Review: ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’
by John NolteModulated performances, exceptional production values and convincing special effects give “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” the sixth installment of this money-printing franchise, the impressive look and feel of a mature and serious work worthy of respect. There’s no arguing this is a film crafted and performed by experienced professionals striving to create something top-notch and timeless, not just another throwaway, popcorn kiddie fantasy. There is one drawback, however. Just like the previous five, this chapter’s boring as hell. In fact, the dullest of them all … which is saying a lot.
Maybe you need to be familiar with author J.K. Rowling’s source material in order to truly appreciate plodding, virtually plotless, episodic stories, but without the benefit of having cracked open one of those wildly successful novels, you’re only able to admire the cinematography and poise of the young performers so long before the thuddingly dull 155 minutes becomes punishing.
Directed by David Yates (who helmed the previous chapter), things open on an intriguing note, with a sense of style and even purpose picking up where the fifth film left off. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is bruised, battered and swarmed by the paparazzi. He’s now the Chosen One and with that comes a heavy burden of responsibility and level of unwelcome fame. Overwhelmed by it all, Harry hides out in a small café enjoying the solitude and anonymity found behind a newspaper when he’s recognized by a lovely young waitress. The chemistry is immediate and her shift ends at eleven. But this is not to be. Once again, Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) requires Harry’s services.
After the promise of this tender and aching opening sequence, I couldn’t begin to tell you what the rest of the story’s about. Rowling’s imagination never ceases to impress in the bits and pieces showcased, but the narrative is monochrome and a climax completely non-existent.
There’s also never any tension or sense of peril. One of the pitfalls of the Potter Publicity Machine is that even those of us who rank among the indifferent can’t escape the knowledge that Harry & Company will return. This means that any “danger” involving the three main characters – who I have never once felt anything for – can never be anything more than going through the motions because their safety’s assured.
And what a waste of a marvelous adult cast. Julie Walters, Maggie Smith and Helena Bonham Carter are three actresses who bring verve and energy by merely showing up and yet they’re given nothing to do. Gambon, Jim Broadbent and Alan Rickman each have their considerable personalities blunted by a hyper-serious, mumbo-jumbo script aiming for Great Thematic Things but lacking charm, or even a moment of wonder, adventure or fun.
Harry’s beloved cohorts, Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), have never generated much warmth or chemistry, but here there’s absolutely none. Regardless, both have almost nothing to do with the main story and are instead relegated to silly subplots involving love potions and assorted teen aged jealousies that feel frivolous and out of place with the heavy, brooding tone of the overall story.
There’s one truly odd moment worth mentioning. Recently, a ton of publicity surrounded Rowling’s announcement that her literary creation, Head Master Dumbledore, is gay. And yet in one of the film’s early scenes Dumbledore asks to borrow a girlie magazine using the pretense (or not) that he loves to look at the knitting patterns.
What’s that supposed to be about?
But that of course is the pitfall you set up for your creation when, in a fit of self-importance, you choose to politicize it. What might have been an otherwise funny, human character bit turns into something bigger and now we’re taken out of the moment trying to figure out where it all fits in the culture war.
Fans of the novel might be enthralled seeing “Prince” come to life, but anyone hanging in there hoping for a climatic, supernatural, special-effects, showdown-spectacular between dueling wizards is in for a terrible letdown. “Half-Blood Prince” might be the most anti-climatic franchise film in history.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
160 Comments
No, the knitting pattern thing was in the book, not a by-product of the "DD is gay" reveal. Read the book, you might actually like it.
So he's not gay? He digs chicks? Or the girlie mags are his "beard?" Or he digs knitting patterns?
I never said it wasn't in the book… My point is that the subtext of the moment is now in a political area, where it shouldn't be because of Rowling's statement.
Tell me how reading the book will clear my actual question up.
JUst saw this movie with my family. It was horrible. I've enjoyed all of the other movies, but this one was easily the worst of the series.
Oh and i think you mean anonymity instead of animosity in the second paragraph.
I loved the books until this one. The movies are ok, but really generic. I doubt this will be any different.
Thank you…
John, you do NOT want to read the sixth book! Trust me – as a Potter fanatic (who flew to Edinburgh for the release of the final book and stood on the sidewalk in full Gryffindor Quidditch outfit), take my word that this book is nearly all garbage. It's a doorstop – redeemed only by a few moments here and there when Rowling weaves her old magic. But all in all, you do NOT want to read this book. Unless you want a cure for insomnia.
I was shocked at how truly boring it was. I thought there would be at least a big showdown like the end of the last one, but alas it was not meant to be.
I am not into Harry Potter. Hermione is a cutey, but that just isn't enough to make me see the movie.
Thank you, John. For the first time since "Prisoner of Azkaban", I did not stand in line at midnight for the release of a Potter film. It's not just that the films have gone steadily downhill since then, making the viewing less and less enjoyable – it's that the books have tanked also. And the fifth book sucked! There's no way that it could have been made into a decent film – and your review proves it. Thanks for sparing me the guilt of wondering if I wasn't wrong for not standing in line last night. I wasn't. Bless you.
Dang – I meant to say that 'SIXTH' book sucked! The fifth was actually rather good.
Wow, nerd alert!!
