Harry Potter 6 is a LETDOWN!!!

I agree this film was the poorest of the bunch.

Not much substance, very dark, and a really poor ending.

On another note at the cinema we went to it had an Intermission, I thought these went out during the 80's!
 
Whilst I agree that his acting isn't the best, it is worth noting that he has mild dyspraxia (a form of autism);



I think the film producers would get crucified if they decided to replace him. I think he does an acceptable job and with the profits WB must be getting from the franchise, I'm pretty sure they're not that bothered.
 
I thought it actually quite brave of WB to allow us (Brtis, that is) to make a film that reflected the dark nature of the latter books. I expected them to lighten it up a bit and try to get back to the magical family fare of the first one, instead of the brooding, downbeat nature of the final books. Well done WBs I say.

As for truncating it, what did you expect, a six hour movie? That's what you'd have got if you'd have followed it slavishly.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
Eek, what about Deathly Hallows? That includes...

Underage rape, snakes bursting out of necks, holocaust shadowing, same-sex relationships (not sure why they usually incur such a high rating, but they do) massive moral questions and a big pile of violence

To those who've seen it, how well did they do Sceptumsempra? I loved that bit in the book because it breaks down the black and white of Harry being the goodie.
 
well the movie will start with the 7 potters chase scene then the wedding. The shell cottage scenes have also been filmed but i have a feeling thats def in part 2.



it is important because it shows that he was going down the dark path as a kid. Its not so important other than developing Snape's character which we should understand more during DH and why he is truly on Harry's side despite being the son of his nemesis.

Harry got the sectumsempra spell that hurt draco from the potions book - sectumsempra is a dark arts spell. Seeing as the book belonged to the HBP i.e. Snape and since Snape is very good at legilimens then he could get the info out of Harry of where he got such a nasty spell and punish him for it and confiscate the book and tell everyone where his new found brilliance at potions was.

This all isn't explained that well in the film.
 
I've read all the books (once) and have seen all the films (once) so I don't know any of them all that well, just the basic plot and what I can remember, and with each film I'm left wondering if the films expose all the weaknesses of the book, or whether the books are so big that they're just too big to easily condense into a film and still make sense. This latest one is no exception. This was a bridging film; no more no less. It served no other purpose than as a set-up for the next film(s). It had no plot of its own and the title was irrelevant, with not even a cursory attempt to explain what the half-blood prince has to do with anything. I can't believe that for a film running to 2 1/2 hours, it still had so much that was irrelevant to the overall story, such as it is, whilst leaving out so many relevant details
(such as the half-blood prince story and how Harry is slowly corrupted by the potions book, rather than the glossed over 'one bad spell and all of a sudden the book is evil' way of dropping it).

On the plus side, the film looks beautiful, Jim Broadbent is excellent as ever and Helena Bonham-Carter-Burton was sexy as Hell, especially in her scene with Narcissa and Snape.

With a (probable) five hour running time for film seven, they really have no excuse for this sort of shoddy adaption next time.
 
I didn't know he was Voldemort's son. Though i did theorize he was blood related. Anyway, thanks for clearing that all up. Much appreciated.
 
I think Daniel Radcliffe has improved, he was watchable.
Rupert Grints good at the comedy element.
And eyebrows Watson was as dire as ever, although she looks like a megastar in comparison to Bonnie Wright who is possibly the most wooden actress i've ever seen.
 
The same with Bellatrix - why did she get all Narcissa's lines in Spinners End?

I really feel for the actress who plays Narcissa - hardly worth her turning up. She must be so sick she lost Bellatrix's role by getting pregnant.
 
Daniel Radcliffe is a very talented actor - he was much better in "Equus" than the HP films (he is restricted by the script). I think that Dumbledore fancies Harry - which is understandable given that Harry lives in the same body as Daniel.
 
my only beef with the film really is that it never went into what the "half blood prince" was about.

yes - its very important not to have a film too much like a book. the first two movies were originally my least favourites, as they cramped far too much of the book into them (did not see the point of Hagrid and the baby dragon in the movie version for instance).

But this new film...I mean - why even bother calling it Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince in the first place - might as well called it something else - it didnt go into "the half blood prince"at all, nor have anything in the film about it - apart from what was said in the end and the posion book that got him good marks in a class - fair enough - but, why was he called The Half Blood Prince? (seriously, i have forgotten) And to a person who hasnt read the book at all, they will be asking - what was all that Half Blood Prince stuff about?!

they did film a sequence of a young James Potter and young Snape - but this was obviously cut out.

its been 4 years since i read the book - and remember very little of it. A lot of fans go on about The Gaunts not being in the film - i dont even remember them! But at least they should have gone into the title of the film - that to me was important.
 
On the contrary, I thought if anything it sped through far too quickly. However, that was necessary in order to fit in as much as they did. I thought it was handled very well.

However, I was disappointed the battle at the end was left out. They did that with Order of the Phoenix as well..... I wonder why?



And I actually left, commenting to my friend about how much more sophisticated the camera movement and cinematography was to the previous films. I thought they really stepped it up a notch.

As for too dark... hardly. I think if they spent too much time "faffing" as you say, then it's because they focussed more on the comedy aspects. Personally, I thought the amount of time they spent on comedy was a good idea - it was a nice balance of comedy and drama/horror.


Overall, I think the film was done very well. They managed to get in MOST of the key parts of the book (it would be impossible to get in everything). It seemed to have all the factors for a good film and the cinematography/direction had real style.

They had reasons for leaving bits of the book. They couldn't go into all that detail about horcruxes... it might have gotten really boring. They've got a BIG widespread market remember, including young children. And Harry not being frozen wasn't really a big deal. It wouldn't have come off on screen, that's for sure. They have to make cinematic decisions remember.
 
I liked the film but as a huge fan of the books I was a bit disappointed. I felt the film focused alot on innuendos and not enough about the dark tone set in the book. Saying that I did enjoy the film just not as much as I hoped I would.
 
Back
Top