Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - Grading and Discussion

[Skywalker]

Oh, God, it's the Hogwarts version of Archer/T'Pol vs. Trip/T'Pol.

From a technical standpoint (direction, cinematography, effects, etc.), I think HBP is probably the strongest movie yet. The adaptation was mostly really good, with some nice additions thrown in (I enjoyed the attack at the Burrow, and Slughorn's story about the fish). Daniel Radcliffe was excellent in this one; he really started to step up his game in PoA (thank you, Alfonso Cuaron), and he's continued to improve ever since.

It really felt odd that they cut out so much of the mystery regarding the Half-Blood Prince, however. Sure, in the book, there wasn't a lot there, either, but in the movie it was only mentioned offhand in a couple of scenes, and then suddenly Snape declares to Harry that he is the Half-Blood Prince, without any explanation as to why, or as to how he knew Harry was investigating that particular mystery.

I was also a little disappointed with Alan Rickman in the final scenes. Knowing what was going to happen with Snape in HBP, and knowing Rickman's capabilities, I was really expecting something fantastic in the final showdown. Instead, he came off like he was just sleepwalking through those scenes. I was hoping for a lot more.

Overall, I still liked the movie a lot, though I think I'd rate PoA and OotP ahead of it.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Average. Jim Broadbent was pretty good but Smith didn't seem to be putting effort

Maggie Smith was recieving radiotherapy for breast cancer while filiming, so I was kind of expecting her to be a bit muted.

Further thoughts- there are some shots and scenes that intro or outro in such a way that really suggests the movie left a lot on the cutting-room floor from its workprint. I was also surprised that most of the pictures didn't move - I mean the portraits in Hogwarts, and pictures in the wizarding papers. There seemed to be a lot less movement there than in previous movies. And did broomsticks have footrests before?

And when the things in the cave started grabbing Harry, my immediate (and vocal in the cinema) reaction - even more so than when that bloody House Elf showed up in CoS - was "It's fucking Gollum!"

 

[RoJoHen]

Average. Jim Broadbent was pretty good but Smith didn't seem to be putting effort

Maggie Smith was recieving radiotherapy for breast cancer while filiming, so I was kind of expecting her to be a bit muted.

I didn't realize this. Very sad.

I was also surprised that most of the pictures didn't move - I mean the portraits in Hogwarts, and pictures in the wizarding papers. There seemed to be a lot less movement there than in previous movies.

I noticed this too.

And did broomsticks have footrests before?

Some did. I know Harry's did when he was fighting the dragon in Goblet of Fire.

And when the things in the cave started grabbing Harry, my immediate (and vocal in the cinema) reaction - even more so than when that bloody House Elf showed up in CoS - was "It's fucking Gollum!"

My reaction was more like, "Wow, that's A LOT of Gollums!" I thought that whole scene was kind of weird. How did Dumbledore know that he was supposed to drink the potion? Was there a sign posted? "Drink this potion to find the Hor Crux (sp?)!"

 

[CaptainCanada]

The problem there, though, is that I imagine the costs of setting up the funeral scene would be prohibitive for just a few seconds of screen time.

I really doubt these guys are worried about costs to that extent, particularly for a scene that wouldn't involve much in the way of special effects.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

The problem there, though, is that I imagine the costs of setting up the funeral scene would be prohibitive for just a few seconds of screen time.

I really doubt these guys are worried about costs to that extent, particularly for a scene that wouldn't involve much in the way of special effects.

I don't necessarily disagree. But I imagine any wide shots of the funeral would, necessarily include CGI "extras" as well as work for the castle, the grounds, etc.

Like I said, I'm just making guesses. Since it makes no sense to me, storywise, to not include the funeral, I'm speculating that, perhaps, there were other factors involved (i.e. budget, time, brain-fart, etc.)

 

[seigezunt]

I found it enjoyable, but not nearly as much as the book. I'm finding these later books don't make great movies...

You have to have a good book to start with, and HBP and DH are TERRIBLE books.

Got to paert company with you there. I found them very enjoyable. They were just quite different books from the first ones, which would make sense, given the growth of the characters.

 

[seigezunt]

The problem there, though, is that I imagine the costs of setting up the funeral scene would be prohibitive for just a few seconds of screen time.

I really doubt these guys are worried about costs to that extent, particularly for a scene that wouldn't involve much in the way of special effects.

I don't necessarily disagree. But I imagine any wide shots of the funeral would, necessarily include CGI "extras" as well as work for the castle, the grounds, etc.