Well, considering that the sixth book blew big time, I'm not surprised. The moment I opened the sixth book to start reading it, I was stunned. For a second, I actually thought that Rowling had died and someone else had stepped in to wield the writing wand. It was terrible. Oh, there were moments here and there – the Pensieve scenes – where the old magical spell came alive – but as a whole, the book sucked. Doesn't surprise me that the movie also blew. How could it not, seeing what material it was drawn from?
I'm kind of proud I haven't seen more than 2 minutes of a franchise now in it's sixth installment.
Nolte, you pretentious jerk. You went into this film not liking it. You don't understand why JKRs HP books are so popular and you are jealous.
With that said, every one of these films since the second one, has been horrid. The directors seem bent on recreating the story. . . .why? It already been written for them????? They claim the books are too long to include everything, but they add scenes??? And I agree, this film was horrible. It's rushed and fails to develop the plot and is not easy to follow. . . even for people who know books from cover to cover. For someone who has not read the books. . .. I would imagine it is just a wasted 2 and 1/2 hours.
This movie will open great and make a lot in the first week, but I would bet it will fall off substantially next week. Sadly, Yates is going to direct and butcher the next two movies.
Maybe someday, someone, will do these pictures as they were written in the books. But it isn't here, or now.
[...] the original post: Review: ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’ This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I must be missing something. I held off reading the novels mainly because of the hype surrounding them, but once I started I've enjoyed them all (except the last, which I'll wait to read until just before the movie is released). Ditto the movies. I usually complain if a movie is over two hours long unless it has something really BIG to say, but I've been okay with the HP movies despite their length.
I suspect that part of the problem for many is the fact that there are seven books. A novel is a place where subplots and side issues can be explored and not overly detract from the main story (think Godfather the book versus Godfather the movie). Plus, the fact that the books exist takes away from the surprise of the movie. I'm not sure what to say for the folks who haven't read the books first, but I'm currently enjoying another round of the movies even though the details of the books have been lost in the mists of time (i.e., I'm getting old and can't remember them anymore). I don't expect great things from this installment, but trust that it will be an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours.
Ain't ignorance grand! Proclaim it loudly!
It was an enjoyable way to spend a couple hours. I've enjoyed all the movies and books to date.
I liked all the books. The movies have been good, although you had to have read the books to enjoy them properly. HOWEVER, this new movie SUCKS!! It jumped around and there was no ongoing story line at all. I had read the book a while ago, and I was lost most of the time. It just didn't flow at all! What a disappointment it is. I will have to reread the book and go see the movie again and see if I think it is any better. But I'm not holding my breath on this one. I expect this is the dud that was due eventually. It appears that they should have made this a two part also in order to have a better story line in the movie. It needed more of the books contents to make a more cohesive movie. As it was, it was like a picture book of a vacation – a few great photos, but nothing to connect the whole, unless you had been there too. A great big disappointment. (And I'm 51!)
I enjoyed the books but have skipped the last couple of films. They just seems like a redundant experiences.
I've realized I tend to disagree with John Nolte a lot. When someone disses the Harry Potter book series and calls them boring I'm reminded again how truly subjective and personal our opinions on art are.
Anyways, as for the movie: it's actually the first one to disappoint me. I'm usually an apologist for these movies and the creative liberties they take with the storyline, but in this one I felt like they made some truly stupid decisions as filmmakers with what to cut and change. (spoilers ahead)
Harry just stands and watches, no longer magically frozen as in the book, as his beloved mentor-figure is murdered; no grand action scene between the aurors and Deatheaters as they trash Hogwarts; blowing past Dumbledore's death and cutting the funeral when you add a pointless scene of deatheaters attacking the Weasely home and remind us again and again and again about Harry's, Ron's and Hermione's relationship troubles. No explanation for what the term "Half-Blood Prince" (the movie's feakin' title) means? Yes, I know you find out who it is but that doesn't really explain anything.
That said: performances were great; cinematography was beautiful (although, yes, they should take a break from the monochromatic dreariness), it was funny. But they sucked all the excitement and power out of the ending with stupid changes that acutally made things less cinematically appealling, not moreso. Too bad.
Sweet – BH parochial rift! It would take something at powerfully silly as Harry Potter to pull it off, but if HP is must be, then HP it must be. What's I've always found curious about the HP universe is how offended its fans get at those of us who "don't get it." Like Star Trek, LoTR and other franchises that compel Betas to dress up like characters inhabiting a world detached from reality, it's not that we don't get it, it's that we find it quite silly when practiced by teenagers, and beyond creepy when practiced by adults. I have plenty of friends who love Harry Potter, but they don't cross that socially awkward Rubicon where adults dress up like teenagers and stand outside movie theaters hours (days?) before the latest installment is released while holding fantasy Quidditch drafts.
If you love the books and the movies, more power to you, I don't begrudge anyone the things that make them happy (I exercise my inner-dork by playing speed Scrabble). However, before thinking others don't get it, consider that maybe we get it and find what's to be gotten sort of, um, lame ie not dope ie dorky ie Beta ie sad. It is, however, social, so it's got that going for it.
Way to state what most of us already know, John, you're a brave man!
Yes I proclaim my ignorance of a YA book series and the movie franchise it has spawned.I didn't criticize anyone who likes it, just stated a fact.
That magazine is not "of an adult nature"–it's NOT pornography! It was actually called something like "Knitter's World" or something. I saw the movie, I was sitting up close, I can testify.
