I haven’t seen it, so I have no opinion. But seeing as this thing has already taken down the midnight box office record, I think it’s safe to say plenty have. So tell us what you thought in the comments section below.
I haven’t seen it, so I have no opinion. But seeing as this thing has already taken down the midnight box office record, I think it’s safe to say plenty have. So tell us what you thought in the comments section below.
Comments
46 responses to “Tell us what you thought of ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’”
I caught it earlier today. I liked it quite a bit, but still a step down from the 3rd and 5th films. Problem was it was too long for something that had a minimal plot.
Loved the look of the film, though.
What a let down…it got so many great reviews and was a total disappointment. Don’t get me wrong, it was very entertaining (and pretty [thanks Stuart Craig]), but ultimately the story lacked direction and something to look forward to. I’m tired of just “watching” these movies rather then being engrossed in them. There was no climax and I know I’m not alone is saying that (SPOILER) Dumbledore’s death was a waste. Yates needed to milk that moment and give us what could have been the most emotional scene of the franchise yet; instead he flashes to a quick shot of Dumbledore falling for a split second and that’s it. Radcliffe’s blank reaction to his death sucked and the same old “we’re still friends, let’s stand by a window as the sun sets” ending is getting boring. Yates: You better bring your game for the next one and give your actors at least a smidgen of some direction if you hope to please.
The ending fell flat for me (mostly because of the overly maudlin score). But I still think it dealt with the teen angst issues better than anything else (yeah, it didn’t have the strongest of plots).
Though I’m completely 100% on board with Bruno Delbonnel getting an Oscar nomination for his work here. It actually gave Harry Potter an identity of its own and allowed it to stand out from the umpteen other fantasy series of the decade. Beautiful, beautiful work.
Pretty meh… Not awful, not great. Boring most of the time.
Jim Broadbent and Bruno Delbonnel’s outstanding cinematography are the two things I would praise. Otherwise pretty forgettable.
wow, you are all tough critics, i really enjoyed this movie, id give it 8 out of 10, im really ready for the next ones now
Being an avid reader of the books I was very disappointed with the ending. The film completely cut out a huge number of important characters and plot points that should have set up ‘Deathly Hallows.’ In the book, there is a rousing battle at the end after Malfoy transports the Death Eaters into Hogwarts. I almost don’t know how they are going to begin ‘Deathly Hallows’ now because they cut so much of the ending of HBP.
That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed the rest of the movie. The acting from the three principles was in my opinion the best they’ve ever been, with Emma Watson being the weakest link. But Rupert and Dan were both terrific, and hysterical. This was easily the funniest movie of the bunch. I know Harry Potter isn’t comedy, but it did manage to set itself apart from the rest of the films. And as usual the adults were all sublime, with Broadbent stealing every scene he’s in. And nothing more needs to be said about the cinematography, the movie is gorgeous. As a Potter fan I was underwhelmed, as a film fan I was greatly entertained. And what more can you ask for?
It broke the midnight release barrier? I had no idea that this series was so popular? Aren’t children the primary fanbase? How do they go to a midnight release?
James,
Think of it this way: If you were 12 when the first film came out (the books had been very popular for 2-3 years at that point), you’re 20 now.
Also, the series has an older fanbase too. I saw it at 4:50 today at a theater that caters to families moreso than our local mutliplex and the crowd was just as much a date crowd and older crowd than kids.
“I had no idea that this series was so popular?”
No offense, but have you been living under a rock for the past ten years?
I thought it was by the far the best so far. The first 45 minutes or so were shaky, but otherwise I thought the direction was very strong, to supplement the best acting of the series so far- Maggie Smith turned in her best of the movies so far, Jim Broadbent was perfect, and the main three definitely surpassed (low) expectations.
And of course, it was beautiful. I thought the cave was particularly inspired.
No real beef here.
Ben – good points, I guess it makes sense now. I thought it was the sort of thing people grew out of, I didn’t understand its appeal to young adults.
Tim – none taken. I freely admit to being out of the loop.
Caught a late afternoon screening
I am definitely aboard the Bruno Delbonnel appreciation train… he helped craft a beauty.