Like I said, I'm just making guesses. Since it makes no sense to me, storywise, to not include the funeral, I'm speculating that, perhaps, there were other factors involved (i.e. budget, time, brain-fart, etc.)

I'm thinking it might be more a matter of them using it for the next movie, for bigger impact at the beginning. They've got two movies to make out of one book, after all.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

It's not a bad idea for DH1 to begin with a memorial for Dumbledore (it'd quickly recall the painful events of HBP). But I think the cost to the quality of HBP is just too high. In other words, I think the benefit to starting DH1 with the funeral isn't enough to offset the detrimental effects of cutting it out of HBP, which needed a few scenes in its finale (more than the trio's dialogue, which was good). Handled properly, it might have meant the difference between a good film (which it is) and an exceptional film.

 

[boushh]

I voted Above Average in this poll. I would give it an A-. I thought it was great, if not perfect.

I understand the complaints about the confrontation between Harry and Snape, though I have different reasons. I think Rickman was fine in this part and excellent overall. His performance at the end makes sense for the film, but it the entire scene is too short.

Now to keep it a bit truer to the book and to have it be a bit longer they would have had to kept in a DADA class, so that we could learn about non-verbal spells and perhaps the Inferii while we were there. Then Snape could say his line, "Blocked again and again until you learn to keep your mind closed and your mouth shut!" Lines like that do not make sense without DADA.

Similarly we do not have Harry trying to Crucio him and we could have, "No Unforgivables for you Potter!"

The only spell of the Prince's that Harry tries to use is Sectumsempra, and it would have been a bit more intense if he tried a few more to really have the line about Harry using his own spells against him have a little more weight.

Then there is the big line which is the one that really makes Snape lose it, IMHO. Previously he is called a coward and doesn't freak out too much until the line, "Kill me like you killed him, you coward!"

So with all this stuff missing there isn't that much for him to react to. What is there, he reacts too, but for him to be really go over the edge would not have made sense. The only thing I would have liked in what was left of the original scene is for him to say "No!" like he does in the books when Harry gets hit with the Cruciatus curse. He is said to roar that line and that would have been cool. He does say it with intensity in the film though, so perhaps they could have cut to a close up or something there instead of a wide shot to up the intensity a bit.

Also, if they had kept in that Harry knew about the bezoar from the Prince's book and defended the Prince after that, then we would have had that on our minds a bit more perhaps for the reveal at the end... because Harry credits the Prince with saving Ron's life, if I remember right. It would have added to the betrayal aspect too.

Anyway, sorry... I'm a Snape fan and a Rickman fan so I wanted to add my two cents on that.

Otherwise, I felt the movie was excellent all around. Great production value, and acting... And I thought that the adaptation was just fine, except for the stuff I talk about above and one tiny thing that happens on the Astronomy tower. It may be favorite or second favorite at this point.

 

[DS9Continuing]

Draco felt like a weak antagonist, with little motivation (the dialogueless scenes certainly didn't establish one).

I thought the motivation was established perfectly clearly in the Unbreakable Vow scene, and Draco's overheard conversation with Snape after the party. He was doing it because he'd been told to do it, and he was too scared of Voldemort not to do it, and he wanted to prove that he could be as evil as the rest of the Death Eaters, even though he really couldn't. And I thought that his crying, his terrified expressions, his total aloneness throughout the film, expressed that well.

Isn't it kind of for Dumbledore to have essentially been hunting Horcruxes (to have the ring and know about the goblet-locket) before he knew that's what Voldemort had made (also, why does Slughorn feel such guilt for telling Riddle, couldn't he have just come to the details from someone else or from a book)?

I did ask the Dumbledore question myself - why does he so urgently need the memory from Slughorn if he already knows about the book and the ring? Then it was suggested to me that perhaps he really needed the memory to find out not just that there were Horcruxes - he already knew that - but to find out how many Horcruxes there were - seven - so that he knew how many he had to destroy.

It's obvious that Slughorn feels guilty because he feels responsible for all the murders Voldemort committed based on the information he gave him - not to mention the entire campaign of terror that began with those murders. Whether that's actually true or not is immaterial - he thinks and feels it was his fault.

 

[Wrongway Janeway]

I just got back from seeing the movie. Quite good, actually. I didn't even grumble on the way out about all the things from the book that were left out. (I always have before.)

The only negative thing I can add that hasn't been mentioned here is the ending with the trio. What was up with Harry and Hermione standing at the railing conversing while Ron just sat behind them on the stairs? That really made no sense to me.