And I thought this was probably the best movie so far (in competition with Prisoner of Azkaban) and was filled with "moments of fun" and humor and great chemistry between the characters. I've always thought that people who don't read the books just won't be able to appreciate the movies as much, though, because there's a ton of info and detail that's always left out. This one was excellent and compelling, though, and I highly recommend it.
I agree maatkara, the idea that magic is a silly thing to put into a book is crazy. Maybe it doesn't appeal to everyone, but it's been an important element of literature for thousands of years and it's not going to stop anytime soon.
And actually, Jim Broadbent is used more than any other teacher has ever been used in the series, except perhaps Dumbledore. He's excellent.
Am I the ONLY person who thinks this was the best of the six!?
Hate to break it to you, but the whole point of what he was saying was that because JK Rowling decided to out Dumbledore (because apparently that was so necessary to the story that she had to announce it AFTER the books were release), little things like that which could've been deemed funny or cute, just brings viewers back to thinking about Dumbldore's sexuality, hence ruining some of the point of a fantasy movie.
Read and pay attention to the articles, you might actually understand them.
Your thesis essentially seems to be that magic having been prevalent in art makes magic not only legitimate but somehow desirable.
My point is not that magic is illegitimate but that it should be used to promote reason, as by juxtaposition, e,. Mozart's The Magic Flute.
I think acknowledging magic as some natural force is foolish and has culturally done more harm than good. While sometime the larger story promotes proper values, introducing a magical entity seems unnecessary to me today, however vague the magical notion is (Star Wars' "The Force" or the Harry Potter world's magic.) In practice, though, and given science's place of prominence today, I don't think making kids superstitious is really a concern, rather I think it discourages the appreciation for the application of reason. Now our cultural myths of today, Potter and Star wars, are of course more about courage than reason, which is unfortunate and not to my taste. With their heroes who are as clever and inventive as they are brave, I find, say, The Dark Knight and Iron Man intellectually more satisfying, and thus in the long run, emotionally too.
::Tolkien quasi-spoilers within::
Regarding Tolkien, I think your inclusion of him amongst the other literary users of magic is misguided.
The "magic" of Tolkien's books and of his characters are, to me, best understood in the context of the Greek word "phusis," quite loosely translated as "nature." Tom Bombadil, for example, possesses no special "power" per se, but rather it is simply <i.>in his nature to communicate with nature the way he does. Similarly, Beorn doesn't have the " power" to turn into a bear, but it is simply in his nature. The only aspects of Tolkien's work that might be considered "magical" are the immortality of the elves and Gandalf's abilities. However, these are more properly considered in the context of divinely-ordained powers, and as in contrast to Philip Pullman's otherwise not-dissimilar work, there is finitely and definitely a God in Middle Earth.
Atheists might say even such divinely-ordained power is magical simply because it is not realistic. Perhaps it does, but I think the distinction is worth making since even if you concede it is non-realistic, the context and origin of the non-realistic power is relevant. Even conceding that, the role of the "magical" in Tolkien's writing is quite limited, even more so in the filmed adaptations. As such, it's not really a relevant factor in assessing the morality of characters' particular actions.
A quote from a private letter of Tolkien is revealing:
"a story which is largely about motives could hardly be burdened with a pseudo-philosophical disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether "magic" in any sense is real or really possible in the world. . . some would say that there is a latent distinction such as once was called the distinction betweenmagia and goetia. [The former is Latin for sorcerer and the latter Ancient Greek for the same, but the latter has the added connotation of invoking evil spirits.] Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se) but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is. . . domination of other "free" wills. . Anyway, a difference in the use of "magic" in this story is that it is not to be come by 'lore' or spells; but is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such." [Boldfaced are my emphases.]
In the Potter universe, magic is likewise unavailable to "muggles," but muggles are involved by the author so clumsily that we can't draw any meaningful conclusions about them in relation to the magically-enabled.
Again, I don't think "magic" is, per se, illegitimate, but rarely is it handled well enough not, in one way or another, to be an intellectual affront to the reason-enabled.
Part 1 of 2
Your thesis essentially seems to be that magic having been prevalent in art makes magic not only legitimate but somehow desirable.
My point is not that magic is illegitimate but that it should be used to promote reason, as by juxtaposition, e,. Mozart's The Magic Flute.
I think acknowledging magic as some natural force is foolish and has culturally done more harm than good. While sometime the larger story promotes proper values, introducing a magical entity seems unnecessary to me today, however vague the magical notion is (Star Wars' "The Force" or the Harry Potter world's magic.) In practice, though, and given science's place of prominence today, I don't think making kids superstitious is really a concern, rather I think it discourages the appreciation for the application of reason. Now our cultural myths of today, Potter and Star wars, are of course more about courage than reason, which is unfortunate and not to my taste. With their heroes who are as clever and inventive as they are brave, I find, say, The Dark Knight and Iron Man intellectually more satisfying, and thus in the long run, emotionally too.
Part 2 of 2
::Tolkien quasi-spoilers within::
Regarding Tolkien, I think your inclusion of him amongst the other literary users of magic is misguided.
The "magic" of Tolkien's books and of his characters are, to me, best understood in the context of the Greek word "phusis," quite loosely translated as "nature." Tom Bombadil, for example, possesses no special "power" per se, but rather it is simply <i.>in his nature to communicate with nature the way he does. Similarly, Beorn doesn't have the " power" to turn into a bear, but it is simply in his nature. The only aspects of Tolkien's work that might be considered "magical" are the immortality of the elves and Gandalf's abilities. However, these are more properly considered in the context of divinely-ordained powers, and as in contrast to Philip Pullman's otherwise not-dissimilar work, there is finitely and definitely a God in Middle Earth.
