Harry Potter 6 is a LETDOWN!!!

I thought it was O.K. but it just felt like there was something missing, not the plotlines they skipped that doesn't bother me just something else I can't put my finger on.
 
I can't quite make out if this is sarcasm or not, so I'm not sure whether I ought to reply?

I would say that this film was, FAR AND AWAY, the most light hearted of all of them. They devoted two hours of it to juvenile "humour" and shallow "romance", neither of which had the depth to be darker. What little 'dark' parts they did retain from the book were massively diluted in quantity, quality, and intensity.

HBP the movie was HBP the book, but with the soul, depth, and plot cut out. All that remained was juvenile sniggering.
 
yeah, he seemed under pressure there when he doesn't really become under pressure until later. There was no mention from Draco that i recall where he says "If i don't do it he'll kill my family" - we see him crack up for about 10seconRAB and then Harry attacks.
 
Unfortunately I didn't. It was absolutely amazing though - much more incredible than I ever imagined. It was a brilliant spot of magic and fun in an otherwise rather grim looking film. Exactly what Fred and George's shop should be.
 
Can I ask those that have seen it what would you consider the minimum age a child should be to see it. We are going tomorrow and my 9 year old is desperate to come but im not so sure.
 
The overwhelmingly positive reviews indicate that probably wasn't the case. ;)

I suspect the 'hardcore' fans are, by this stage, going to be nigh on impossible to please without it turning into a six-hour box-checking exercise.
 
It appears that in the dumbed down world of the cinema that's what people want.

Half Blood Prince is my favourite of the HP books, because it's about Snape and Draco and Narcissa really.

Of course I didn't expect that muppet screen writer or anyone else at WB to get that ... so I'm not disappointed. I was disappointed at the first film, I've expected nothing and got nothing ever since.

And no I haven't paid to see it! Give me a break!
 
Contactmusic quotes him as saying: "There's no point reading the books because you're playing with the screenwriter's worRAB. Besides, you'd get upset about all the scenes the script is missing from the book, wouldn't you?"


This is michael gambon worRAB classic :)
 
You do realise these are children's films, don't you? Where is the benefit of making these films a 12 or a 15 if, by doing so, you're excluding the most passionate fans?
 
I didn't enjoy the book of Order of the Phoenix, but then I loathe the character of Sirius so ... that's probably why.

But I loved Half Blood Prince. I think it's the best book of the series and what WB have done to it is criminal.
 
Its a 12A so its completely up to you whether you want him to watch it. I personally don't think there is much in it that would be too dark/horrible for a 9 year old.
Also its a PG in America and not a PG-13. The MPAA allows parents to rate movies and so if its been given a PG over there - i'm sure it will be fine for him to see it.
 
I knew it was going to be shit and nothing like the book when rupert said in a interview on 4music "This films not as dark as the others" i sat there like this :eek: and screamed, i swear i was soo soo angry, because the HBP is like my favourite book, it should be dark and it got a effing PG a PG!!!! In other worRAB its nothing like the book, if its got a PG they should have thought oh wait there, this isnt dark enough.

I think they are still trying to appeal to the children, but at the end of the day they cant do that these books the 6th and 7th if done right would probably go to a 15, but Eb wouldnt let that happen because they would be shutting people out and wouldnt make as much money, but it annoys me when they put the pointless rubbish in at the start, and left out some amazingly important bits, harry and ginny had a kiss, it never explined they had a relationship, nevermind ended it, harry didnt see snape as a younger boy in the pensive, the drusleys were not seen.... Again!!! Its just all sooo soo wrong.
 
I'd say Grint was geuinely good, and the other two were fine.

I think the film worked well - including how the end scenes were changed.

Well handled all around, IMO.


It's a 12a.
 
Overwhelmingly postive maybe, but only in the sense that overall it's a mostly a 'good' film as opposed to a 'bad' one. All of the reviews I read made the point that the plot makes no sense and this film is effectively just a placeholder between films five and seven. I tend to think that at the back of the writers minRAB they knew that no matter how much of a hatchet job they did, and even though it had no plot to speak of and the title was meaningless, it would be a box office success regardless.
 
THe books and the films have been wasted on children:(


I think Jk rowling is to blame she sholud have insisted on the bit they left out it obvious how many chapters have been excluded.
 
Admittedly, Rupert Grint was good at what he played (though I don't like the character of Ron in the film, whereas I do in the book).

Emma Watson is tragic, as always.

Daniel Radcliffe ... I'm sorry, I've not meant anybody "in real life" who can say with a straight face that he is a good actor. Improved, yes ... but it's not hard to improve on the worst acting ever. Okay, he was a child in the first films, but he's not anymore. His acting is a combination of wooden, reading off the page and expressionless, followed by complete overacting and open-mouthed wonderment - probably at the fact he's still in work.

I swear the casting policy for most of the children is to choose the worst actor to audition.
 
Back
Top