‘SUP, MUGGLES. Who’s excited about the new Harry Potter movie? Who’s
excited? Who’s excited? Who? Who? Who’s excited? I KNOW, RIGHT!? FUCK.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz.
Whu? Sorry. How long was I asleep? Who’s the president? I’m hungry.
Oh, right. The movie! Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince starts dark and noirish: violent flashbulbs, shrieking trains, a dingy
diner, flying Death Eaters (that name is still the most
embarrassing construction in J. K. Rowling’s universe). Sucks to be
Londontown right now. Meanwhile, Hogwarts has a new Potions teacher
(Jim “Complete Fucking Genius” Broadbent, a big tweed sausage
casing stuffed with pathos, hot air, and googly eyeballs),
Dumbledore has a new theory (“This cabinet contains memories pertaining
to one person: VOLDEMORT!”), and Harry has a new book and a new boner
(Ginny Weasley, growing up awkward). And it’s all, you know,
suuuper-duper okay. In that slightly disappointing
Harry-Potter-movie kind of way.
The film—directed by David Yates, the man who mediocred the
shit out of 2007’s Order of the Phoenix—offers some
magnificent visuals: The production design absolutely steals the show,
particularly in Snape’s angular, sopping hometown and the Weasley
twins’ so-happy-it’s-macabre joke shop and that part when Harry
and Dumbledore stand on a rock for no reason. Amazing. And there are
other good things. The young Voldemort is an appropriately eerie
sociopath, the scene where whatsername touches the cursed necklace
thingy is as pantie-poopingly TERRIFYING as in the book, and—most
notably—Yates does a lovely job with the lighter moments of
teenage life: Ron and Harry wrestling over a textbook, the politics of
wizard crushes, the onset of SNOGGING (so much snogging!), and even
boring old Quidditch. Fun times. Wizard fun.
(Side note: Dudes, you did not luck out with these
actor-children. Daniel Radcliffe is pale and stiff, and can barely act
[except in one scene when, loose on luck potion, he turns inexplicably
into a comic genius]; Emma Watson is beautiful but flat; that
Draco Malfoy kid looks like albino Screech.)
But—but!!!—how can it be possible that after five tries (Alfonso Cuarón’s totally legit Prisoner of Azkaban excepted, obv) the Harry Potter franchise still hasn’t figured out how
to turn a book into a movie? Half-Blood Prince is 153 minutes
long. It is lumpy. It confuses. The source material offers plenty of
cinematic potential—it’s mysterious and illuminating and scary as
fuck—but the film plays out like one long, labored anticlimax,
with all the wrong alterations and weird clunky dialogue dragging the
plot along (actual quote: “So what was Draco doing with that
weird-looking cabinet? And who were all those people?”). Being a
complete nerd, of course, I’m fine with it. Being a movie critic, I’m
not. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. 
I really, really enjoyed it. I was particularly impressed with the amount of humor they included to make it an enjoyable, rewatchable movie!
I think the actors have shown a marked improvement in their acting skills, most obviously comedy here. And that Tom Felton was channeling tortured and sort of looks like me today, having went to see the movie at midnight and then stayed up all night afterward and then dragged myself to work all day. But he’s much prettier.
I think obviously many things could have been altered or improved, but I was pretty pleased with the outcome.
And yes, Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite film adaptation. However, HBP was my favorite book (yes, yes I know NO ONE ELSE seems to like it much or at least <3 it the most) and so I was a bit worried.
So, yeah I can’t wait to see it again so I can view it a bit more critically, but I dizzzzagree.
I really liked it. Dan Rad is getting marginally better with each film, Tom Felton isn’t required to do more then glower angrily and he manages that fine, and Rupert Grint is pretty good at the more slapstick elements. Emma Watson still acts like she’s drowning though. All that gasping and breathiness.
to much snogging i think they left a lot of not importent thing but just cool stuff but they really wanted you to know hermione has a crush on ron
This was the first of the movies I did not like. Where was the fight scene in the end? What they gave us was probably the most anti-climactic ending I’ve ever seen when they could have given us something special. Did they think Maggie Smith was to old to jump around brandishing a wand? I thought the movie was really bad, maybe because HBP was my favorite of all the books.