Atheists might say even such divinely-ordained power is magical simply because it is not realistic. Perhaps it does, but I think the distinction is worth making since even if you concede it is non-realistic, the context and origin of the non-realistic power is relevant. Even conceding that, the role of the "magical" in Tolkien's writing is quite limited, even more so in the filmed adaptations. As such, it's not really a relevant factor in assessing the morality of characters' particular actions.
A quote from a private letter of Tolkien is revealing:
"a story which is largely about motives could hardly be burdened with a pseudo-philosophical disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether "magic" in any sense is real or really possible in the world. . . some would say that there is a latent distinction such as once was called the distinction betweenmagia and goetia. [The former is Latin for sorcerer and the latter Ancient Greek for the same, but the latter has the added connotation of invoking evil spirits.] Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se) but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is. . . domination of other "free" wills. . Anyway, a difference in the use of "magic" in this story is that it is not to be come by 'lore' or spells; but is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such." [Boldfaced are my emphases.]
In the Potter universe, magic is likewise unavailable to "muggles," but muggles are involved by the author so clumsily that we can't draw any meaningful conclusions about them in relation to the magically-enabled.
Again, I don't think "magic" is, per se, illegitimate, but rarely is it handled well enough not, in one way or another, to be an intellectual affront to the reason-enabled.
Well that was unnecessary. All I did was point out that the moment was included because it was in the source material, not necessarily because they were trying to interject political subtext. Simma down.
Now my curiosity about this film is truly peaked. I have checked with my daughter (who waited in the midnight line at the theater last night) on what she thought, and she loved it. But then she is a fan of the books. She is one of the many kids that learned to love reading through the Harry Potter books. She has a learning disability and learning to read was a big challenge. As a result she avoided books as much as possible, until one day I asked her to read to me from a Harry Potter book, as we traveled to the dentist. She was hooked. She read them fast and furious as each new one came out. After that she moved on to many more books and reads like a fiend now. She graduated high school with honors and has been on the deans list at college for 3 years now. Do I think Harry Potter is magic? You bet I do.
I loved the books too. Much more than the movies. I've always felt like Daniel Radcliff was a stiff and somewhat unconvincing Harry. But overall I have enjoyed the movies. In checking facebook updates today I have found that lots of people loved the movie. Maybe they are all duped and just don't realize that they were really bored to death. I guess I will have to go see it for myself. After all, who is the best judge of what a good movie is for me? Well Me of course! I've often found that I seem to take the opposite view of most critics.
Probably, but it's definitely an improvement over the fifth.
So let me get this straight…John writes a review of the movie and doesn't like it. Neither do you, and you go so far as to call the movie "horrid", but he's being a pretentious jerk? Why is it okay for you to hate it and not him? And why would he be jealous of a series of movies being successful?
Go nerd rage somewhere else.
Great article, John. What you pointed out can also be said about so many other movies…whether that little bit was in the books or not is a moot point. The fact is that something like that which could be deemed funny or cute or whatever one may call it is totally ruined by Rowling having to point out that Dumbledore is gay, AFTER the books have been released. So just like you said, instead of us chuckling at that, it reminds us of Dumbledore's lifestyle.
If it was so important to speak about publicly, why wouldn't she add it in her books? Could it be because it doesn't take a genius to know that nobody, young or old (or straight), wants to think about that garbage while they're reading a (seemingly) fun fantasy book or watching a movie?
And yes, I think that having to point out someone's sexuality just for the sake of doing it is garbage. Nobody cares except for the person saying it.
I loved it. It's very much driven by the characters, and theme (which I thought was actually pretty conservative. CHOICES determine our destiny? Not income, and gender, and race? Who'd have ever thought?), and a lot of the narrative threads were really part of the broader series, as opposed to standalone arcs, but the Draco thing and the Voldemort memory quest kind of served as co-plots for me. Nonconventional, but it worked, IMO. I was emotionally engaged throughout. The comedic parts were laugh-out-loud-funny, the scary parts were genuinely frightening, and the sad parts were extremely moving. I want to be able to lose myself in a film, and I did.
And I'm very impressed all-around by the casting, but I have to throw in a few good words for the younger actors, almost all of whom were perfectly natural in their parts. Anyone could see that Michael Gambon and Alan Rickman were going to be good in whatever they're cast in, but the kids could've easily grown up to be distracting, talentless hacks. I thought the actor who played Draco was particularly good. A lot of layers there, and I honestly felt bad for his jerk of a character by the end.
Not seeing a movie is ignorant?
Riiiiiiiight. You vote democrat, don't you?
I did too. I've enjoyed the later ones, but this is the first time everything's come together for me. The kids' acting was too stiff in Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire was fun but had no substance, and Order of the Phoenix had some pacing issues. With this one, there were really no big flaws I could pick out. Definitely my favorite of the six.
Actually Devin, the funeral is going to be the opening of the Deathly Hallows 2 parter. I really enjoyed the slow pace of the film…it's a nice change from the shit that studios have been pumping out. Saying that, I can see where this movie will be a tough sell going forward. Deathly Hallows has all the action the entire series has been begging for…I just hope they do it justice.
Yup,
Plus real old guy and sex=ick!
May Lord Voldemort cast an evil spell upon you heretic!
