tonorator Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 i know it's getting good reviews, but that did not work for me at all ... what happened to dumbledore's army? what happened to the big fight scene at the end and the dramatic death of dumbledore? did we need all that time on the bloody vanishing cabinet? who cares about all the snogging between teenagers when the fate of the free world and the dark lord lies in the balance? why was the entire movie spent trying to recover the one memory vs. developing the plot? where was ron, harry, and hermione working together to figure out what was going on? i could go on. seems to me like the cut major budget by not doing dumbledore's funeral or the big fight scene at the end. wonder if they were rushing this out to cash in on the summer bucks. i get what the reviewers like around the time spent developing the characters a bit more, but most of the time it was like a bad teen romance novel vs. a tale of good vs. evil filled with wizardry and witchcraft. i've loved all the movies to date but this one was a big meh .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 About to leave w/ the wife to go check this out. She's a hugh fan, and has read all the books numerous times. I've seen the movies (with her) and enjoy sharing this with her. Oh, and now that Emma Watson is 18, I want to put my wand in her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDFFFreak Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) I couldn't agree more, ton. While I only read the first two books in the series, my wife told me that Rowling changed up the stucture with the last two books. I don't know if this was the reason the movie didn't work for me or it was something else, but the ending was so anticlimatic while the rest of the movie was simply decent at best. It felt as if it simply existed to be a bridge between the last and the next movie. Exploring the characters and their romantic relationships was fine by me, but as a friend of mine said: where's all the wizard sh*t? Probably the worst Harry Potter since the first one (which wasn't really all that bad) or Goblet of Fire (which felt like they left too much stuff out of the script from the book, hence we were left with a movie that felt very incomplete in parts). I am surprised the critics have dug this movie so much. Not quite as bad as their love for the wretched Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but still a bit baffling to me. Edited July 19, 2009 by TDFFFreak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Fast Times at Hogwarts High Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Fast Times at Hogwarts High Uh huh. And agree w/ ton's post. Wife thought they left way too much out and/or consolidated too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REZ Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Saw it yesterday. They did leave quite a bit out but they've done that with all the movies. It wasn't because they had to rush to get it out this summer as this movie was originally going to be released in November 2008. My hope is that by splitting the last book into two movies that we get the whole book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 My least favorite of the bunch. We were 2 hours in and my 10 year old needed to make a bathroom run. On the way back in, he said, "We're about halfway through the book." I thought . Sure enough, it wrapped up in about 20 minutes after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 My least favorite of the bunch. We were 2 hours in and my 10 year old needed to make a bathroom run. On the way back in, he said, "We're about halfway through the book." I thought . Sure enough, it wrapped up in about 20 minutes after that. Speaking of which - and this may deserve its own thread - here is a site that tells you the best times (non-essential to plot, etc.) to go to the bathroom during movies. Heard about this from the couple sitting next to us at Harry Potter the other night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Speaking of which - and this may deserve its own thread - here is a site that tells you the best times (non-essential to plot, etc.) to go to the bathroom during movies. Heard about this from the couple sitting next to us at Harry Potter the other night. OK, that's pretty funny. Bookmarked that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 (edited) The title of the film was The Half Blood Prince, but the movie was barely about that at all. Just like the last film, The Order of the Phoenix, the film just skimmed the subject of the title. This director David Yates focuses only on the aspects of the story that move the plot along, but he leaves out all the essential stuff from the book. I do sympathize with the director and scriptwriter because The Half Blood Prince is a very long book with a lot of stuff in it ,and they really needed to break it off into two films. All of these books would work better as a mini-series or a television season. Unfortunately, because the book has so much material, the movie is nothing more than a bad cliff notes overview of it. Edited August 4, 2009 by electricrelish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I don't know how in the world you'd fit everything in a movie that was in the book unless you had 4 hours. They got most of the important stuff IMO (Horcruxs, Malfoy, Snape) but anyone who didn't read the book will certainly be scratching their heads on parts. It was the same way with LOTR. There's just too much. A bigger fight like in the book would have been better for the ending. Without it, the movie seems flat. Order of the Phoenix at least got that right. Maybe they'll release extended editions on DVD eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I don't know how in the world you'd fit everything in a movie that was in the book unless you had 4 hours. They got most of the important stuff IMO (Horcruxs, Malfoy, Snape) but anyone who didn't read the book will certainly be scratching