The Title of the movie is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, yet the entire plot of the actual Half-Blood Prince is he wrote a little in a book and then apparently Harry had to dump it for no reason. Then you find out the shocking secret of who wrote some notes in a book! I understand that in the book there is a lot more to it, but as someone who has only watched the movie the title makes no sense with the insignificantness of that subplot as depicted in the movie.
How could you not mention how ridiculously HUGE Rupert Grint is??? Every time I see the preview I’m like JESUS CHRIST. No idea about the acting, haven’t seen it yet.
I can’t see the preview without laughing myself sick, so I should probably wait until it’s been out a long time so I don’t enrage other movie-goers.
Great review!!
Further comments:
I do think the reference to who the HBP was at the end is was too rushed, anti-climatic and out of place. If I didn’t already know what was going on I would have been all whut? Although, really I still was a little whut, as in “Whut the hell was that?”
As to changing the ending I think I’ll reserve judgement until I see the next one.
I am guessing that he changed the pace to make the movies work better together.
OR possibly not. We’ll see.
One other downer was the sad part was like 15% as sad as in the book. You know what I mean. And you you don’t, you shouldn’t until you read/see it.
Criticizing the choice of actors–who are from Britain–for being pale is somewhat silly. Though the sun does not fill their hearts with love as with ours, they retain a vampiric complexion which creates the illusion of extended youth.
As time goes on, the movies are more and more guilty of assuming the audience has read the book. And it is making all the wrong cuts. Leave out the battle because it’s an expensive CGI set piece. But put in an expensive CGI set piece rock, which then serves no purpose to plot or action. (Never mind the CGI house destruction that didn’t happen in the first place.)
I’m starting to get nervous about what they’ll do with Deathly Hallows…
#5, read the books!
Lindy, you were on fire this week. I haven’t seen the movie yet, but when I do, I imagine I will have numerous giggle fits at inappropriate times when I remember this review!
#5, that is why the movie fails. I understand that you can’t turn the mammoth novel into a pure movie, but they change and leave out shit that is kind-of-a-little-bit-maybe-sorta FUCKING IMPORTANT. Like, what the fuck the title of the movie even means.
Spot on review for the most part: the novel gives ample content for the movie to be as explanatory and creepy as fuck, and yet… no. Although I actually found Tom Felton to be refreshingly spooky and great where all the other child actors fail and Rupert Grint does comedy comfortably. But Prisinor of Azkaban?! That is the one movie that has failure and monstrosity written all over it. But it earns some points for being the movie that brought the world’s attention to how smokin’ those three actors and Felton are… Just saying.
#9: Yeah, the whole the-Burrow-burns-down-and-let’s-not-explain-that-or-the-plastic-stalactite-cave-from-IKEA-okay? thing is dreadful.
I was frustrated in the theater but following it, so I felt bad that my non-book-reading companions were confused as all fuck.
I’ve always preferred to think of the movies as illustrated accompaniments to the books, rather than as potential substitutes. Not only does each individual movie generally fail at conveying a coherent plot, the directors do shit-all to pass the torch when it comes to the overarching, epic storyline of the seven books together. So much has been left out that’s crucial to the total storyline that it’s clear they’re not really trying. As replacements, the movies always bomb. As moving illustrations, they’re pretty nice.
I agree! What is the deal? Do they make the screenwriter read the book? Does someone need to be hired to take him by the hand and walk him through the story highlighting the important parts?! No explination of who the half-blood Prince was unless you count an offhand remark near the end that you would have missed if you were crunching your popcorn too loudly. No battle — and that was so important. None of Draco’s slow deterioration under the stress of his assignment. No angst about Harry’s love being his best friend’s sister. And does anyone else wonder what the fuck happened to Charlie and Bill Weasley? Then…they burned down the Burrow!!! Where are they supposed to meet up and prepare for the hunting of horcruxes?! I think it’s the worst one yet and it could very easily have been the best. Boo hiss! I would be taking some people down were I the author.
It’s not that bad. Sure they took some liberties, but it does a good enough job of telling the story. I just wish they would let all those actors do some acting. Maggie Smith is wasted. Alan Rickman has so much more to do in the book, but he gets only about 10 lines in the movie. Tonks and Remus are barely there. I just hope the last two movies get character development.