Now let's talk about how dull and plodding those Lord of the Rings movies are!
These books and remind me that point in Evil Dead 2 where Ash has just woke up after being possessed and smashed against a tree. Before the cabin appears a ghastly image it says: "JOIN US!"
See, now Evil Dead 2 is a classic, people. See it with your kids.
I got an 'X' rating as I believe I heard.
*sigh* Your response, as eloquent as it is, is why intellectuals get shot first during revolutions. Get over yourself! It's entertainment! Your premise is as annoying as vegetarians who lecture one about bacon. I know I need to eat vegetables too, shut up, right now I'm enjoying my delicious bacon! As a plot device, magic in art can be quite desirable because it's just plain fun to watch events unfold in a way they can't in the real world, whether created by magic, the Force, or flying armor. (And I sincerely doubt that Harry Potter has made kids superstitious–in nearly a decade of his adventures, I've yet to hear of any tragic attempts to recreate Quidditch, or someone who failed a test because the Death Eaters were after him.) People young and old can be inspired by a tale told with elements not in the real world. I think you're over-valuing intellect and reason at the expense of imagination–which has elevated and ennobled mankind just as much as the others.
Caewful where you tread, David—though I tend to agree. I own all HP movies and the Ring trilogy—and the second is the one I often play on fast forward.
Outing Dumbledore was obviously a ploy by Rowling and her publisher to create a second round of sales think people will buy the book to find any references and by homo-activists to show solidarity with a fantasy character with a thing for wands.
If only Bellatrix's blasting of windows at Hogwarts had woken someone up. They could have had a decent battle, LIKE THEY DID IN THE BOOK. And the ending would have sucked less. The lack of a larger battle was my main gripe. And yeah, I did see it at midnight. In a Gryffindor schoolgirl costume. 'Cause Weasley is my king!
"…this chapter’s boring as hell."
Did we see the same movie? There were flaws, of course, but it certainly wasn't boring. The 2 1/2 hours flew by for me. I enjoyed it. There were some great laughs, spot-on performances (I'm looking at Alan Rickman, Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent, and even Tom Felton), great special effects, BEAUTIFUL cinematography, and I actually shed a few tears when *it* happened. But again, there were flaws: the transitions were bumpy (the result of having to pack so much into that time span), the score a bit weak (I've always thought the filmmakers needed to go back to John Williams…begging on their knees if necessary), and some screenplay hiccups. The rest of my complaints are very Harry Potter geek-related, so I'll spare you…
I am a huge fan of the books–been one for almost 10 years now–so it's difficult for me to see the films through the eyes of someone who does not already know the storyline. To someone like me, there's a plot to the movie because we're setting things up for the final showdown. The movies are guilty pleasures; I have such a great love for the books and several of the characters that I get a kick out of seeing them onscreen.
But someone earlier actually brought up my main concern for the films, which is a concern I've had since the first film came out in 2001: they should have waited until all seven books were published before setting out on making film adaptations. Think about it: the first two films in the series were released when only FOUR of the SEVEN books had been published. By knowing what really happens, what the important plot points really are, the filmmakers could have created a far more fluid and cohesive series for everyone, and especially for those who have never read the novels. With the way they actually did it, it was a bit inevitable that the films would feel episodic. The filmmakers were never sure what to focus on. But everyone knows why they did it that way…cha-ching!$!$! Bit late to correct that now, aren't we?
I guess I misunderstood you, despite re-reading your posts several times. Obfuscation points for you! I think ideas do matter, but they needn't always address the deepest recesses of our intellect, which was my impression of the point of your first post. I'll stand by my last sentence though–I still think you're over thinking the purpose of tales written to entertain.
Totally agree with you, Harry. It was a great looking film but the snogging took up more than half and the people I really wanted more of (Snape) etc. were in and out so fast it made my head spin. I thought the Quiddich parts were so much better in this movie. It felt more real. I really was disappointed in how boring it was because it looked just great.
Yeah, let's talk about how many pages of the LOTR novels were dedicated to walking, with intermissions of aragorn and some other character singing elf songs…the movies might have been long, but they were definitely faster moving than the books were. That and I could watch Legolas tear up foo's with his bow and short swords all day!
Yeah, but you totally ignored the point he was making, even after he replied to your comment about it. Who cares if it was in the source material? That's neither here nor there.
Why in the world have someone who finds both the books and the previous movies boring do a review? This is just ridiculous. My life is worse for having read this guy's take on Harry Potter!
Yes, but they totally trashed the LOTR books in movie 2 & 3!! I almost couldn't sit through the stupid movies because they had so totally left the real story line!! I have read all the LOTR books maybe 30 or 40 times and was APPALLED with the changes made by the moviemakers who SWORE they were following the books closely. I'm not sure which books they were following "closely", but it sure wasn't the originals!! I HATE those LOTR movies. I'd rather read the books a few 100 times more instead.
yr ALL right…this is just like the argument for Star Wars. the books were MUCH better than the movies ever were. JK Rowling should've learned her lesson from Gene Roddenberry. That's the guy who wrote Star Wars, right?
Far and away the best of the series, and the second best movie of the year. As someone who has read each of the books (most multiple times), seen all of the movies in theaters, and is a fan of the genre in general, this movie is absolutely perfect. It changes what needs to be changed. It makes you truly care for the characters. It has a legitimate sense of foreboding.