I have to agree that I was underwhelmed, especially with the anti-climatic ending. David Yates could have made the movie so much more emotional and it is dissapointing to think about what it could have been. Personally, I hated the Harry/Ginny scenes and I thought they had no chemistry. Hermione was such a good character to begin with (especially in the third), but now she just seems boring and somewhat annoying. They also left out so many good parts (Fleur and Bill) and put in some unneeded crap (the attack on the Burrow?? WTF). That being said, the supporting cast was fantastic as usual, especially Broadbent. Bonham Carter, and Rickman, as was the cinematography. I actually did like the movie a lot, but being a huge Harry Potter fan I had to compare it to the far superior book. I would say this is my first or second favourite movie so far. I really hope they can make the next two movies something really special
It was SUCH an improvement from the last one, mainly because they brought back Steve Kloves to write the screenplay. 5 was just an absolute disaster; had I not been a die-hard reader of the books, I would have not had a clue during that god-awful ending battle sequence. When I go see it again in a few days, I will be able to more accurately gauge if it ranks with 3 (Prisoner of Azkaban). This is the closest anyone has gotten to Cuarón’s amazing vision for the Potterverse. This is a dark series, and any director or screenwriter who treats it otherwise only does it a disservice.
That being said, I was somewhat surprised that they decided to play up the teen angst instead of Tom Riddle. From my memories of the book, it dealt more with Harry and Dumbledore over the Pensieve looking at the life of Voldemort and his ancestors. However, it definitely played to the strength of its actors. Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy) can sure play tortured and creepy; Alan Rickman and Helena Bonham Carter scare the living daylights out of me; all the Gryffindor youth are great at being awkward flirts; and Jim Broadbent just nails everything, although he has chosen some questionable projects over the years.
Overall, solid effort. I know we will hear the fanboys chanting Best Picture soon, but I don’t think it holds any water.
Haven’t read the books, though I’m told #6 was pretty heavy on unnecessary plot exposition, which the film jettisoned in favour of telling the story through the visuals. Not a bad move, by my estimation.
Very nicely composed from a visual standpoint, the supporting middle-aged cast was strong as always, and I found myself fairly engrossed in what little story (or plot, I suppose) there was. The child actor who played Tom Riddle was also very good, and if the three main child leads had been up to his level of performance over the course of the series, it would have had the potential for greatness; as it stands, it’s nonetheless been consistently good, which is more than can be said for most blockbuster trilogies, much less eight-film franchises.
I suppose they could’ve milked the death of you-know-who for more full-blown melodrama, but I didn’t mind the relatively understated approach.
Anyways, a more than adequate set-up for the final two-part installment.
The main important things they removed were Young Voldemort development in favor of more Draco development, and consequential grief in the end in favor of extra teen romantic angst. However, I’m GUESSING that the next film will incorporate certain parts of book 6; the other Riddle memories and the death are very important for setting up major plot points in book 7. This would also justify splitting the 7th book into 2 films when longer books in the series weren’t.
Psh, growing out of awesomeness? No.
Thought it was really good, those saying they left out heaps are wrong IMO, I think they did pretty good with what they had, it was never going to be an easy book to adapt. Having said that, the last quarter was lesser than the rest and maybe I’m wrong but I think Yates struggled with the constant flux between comedy and drama/action.
My crowd got a lot genuine laughs in the comedy parts and then seemed to want to keep laughing even in the serious bits. Perhaps when Ron was poisoned he shouldn’t have switched back to comedy so quick to remind the aud that there was still some dark stuff coming.
I was quite happy overall, some nods in the technical categories are due methinks.
I really liked the film, I just don’t understand why they would cut out such interesting and quite frankly AWESOME scenes like the battle and Voldemort memories for the burrow burning down [what?!] and teen love angst. And the bridge scene. And the lack of the Dursleys. And the lack of Dumbledore’s funeral. The wand thing was cool and all, but the actual funeral would have been a much more emotional ending. And I hated the ‘lol it’s so beautiful here at hogwarts!’ ending.
It’s still up there with number three as the best HP movie though. It just baffles me as to why they would make cuts to put other things in. And why anyone who didn’t read the books would want to see this movie.
The Best of the series!
It’s certainly the best looking film in the franchise, but the climax is underwhelming. My girlfriend who has read the book (I have not) says the book ending is quite emotional, but I didn’t really feel anything while I watched the film.
I wouldn’t lay the blame for that all on Yates, though. I don’t think HBP has the kind of ending that translates well to the screen, especially in comparison to Azkaban’s ending.
I enjoyed it. Yeh the ending was underdone and I felt that there wasn’t a really a balance between the humour and the drama and it switched back and forth too much so the tone wasn’t really consistent.
However it was such a visually beautiful film and the cinematography was absolutely stunning and I really enjoyed some of the performances, in particular Jim Broadbent.
I thought it was rubbish. Radcliffe was very annoying at times. Production design was note-worthy but everything else was just sub-par average.
It was not good. Nothing happened except hormones flying and the ending came out of nowhere (I did know about it, but structurally it does). The plotting was really poor, unlike the last film which cut loose all the bullshit subplots and got along with it. It was the best thus far, this one falls in the same structure as 1-4. Sorry, I was determined to like it but I really couldn’t.