their heads on parts. It was the same way with LOTR. There's just too much. A bigger fight like in the book would have been better for the ending. Without it, the movie seems flat. Order of the Phoenix at least got that right. Maybe they'll release extended editions on DVD eventually. Agreed, they f'd up the ending by not including that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I'm reading most of the replies being compared to the book. I'm curious - If you had never read the books, which I have not - only been to all the movies - would it be decent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I'm reading most of the replies being compared to the book. I'm curious - If you had never read the books, which I have not - only been to all the movies - would it be decent? I think if you have watched all the movies and want to carry it through to the end, it's worth your $10.50. From a visual standpoint, it's good. The story is a little disjointed, but it contains enough so that you know what's going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 3, 2009 Author Share Posted August 3, 2009 I'm reading most of the replies being compared to the book. I'm curious - If you had never read the books, which I have not - only been to all the movies - would it be decent? i'm not sure how you could really follow things without reading the book. i mean you could, but you would be missing so much back story that the events wouldn't make much sense. the best way i can put it is that the movie does a good job of capturing the main events in the book, leaving out a good deal of the scenes that explain why the events are happening. without the backstory, the events don't carry much meaning. what's most meaningful about the movie are the love relationships which the book does include, but more as a going subplot to the battle of good vs. evil. you resonate mostly to this in the movie because more time is dedicated to it. the disappointing thing is that the movie moves so slow, showing you the actual events very slowly. they could have sped a bunch of stuff up to to get in more of the plot. the other movies did this very well. there was also stuff in the movie that was different than the book. harry was paralyzed by dumbledore's spell at the end, not simply ordered to stay below. huge difference here as harry would have protected dumbledore if given the chance. the tie-in was made in the books to snape killing all who harry loved as he helped to kill his parents, now dumbledore. all left out of the movie. the whole weasley house burning down, not in the book. no explanation even as to why it happened in the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) Not only did Dumbledore paralyze Harry, but Harry was also wearing the invisibility cloak in the book. Seems they did the 3 brothers story a disservice by changing that up. Also agree the Weasley house burning down wasn't necessary. It would have been fine, but a fight at Hogwarts between the Order and Death Eaters would have been much better if you had to choose between the two. I'm sure it was inserted to give some action in the middle of the movie. As far as seeing it without reading the book, my parents were disappointed in the movie and they had not read the books. Dad thought it was slow. Mom fell asleep for about half a minute . Dad's first question after the movie, "So, what's the significance of the Half Blood Prince?" I certainly understand the criticisms that it is a placeholder movie setting up the final two movies. If I never read the books, I probably would have felt that way as well. Edited August 3, 2009 by The Irish Doggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Went to see it last night. I admit I thought it was the funniest of the movies thus far, whatever that's worth, but the pacing and storytelling seemed way off, and the ending felt really anti-climactic for the significance of what had occurred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 [damonwayans] hated it [/daminwayans] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 You're all ghey. I loved LOTR. I like the comic book movies (Iron Man, TDK) that are done well. This one I just don't get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 You're all ghey. I loved LOTR. I like the comic book movies (Iron Man, TDK) that are done well. This one I just don't get. +1, but I go to appease the wifey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 4, 2009 Author Share Posted August 4, 2009 You're all ghey. I loved LOTR. I like the comic book movies (Iron Man, TDK) that are done well. This one I just don't get. i think it comes from reading the books with the kids ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 i think it comes from reading the books with the kids ... Ahh, ok. My kids can read for themselves. :oldrazz: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 My 10 year old has read the whole series. I read the first one wayyyy back when. I thought the movie spent too much time on the teenage love angle, and then all of a sudden needed to wrap up the actual story. This was my least favorite of the bunch, and I enjoy these movies. Darnitall...I already posted in this thread, didn't I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Went to go see it with my oldest daughter yesterday. I have to say, without reading any of the books, this one seemed like an excellent table setter. Knowing that the Malfoy's have had a huge part in this series, I'm glad they spent enough time on this, and it leaves me with a lot of questions for the next part. I found it funny, if not disjointed at times, but a solid effort since I feel it's a part of something bigger. I've just found myself caring about these characters and seeing more back story on Tom Riddle was good for me as well. If this was it, and the movies ended, I would feel much differently. As well, this thread has convinced me that I should probably read the books as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.