John, I'm sorry, but I'm starting to think it isn't even you writing these reviews. It is just a hateful computer that gives every single movie an awful roasting, and then pretends to be a legitimate critic. These reviews have quickly become the only downside of Big Hollywood.
I have a review up on my site. Check it out if you want an actual look at the movie, not the musings of a man who clearly hates everything not aimed directly at his tastes.
No, I don't even think it has any close competition for the top spot. The acting (especially from the kids, as well as the almost-too-good Jim Broadbent) is far better than anything else to this point, you seem to care more for the characters this time around, and it is more of a true film than a "kids movie."
For the love of all things good and decent tell me you are joking. . . .
(it is awfully late and I hope I'm missing some form of sarcasm)
Let me just prove my point that most people really, really like the film: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/harry_potter_and_...
Nolte, who admits to disliking the series as a whole (both books and movies) is not the person to listen to for Harry Potter.
Dune sucked so bad as a movie I went out and bought the first couple of books for the friend I had seen it with just so they knew what it really should have been. For them to "do it right" took a mini-series (at least that is my assumption from reviews, never saw it).
Sadly it will be a few decades of milking the revenues before whoever has the rights allows Harry Potter to be done "…as they were written in the books." By then, who would really care? Star Trek lasted because they kept cranking out new material to keep awareness going, Potter will not be so lucky.
I think that was just tossed out there due to complaints about never showing anyone with an "alternate lifestyle." By pointing to the old guy who looks like he wouldn't be doing anything at his age anyway, JKR gets off without adding a word. Just a quick English two-fingered salute to the whiners.
People whispering about the guy running a private school for kids and providing "special attention" to "young Mr. Potter" as well as certain others, eh, maybe it'll get some sales from people wanting to scour the books for "hidden details" etc.
woops! Got my cyber-selves mixed up! A casualty of trying to defeat the moderating 'bots.
Begone, vile temptress, with the evil and highly distracting images thou hast inspired!
That's an excellent thought. There also may have been subplots that were didn't make the early movies that ended up coming into play in the later books.*
It might be a grand experiment, once all of the movies are filmed, to do a gigantic re-edit where lots of footage is added and lots is removed in light of the way the books ended up developing, for the sake of tightening up the whole epic. A Producers cut?
Probably be a disaster, but I'd salute them for trying! Maybe.
*Saw the first movie, haven't read the books but plan on it soon. Just so you'll know this all theoretical.
That's an excellent thought. There also may have been subplots that were didn't make the early movies that ended up coming into play in the later books.*
It might be a grand experiment, once all of the movies are filmed, to do a gigantic re-edit where lots of footage is added and lots is removed in light of the way the books ended up developing, for the sake of tightening up the whole epic. A Producers cut?
Probably be a disaster, but I'd salute them for trying! Maybe.
*Saw the first movie; haven't read the books but plan to soon. Just so you'll know this all theoretical.
You know, I hate to burst the "maybe someday someone will do the books right" bubble, but JKR exercises fanatical control over these films. She works with the screenwriters, making sure that everyone and everything remains "on point." These films are the books done right, or at least to the satisfaction of the author.
And for the record, the first film was tolerable, the second dreadful, the third brilliant (arguably the closest standalone film in the series, in the sense that it had its own internal plot that drove the story along), the fourth not bad, and the fifth…meh.
Your premise is as annoying as vegetarians who lecture one about bacon.
Wow, two thumbs up for one of the best analogies in the short history of this site. I think magic is perfect for what Rowling is trying to tell (although her writing is painfully juvenile and disorganized, which has hurt the movies as well). What kid who has always felt like an outsider hasn't dreamed of a magical world he's "supposed" to be in where he can be important? It's a perfect metaphor for loneliness and feeling like you don't belong. The magic in the story is actually pretty poorly handled (I've read all seven and am still trying to figure out when these kids learn how to really use and write magic, rather than just mastering a handful of convenient spells), and is probably the worst aspect of the story-telling.
Wow, I had a nice long post to compliment you on your take, but again Big Hollywood screws me over with their B.S. moderation que. Seriously, who designed the software for this site? Can I get his home address so I can kick his useless butt?
I'm looking forward to the day that Big Hollywood manages to upgrade to crappy software. {sigh}
Wow Maatkare, I had a nice long post to compliment you on your take, but again Big Hollywood screws me over with their B.S. moderation que. Seriously, who designed the software for this site? Can I get his home address so I can kick his useless butt?
I'm looking forward to the day that Big Hollywood manages to upgrade to crappy software. {sigh}
I'll second both you on this, as it's a point I've made to my friends many times–anything (within reason, obviously) that can get a kid to read a 700 page book is a good thing.
That's a great story. Have you or your daughter written a letter to Ms. Rowling? I'm sure she hears similar stories all the time, but I bet it still thrills her to no end. It would still thrill me were I in her place.
Just like the previous five, this chapter’s boring as hell. In fact, the dullest of them all … which is saying a lot.
John, you're only saying that because you haven't seen 7a & 7b yet (which should have been titled, "Harry Potter and two other kids hiding out in the woods accomplishing nothing for a year"). That is going to be epically dis-interesting (although visually cool).
Well, thanks! But it does get frustrating, doesn't it…the FAQ is about as helpful as Ikea instructions!
Perhaps Dumbledore was conservative homosexual, and therefore needed to be "outed."