Also why 2,5 hours? With so little relevant things happening. The only things that were tolerable/good were the support cast and the technical aspects.
Harry Potter VI committed a massive cinematic sin, it’s incredibly boring. No amount of potions or spells can undo that curse.
One of the better films. Up there with 3 and 4. Radcliffe’s acting has improved by light years. I didn’t read the book directly before going to the cinema, but I remember it quite well and found very little missing.
It’s interesting to hear these so called purists complain about how things were cut out of the book, and then they list Prisoner of Azkaban as their favorite films which took arguably the most liberties with the source materials.
I read the books–up until HP 4, and then high school took over my life and up to now I still haven’t finished the series–and was amazed with this one. I’m probably biased since I’m part of the demographic this movie caters to, but I thought that it had the best cinematography out of all the Harry Potter movies. It was well-paced for a 2 hour + movie, and the comedic moments help lift the somber mood of the film. I also didn’t mind the ending, and since I haven’t read HP6, as someone who is mostly clueless I got the gist of it and enjoyed it. The movie’s last scene pandered to my sentimental side, and it might have been a little too long and cheesy, but for me, it didn’t subtract anything from the film.
Alan Rickman will forever rock as Snape, and I clapped my hands for Jim Broadbent, Helena Bonham Carter, and Maggie Smith. I’m also liking Tom Felton’s malevolence and inner vulnerability. I’m looking forward to see him in more well-written roles. The script was better than the first five movies, and I actually thought that HP 6 could go on to be one of the best ‘high school’ movies of all time. The film easily shows what the ‘Twilight’ series will never have: depth and a well-constructed mythology.
Bruno Delbonnel’s work deserves to be nominated and rewarded.
The only thing that was a little off for me was the music, it was too sentimental at times, but I’m too engrossed with the story to care.
I’ll be seeing it again over the weekend. I’m excited for my next viewing, and maybe I’ll finally finish the series.
@James D.: I was 10 when the books started becoming popular in my country–I’m from the Philippines, by the way–and now I’m 18. I suppose the people who belong to the same demographic can sneak out/ask for permission (especially the fanboys and girls) to watch the movie.
Also, about the Best Picture issue: It was pretty impressive for a franchise, but it’s not “The Dark Knight”. A few more edits–like adding the battle at the end of the book (which my friend told me should have been in the film), refining the score, and polishing the script would have made the HBP a TDK.
Re: Daniel Radcliffe
I noticed that when the camera was squarely on him, he absolutely shined and had much more confidence than before.
But whenever he was in dialogue with someone, and particularly when he was in the background, he still looked as awkward as he was back in 2001.
Thoughts?
Not nearly as good as “Order of the Phoenix” — its tonally off-kilter, a teen-comedy romance first and a dark fantasy adventure second.
I love the idea of having the kids deeply explore their own relationships and friendships in the film — because after all, they are 17 and 16-year old kids, but when the rest is shortchanged as a result, it didn’t accomplish much.
The weight of the situation at the end of the film is completely undersold.
Good, but not excelent. Radcliffe deserves a razzie! With this silly boy, I want the victory of the dark sid eof the magic! I saw it, and i forgot it at the same time.
Haven’t seen this yet but enjoy checking out the comments. I’m not surprised the climax is getting panned since only the third film has one that isn’t completely inept.
I said this on another board, I can not believe the amount of alternating opinions on this movie. It is BAFFLING.
One person says it’s great, best of the series! And the next person says it was awful, boring, but great cinematography!
Then start those 2 sentences all over again. Haha, crazy.
John is absolutely right. I still feel a bit baffled myself I am feeling so indifferent towards the film that many seem to love.
The movie was ok, but it makes me wish even more that Alfonso Cuaron remained in the director’s chair. Azkaban is still the best film in the series.
If we’re giving away Razzies, Bonnie Wright as Ginny should be in voters’ minds when the time comes. I don’t think she understands the concept of facial expressions…
Amazing movie overall, I think. Gambon deserves an Oscar nomination, I think. Shattering work from him. And the finale was perfect for me, for the record.
I don’t know, but I just watched 500 Days of Summer, and it was phenomenal.
I’ll see HP6 on Saturday.