Is it because Harry has an interest in Ginny now? And that Ron feels uncomfortable with Hermione? It just really looked odd that he was alone in the back.

 

[MNM]

Can't fault the movie for following the book's entirely ILlogical Harry/Ginny pairing.

Yeah ... but when has love ever been "logical"?

Maybe not in real life, but in a written series that spans seven books, I would have liked to have seen a consistant, developing relationship between the hero and his love interest, to see why he falls for her, why he stays with her and to see how wonderful their relationship is, rather than a sudden "wow I love this chick who spent a couple of books being a talk shy fan girl and who then near enough disappears from my radar for a couple of years and now I suddenly have a monster in my chest and want to kiss her" one we got.

The movie was ok, I didnt like the book, but found this to be better. At least in the vein of every movie since the third, ie a very stylised version of the book it is based on nothing more.

My main critisicm is the actress playing Ginny is as wooden, uncharasmatic, undynamic, dull and boring as she has ever been, had zero chemistry with the guy playing Harry and every single scene/moment she shared with him felt so forced as a result.

A complete opposite from every scene he shares with Hermione (a "ship" that should have been in my opinion, but regardless...), due to the fact that those two actors have bundles of chemistry together, and it shows.

Harry high on the luck potion was fun though.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I wholeheartedly agree that Radcliffe and Watson have the best on-screen chemistry of any of the performers of the Potter films. Based on that alone, it'd make far more sense for the two characters to fall in love.

As for the actress who portrays Ginny ... I think her performance is competent enough to convey what the film required, and that she had sufficient chemistry with Harry -- although, I certainly can't rebut anyone who thought otherwise. Same for the Ginny/Harry romance in the book. For me, it works. But that's because I buy into the notion that "love happens" -- sometimes, regardless of history (or lack thereof) between people -- even in a story.

It's a purely subjective thing. Either it works for viewers or it doesn't. My point, though, is that it doesn't necessarily have to be "logical."

 

[kimc]

No, Bill and Fleur's wedding is definitely in the next movie.

I'm curious how you know this. As much as I enjoy the movies I've been disappointed that Bill, Fleur, Charlie and Percy seem to have all been cut. In fact, I've been wondering if the wedding that starts out the next film will actually be Lupin & Tonks.

As for HP6 I really enjoyed it. Yes, it's always disappointing when favorite bits from the books are left out but in all practicality it's unavoidable. I regard the movies as enjoyable supplements to the books and no substitute for reading the series.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

what the frak are you talking about?

Ease up, darkwing.

 

[Orac Zen]

Maggie Smith was recieving radiotherapy for breast cancer while filiming, so I was kind of expecting her to be a bit muted.

Hell, I didn't know that. Hopefully she'll continue to recover well.

No, Bill and Fleur's wedding is definitely in the next movie.

I'm curious how you know this. As much as I enjoy the movies I've been disappointed that Bill, Fleur, Charlie and Percy seem to have all been cut. In fact, I've been wondering if the wedding that starts out the next film will actually be Lupin & Tonks.

I've just had a quick look around at a few sites (Wiki, The Leaky Cauldron) and the general impression is that there'll be a Weasley Wedding in Deathly Hallows. Apparently someone's been cast as Auntie Muriel so that suggests it'll be Bill and Fleur (I can't see why she'd bother to show up for Tonks and Lupin tying the knot).

Spoiler: Wedding

Given the Burrow's destruction the real issue may be where said wedding will be held. One article I read suggests Shell Cottage; I saw a pic of it somewhere or other (I've been reading too many HP articles the past few days ) so it's apparently in the movie.

 

[Lt. Trull]

The movie was 'passable'... I missed grawp... I'd have love to see him....
it did seem to me that quite a few parts of the movie were in black and white...

 

[Wrongway Janeway]

No, Bill and Fleur's wedding is definitely in the next movie.

I'm curious how you know this.

Read about it a few weeks ago on Leaky. Apparently somebody from the crew left some paperwork behind in a forest where they'd been filming on location. A kid found it and shared it with the local newspaper. The paperwork had notations on it about the "Weasley Wedding". In addition to that, Bill Weasley has been cast; and the Shell Cottage set has been built. And it appears that Clemece Poesey is returning, too.

 

[clint g]

And it appears that Clemece Poesey is returning, too.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

what the frak are you talking about?

Ease up, darkwing.

What's to ease up on? I LITERALLY could not decipher what he was saying beyond that it was intended to be insulting...