[...] Modulated performances, exceptional production values and convincing special effects give “ Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince ,” the sixth installment of this money-printing franchise, the impressive look and feel of a mature and serious work worthy of respect. There’s no arguing this is a film crafted and performed by experienced professionals striving to create something top-notch and timeless, not just another throwaway, popcorn kiddie fantasy. See the original post here: Review: ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’ [...]
I gave Rowling a pass on the inelegance of her writing and the choosing of such a foolish notion (magic) as the "draw" for her novels since she seems to have brought many young people back to reading again. I enjoyed her ongoing critique on the dishonesty and libelous cruelty of the press in the Potter universe. I thought the first two movies, while traditional, were warm and inviting us to explore their world. The subsequent films have suffered from varying degrees of "coldness," exacerbated by unconvincing color-grading. (Why do they looks so blue or gray?) One is temped to think the creators were so naive as to think that as the story got "darker" the actual world had to as well. Overall, the special effects were pretty terrible, from that first awful-looking troll to those wispy spells they shoot around.
I think the films were also much hurt by the loss of Richard Harris, whose performance was more subtle, gentle, and gave off more of the appropriate Obi-Wan Kenobi feel than Gambon, who is just too boomy and vigorous to play the elderly Dumbledore.
There is a lot to like in the Potter world, films and books included, and while Rowling's imagination, a fine adult cast, and much non-digital technical expertise elevate the material, overall I think the author and directors were in over their heads.
Wow. I couldn't disagree more, John. I have never read any of the Harry Potter books, nor seen any of the movies. But I'd promised my kids I'd take them to "Half-Blood Prince" on opening day, so we went to see it tonight. I was on the edge of my seat for most of the movie and actually LOVED it! Now I finally understand what all the Harry Potter mania is about! I got so involved with the story that I can't imagine waiting another year to find out how everything turns out—so I may just read Book 7 in the meantime.
The movie had touches of humor in the right places, gorgeous set design, very high production values, and great acting. Also, an absorbing story line and a spot-on moral compass. What's not to like?
Ok, I'll rise to the bait…magic is a foolish notion for fiction? Narnia? Tolkein? Once and Future King? Mists of Avalon? Magic has been used as the base for books for centuries, drawing readers in and using it as a backdrop for addressing towering topics of good/evil, heaven/hell, coming of age, etc. We've all been steeped in magic and its wonders since Jack used those magic beans to rip off the giant and Snow White's nasty stepmom peered in that mirror. Magic is steeped into the human psyche.
And good review, John–but I had a case of "seen this before-itis" as soon as i saw the posters. Pity Broadbent's underused. I love him. I advise folks here to find him in "Topsy-Turvy."
Too perilous for you?
Regarding the Harry Potter films, K the M writes that “you had to have read the books to enjoy them properly,” and I don’t doubt that it’s true. I’ve seen the films, but because I haven’t read the books, I haven’t particularly enjoyed them. At least, that’s one reason why I haven’t particularly enjoyed them. But I would also say that, as a general rule, if you have to read the book to enjoy the movie, the movie is obviously not very good.
[...] Soulhuntre: Review: ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’ [...]
This is just pure speculation on my part, and I may be totally off-base with this, but I wonder if it was a mistake to have initiated the production of this series of films before Rowling had finished writing the last of the novels? It seems to me that, once you have all seven completed books from Rowling and know how it all ends, you can then use that information to more easily develop a set of screen adaptations that do justice to the novels while efficiently jettisoning expendable side characters and subplots. And that, I think, may have resulted in a series of films that were tighter, not so overly bloated.
Of course, there is inevitably too much information in a novel to be included in a practical screenplay, and so edits are inevitable. But for a continuing series such as this, wouldn’t it be harder to do a good job of distilling the novels into screenplay form if you didn’t know how the series ends? In an important sense, up until the publication of the final book, the filmmakers were basically flying blind.
She has an anime avatar and is talking about dressing up as a schoolgirl. 'Nuff said.
Harry Potter has been a family event for us since the kids were little. The three of them have read the books. One has read them multiple times. The two youngest (in college) double dated to the midnight showing last night and loved it. My son said it was the best one yet.
I have never read the books and liked the HP movies better than most of the kid movies I have suffered through over the years. I also think they are getting darker b/c the kids who started the series are older and it DOES seem scarier.
I don't think it is either boring or, on the other hand, intriguing. It is what it is! Its a kid movie. Its not witchcraft or anything and I think there is no real political message. Its escapism for them. They studied and were athletes and it was fun to chuck it all and escape into Harry Potter land with the costumes and magic.
I'm going with my husband b/c I know the youngest one will go again and it will be fun.
No. I thought it was the best of the movies, and so did my brother-in-law (he has never read the books).
That is, again, not really an argument, but thank you for. . . adding words.
Nonetheless, you are essentially saying that the ideas don't matter, as long as you like how things make you feel. This is something that conservative "intellectuals" like myself are trying to disabuse the conservative movement of right now, as it is that mentality (applied to politics, but even more so to culture, and even more so specifically to art) that has [in part] gotten us into this awful situation we are in right now as a party and movement.
Beside that point:
1. I in fact said making kids superstitious was not a concern, then you proceeded to go all Tina Fey on me and take something I said out of context just to make a joke out of it, despite that it bears no relation to what I said.
2. Tolkien obviously gave thought to my considerations, Rowling did not. As such, Tolkien's work rewards further consideration and study, and Rowling's does not.
