Broadbent). What interested me most about the way this is played out are the quiet similarities presented between Harry and Tom Riddle. Dumbledore actively wants Harry to act more like Tom in an attempt to defeat him. This enhances the idea posited back in the 2nd film and book. The sub-plots surrounding this are delightful. Quidditch has never been done so well. The Slug Party is also delightful. Harry's fancying Ginny and Ron's troubles between Lavender and Hermione round out the film. A small downside of this is there is less room for some of the best talent in the UK, many of whom merely supply the garnish on a good meal.
Michael Gambon is wonderful in this turn as the greatest wizard Dumbledore. He just needed the screen time to shine. I hope this nails the lid on the doubters. Alan Rickman plays Snape to perfection, much as it would have been fun to see him momentarily lose his cool. Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane have wonderful cameos. I seem to be the only person that appreciates Daniel Radcliffe post-Equus. I think the young man has really come into his own. Rupert Grint has also become a fine comedic actor. Tom Felton slowly freaks the hell out as a young man given an impossible task. My favorite little scene stealer is Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood.
The film plays fast and loose with the source material, and, unlike with Prisoner of Azkaban, the results are not disappointing. On the contrary, this might be, next to Goblet of Fire, my favorite of the films. Part of the reason this time is the film's atmosphere is so appropriate, the characters so well acted and written, that it makes us yearn for more of everything that IS in the film, not lament what was cast aside. I can forgive plot simplification as film is a different medium. I would not have made all the choices Yates has, but he nails the beginning and end of the film, includes many touching character moments, and the movie on the whole is FUNNY damnit! True Potter fans should see that Yates has broken the letter to preserve the spirit of Harry Potter.
One note from the Potter die-hard within the competent film critic: it is disappointing to miss out on one crucial flashback that would have given Ralph Fiennes a terribly awesome scene to do with Michael Gambon. As for the rest. Potter-ites, Yates has this well in hand. Put aside the canon-charts, and enjoy watching small variations on a story you know and love. I know, given the choice, I prefer a story that pops to life over one nailed down to a strict regiment of plot points and exposition. A-
- joestank15
- Jul 18, 2009
- Permalink
- TheLittleSongbird
- Jul 15, 2009
- Permalink
- mccormick632
- Dec 4, 2010
- Permalink
Let me start off by saying, I am a huge HP fan. I have read the books countless times, am a daily visitor on MuggleNet, and have subscribed to Mugglecast for four years. The books are definitely where it's at, and the movies are so-so. I can still remember storming out of the theatre after OOTP two years ago, yelling the whole way home about how David Yates screwed everything up and how awful of a movie it was altogether, story line and directing style. However, the Half-Blood Prince surpassed each of the last 5 movies greatly in almost aspect.
I came into the movie theater completely stoked because of all of the positive reviews it was getting on Rotten Tomatoes. After seeing all the previews last fall, I thought the general look of the movie was just overall better. And it was. I owe David Yates a huge apology for cursing his name so many times over the last two years. This was a great picture and I know the next two will be great as well. I also owe Michael Gambon a bit of an apology, but WHERE WAS THIS DUMBLEDORE THE LAST 3 MOVIES?? Gambon totally exceeded my expectations, he was so good in HBP! I could not stand him at all in the previous three, he was just a grumpy old gray man. In HBP he was old, wise, with his white shiny hair he was supposed to have the whole time. A great performance out of him, so great I really really wish we had seen this out of him in the other movies.
When I first saw Slughorn in the previews, I was completely irritated. He was supposed to be a largely obese man with a big mustache? But then I got to thinking, how many quality actors are actually really fat? There's only two answers- Richard Griffiths and that fat guy from the Diabetes commercial. Neither of them could play Slughorn. Broadbent made this movie, I love that dang cooky smile he always had on and how his eyes just always looked so crazy...I can't describe it but I loved it. He performed amazingly.
I know people are upset about the omission of the battle and confused on the burrow scene, and I will say I partly agree with you. The Burrow scene was in there to show that the death eaters were f***ing s**t up this whole time. Remember in the book how they read the paper every morning and reading about everythign that was happening? That scene was a lot better than having stupid newspaper flashbacks or whatever they had in OOTP.
For me, it was the little things that made this movie. When they include tiny details from the book, it really makes it special to me. I was ecstatic that they had the whole Aragog burial scene, it was so well done and I was glad to see Hagrid get some screen time. Also, just random little lines that were so similar to the book, it makes the movie that much more special.
For everyone who's complaining about how funny it is- lighten up! This is how it's supposed to be. I catch myself laughing out loud whenever I read the books, they're hilarious. JK just has a writing style that can be so serious at one point and hilarious the next, I was laughing and enjoying myself the whole time, it just really made me feel good.
Overall, really spectacular movie. The people complaining about how they left too much stuff out are also the ones complaining that it jumped around. I liked how they focused on central things and really got deep into them, instead of going ADD and showing every little possible thing for 30 seconds. Whether you liked it or not, you really do have to admire the trio growing and Gambon and Broadbent's performances, they were so outstanding. Go see it again! I know I am.
I came into the movie theater completely stoked because of all of the positive reviews it was getting on Rotten Tomatoes. After seeing all the previews last fall, I thought the general look of the movie was just overall better. And it was. I owe David Yates a huge apology for cursing his name so many times over the last two years. This was a great picture and I know the next two will be great as well. I also owe Michael Gambon a bit of an apology, but WHERE WAS THIS DUMBLEDORE THE LAST 3 MOVIES?? Gambon totally exceeded my expectations, he was so good in HBP! I could not stand him at all in the previous three, he was just a grumpy old gray man. In HBP he was old, wise, with his white shiny hair he was supposed to have the whole time. A great performance out of him, so great I really really wish we had seen this out of him in the other movies.
When I first saw Slughorn in the previews, I was completely irritated. He was supposed to be a largely obese man with a big mustache? But then I got to thinking, how many quality actors are actually really fat? There's only two answers- Richard Griffiths and that fat guy from the Diabetes commercial. Neither of them could play Slughorn. Broadbent made this movie, I love that dang cooky smile he always had on and how his eyes just always looked so crazy...I can't describe it but I loved it. He performed amazingly.
I know people are upset about the omission of the battle and confused on the burrow scene, and I will say I partly agree with you. The Burrow scene was in there to show that the death eaters were f***ing s**t up this whole time. Remember in the book how they read the paper every morning and reading about everythign that was happening? That scene was a lot better than having stupid newspaper flashbacks or whatever they had in OOTP.
For me, it was the little things that made this movie. When they include tiny details from the book, it really makes it special to me. I was ecstatic that they had the whole Aragog burial scene, it was so well done and I was glad to see Hagrid get some screen time. Also, just random little lines that were so similar to the book, it makes the movie that much more special.
For everyone who's complaining about how funny it is- lighten up! This is how it's supposed to be. I catch myself laughing out loud whenever I read the books, they're hilarious. JK just has a writing style that can be so serious at one point and hilarious the next, I was laughing and enjoying myself the whole time, it just really made me feel good.
Overall, really spectacular movie. The people complaining about how they left too much stuff out are also the ones complaining that it jumped around. I liked how they focused on central things and really got deep into them, instead of going ADD and showing every little possible thing for 30 seconds. Whether you liked it or not, you really do have to admire the trio growing and Gambon and Broadbent's performances, they were so outstanding. Go see it again! I know I am.
- JohnnyOnAQuest
- Jul 14, 2009
- Permalink
- soundtrackbuff
- Jul 6, 2009
- Permalink