I’m just gonna put this out there:
There will NEVER be another “The Dark Knight.” Ever. It had everything going for it: mystique, well-known characters but an unknown plot, the death of Ledger, etc. The movie was a bona fide cultural phenomenon. And although it still bothers me that the Academy snubbed it so badly last year, it just cements it as “our” movie. If they had embraced it with loving arms, then it would have been “their” movie. And now, with 10 nominees, our instinct will be to wait for the next “The Dark Knight.” But the fact is, there will never be another mainstream movie that taps into the zeitgeist of society so well. If we sit in mainstream movies waiting for another “The Dark Knight,” we will only wind up disappointed. Even Chris Nolan knows that he can’t create a sequel that could possibly live up to it; that is why we are facing such a massive delay for Batman 3. So, with that being said, “The Dark Knight” was a once-in-a-lifetime movie, and the Academy missed a once-in-a-lifetime chance. They will nominate many movies of a lesser caliber (cough…”The Reader”), and maybe they will nominate many mainstream movies in the vain of “Harry Potter” and “Star Trek” to try to atone for this snub. But if we wait around for another “The Dark Knight,” we wait in vain. It will NEVER come.
So everyone loves the cinematography? I was really the only one who found it as washedout and boring as the script, direction, and vast majority of the acting? What a sad, disappointing bore of a movie.
I doubt that Dark Knight is the most zeitgeist-tapping film of all time.
And you seem to think that the Academy “snubbing it so badly,” as in giving it 8 Oscar nominations, makes it “our movie.” So any movie with, what, less than 9 nominations is not their movie as much as ours, eh?
Is it just me or did anyone else notice that this was the best looking and best acted of the series?
The Production design, costumes and cinematography were excellent, certainly worthy of Academy Award nominations. And the acting was phenominal from everybody except Daniel Radcliffe. Michael Gambon gave his best Dumbledore performance yet, Alan Rickman was excellent as Snape despite many cuts from the original story’s character arc, and Helena Bonham Carter was fabulously creepy as always. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson delivered their best performances yet, as did Tom Felton who finally recieved a real chance to shine with Draco’s increased screentime, he was excellent. And the obvious showstopper was Jim Broadbent whose expressions and reactions brought the film it’s funniest and most dramatic moments. He was great, deserving of an Oscar nod if you ask me, though it’s unlikely.
I agree, Tyler. The story suffered (due to the immense book, character development, crazy-ass exposition, subplots galore, etc..) …. BUT …
The acting and visuals/technicals are incredible here; improving with each Potter film.
Finally saw it last night and loved it….
The Good:
-Acting was top-notch almost all-around. Rickman and Bonham Carter do a lot with what little screentime they’re given, and Gambon hit it out of the park (especially with his final scene). Broadbent was a great addition. Radcliffe and Felton both upped their games for this installment, and Grint was hilarious as usual.
-Cinematography. I can’t really say anything that hasn’t already been said. While the costumes and art directio were also series-best, the cinematography really stood out (as did Luna Lovegood’s lion hat hahahaha).
-The comedic elements of this movie worked for me, as there were numerous occassions where my theater erupted in laughter. Comedy is present in almost all the Potter films, but it worked here best of all.
The Bad:
-I’m not anal about book changes, but there were a few that are a bit odd considering how they’ll affect the next movies. I’m OK with them cutting out Dumbledore’s funeral (the wand salute was great), but the status of Dumbledore’s wand is a CRUCIAL part of the next installment. And they just kinda left it lying in plain sight. There were a variety of minor changes like that that will bear down heavily on the next movies…I’m not sure how they’ll fix it.
-The editing/flow of the movie didn’t quite work. The cuts from the comedy portions to the dramatic portions (or vice-versa) didn’t work too well. Someone above me already mentioned the best example (Ron’s hospital stay). The scenes sometimes didn’t mesh.
-Too much teen angst. Goblet of Fire had the PERFECT amount of teen drama (enough to affect the story, not enough to make you bored with it). This one needed to tone it down just a bit.
The Ugly:
-Emma Watson’s acting has been the weak link in all the movies save for the 3rd installment (I have no idea how Cuaron got some decent acting out of her). This was no exception.
-The character of Fenrir didn’t get a decent introduction after appearing on every billboard for this movie.
Overall, I’d rate this the 2nd best of the series, behind Azkaban and slightly above Goblet of Fire.
The climax is 50% of any movie. Therefore i give this movie a score of 50%.
One year later, and though my opinion has formed more, I only found one short portion in the film where the film started to drag. It was barely even a minute long. The rest was consistly entertaining. The cinematography was magnificent. The music wasn’t great, but it was adequate enough. The script was one of the better scripts in the series. The pacing was very contemplative. It’s kind of a deep breath before the final two installments. The finale of this series is nearly upon us. I compare the anticipation surrounding the final films to the anticipation surrounding the last episode of “Lost”. The best is nearly here.