Lastly, I would like to note the irony of the fact that while I was decrying that "art that doesn't value reason makes people think reason doesn't matter," your reply is that you like said art and that reason doesn't matter. Thank you, you proved my point more "eloquently" than I did.
Ah, so very perilous.
1) He didn't say a thing about the books, in fact he implied that he's never read them: "Maybe you need to be familiar with author J.K. Rowling’s source material in order to truly appreciate [...]".
2) Just because he found the previous movies boring, it doesn't mean that he couldn't potentially have liked this one.
3) He's a *movie reviewer*. It's his *job*.
I don´t get the respect for the "Prisoner of Azkaban" movie, which many fans call the best adaptation. It is the WORST by far. It is hectic and noisy. It has a bleak, depressing look about it and the finale consists of people screaming plot points at each other at the top of their voices. Cuaron clearly had no interest in the material at all. But he managed to push a race-conscious, politically correct attitude even in a fantasy movie. Surely I cannot be the only one who noticed?
Interesting.
You hate it, Michael Medved, whom I've learned to trust on movies, loved it. It will be interesting to see who is right.
"Dune" was definitely a disappointment but I gave the director and actors credit for the effort. Unfortunately it just wasn't up to the standards that the book demanded. I don't think anybody could do Dune justice as a movie…better to leave it to our imaginations.
At this point I think I'm just going to assume he was bored in that school and had no tv.
I got the impression that the last two books were written simply because they HAD to be written and that there was a certain amount of resentment on Rowlings part, now that she was rich and famous and had a new and better life, that she was required to complete the series. I know it sounds weird but I felt that she killed off a lot of favorite characters as an act of spite to Harry Potter fans who were clamoring for each book. I finished the series but, like you, didn't enjoy the last two and will never read anything else that woman writes.
Excellent response.
I"ve always wondered the same thing Eric.. cause then the directors would have paid attention to the smaller subplots and stuff… and add those in and keep out the unnecessary stuff.
(The only one I haven't seen yet is Goblet of Fire.. {i keep missing it when ABC Family channel shows it}
Just to try my own hand at a rebuttal here – I get your point about what Tolkien had to say about magic – it just backs up the broader intent behind why he wrote his stories and his argument against CS Lewis concerning how fairytales should truly be presented (subtle vs overt). Ill even echo your point about magic and its use by saying I have always understood and believed that power itself has no morality – only the intent behind its use. Here is where I will disagree with your implication that Rowlings did not attempt to make this point herself – "magic" itself is neither good nor bad, its the will of the person using it. I would say that's a major theme of her books.
Now, having said that – I TOTALLY agree with you on her misuse of the English language – I dont know which is more disturbing – the fact that she willfully overuses her creative license and then reaps the fame of being someone 'who has inspired young people to read [bad writing]' or the people who constantly fawn over her [ignoring the bad writing]. I dont have patience for people who wax lyrical over books that quite obviously need a serious and critical editor to kick the author's butt into becoming a better writer – Im finding that more and more common in other genres I try to read – its all about getting published and making money. The craft of writing has been prostituted.
Im sorry, I enjoyed the books up until the 5th one – then I got bored…and even though I found myself laughing OUT LOUD over some of the licentious uses of adverbs, gerunds and other lazy sentence structures, I was willing to forgive her to a certain degree. I could not help but admire someone who had an obvious love of the classics and found some way to present it fresh and new for a whole new generation of kids who would otherwise only learn their mythology and fairytales from Disney (not knocking Disney, but the Real Fairytales are quite a bit more interesting than the watered down pap that franchise gives us).
Then after the 5th book, it became obvious she was living under the pressure of her own braggadocio and her editors' desire to keep bringing in the money. I mean, really, if youre going to go around and claim that there are seven books and even release how the end of the 7th book is going to look/sound, then you darn well better be able to back it up. I frankly found her refusal to develop characters that I thought could really tell a story and present a "moral case" (if thats what she really intended for teh HP books) to be hypocritcal when stood against her claim that no one should be judged by their outward appareance (*coughDracoMalfoycough* – if ever there was a stereotype that she refused to burst until the 6th book, it was this one).
Frankly, I think her books were a mess…and MY overall point is, she may be popular, and may well be remembered for her franchise, but I would NEVER put her up among the Literary greats. Her writing really sucked at times. She wasted some good opportunities because she and her publisher were eager to capitalize on their popularity (if I ever hear that woman bitch about capitalism, Im sending the copies of her books back, burned and virtually unusable. Just another damn George Lucas, in my opinion)
Pop into a bookstore and read the book, Chapter 27 The Lightning-Struck Tower to the conclusion, its under 100 pages. From what I've been reading from reactions of the book fans are based on the butchering of the ending more than it is the movie as a whole.
I've loved the books, the evolution of the characters and their relationships. I've enjoyed watching them grow and taking on their challenges as life or death, good vs. evil gets more serious. I did think this new one was a bit slow. . .but I also think it's a multi-million $ set up to the last two for Hallows. Their was sooo much in this book that needed to be told that the movie was just not able to tell. . .time, $. It's the same old problem going from book to movie. . .what do you keep in, what do you take out. The scenes between DD and SNape really say a lot without saying a lot. I think we're programed to watch the HP series with a "fluff" eye. This movie deviates from that and thus leaves the viewer with a "HUH"! It looks to me like the set up worked and the Hallows will be the battle of all good vs. evil battles.
You must be logged in to post a comment.