Half-Blood Prince Movie Reviews v.2

[mactheknife]

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

I have been arguing the opposite: that it was underpowered.

Obviously I misread your post .

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Well, it's true. Not everything needs to be visual. These aren't silent films...

Exactly . Dialogue is just as important as visual effects IMO.

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

.....coughs....

May I suggest you seek out some cough medicine, or throat lozengers??

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by mactheknife

Exactly . Dialogue is just as important as visual effects IMO.

From your pov - sure. But keep in mind that tens and tens of millions of ticketbuyers do not have English as a first language. They are either listening to the films dubbed (often inadequately) into their own languages, invariably losing the individuality that the adult actors bring to the dialogue. Or they are reading subtitles as they watch the film: in which case the information they take in is mostly pictorial.

What I have said applies to all big Hollywood studio films which have a huge international audience.

Nor should posters on here decry silent films. American posters in particular should be awarer of their own history: silent films which could be understood and enjoyed by millions of immigrants with poor English, were a factor in integrating those new citizens into the American way of life. By the time the "talkies" arrived, the great waves of immigration were over.

I can't help but see these comments as signs of posters' suspicion of film as a visual medium. Many book fans want the books on screen as it were; mere illustrations of scenes from the novels.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by Nagini001

Since HBP came out on movie(DVD-Blueray) I have watched it over and over! Has anyone else??

I won't have the DVD until Christmas but I've seen the film 5 times so far and it's just good (if not better) as when I saw it opening night. In my (un-biased) opinion it's the 2nd best out of the 26 films I've seen now from '09. And that isn't just a fanboy attitude coming through and if it was I'd likely be screaming about all the differences from the book! Nah, I wasn't very impressed with the last two...GoF and OotP were just OK and I was losing faith in this series. But HBP has restored faith. IMO, it is the best film in the series, with SS/PS and PoA running a distant second and third. Half-Blood Prince just combines all the right elements- outstanding acting performances, breathtaking cinematography, amazing special effects, and more or less a great script. Manages to include both style and substance for once.

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Good review, Wimsey. I'm glad you acknowledge that as a piece of cinema, HBP really is amazing.

I too would have liked Dumbledore's speech about Harry not having to do anything and how the prophecy doesn't matter, etc being in there...that is probably my biggest disappointment.

[removed by staff: rude]

I agree that Half-Blood Prince is an amazing piece of cinema, MoD And that's something I can't really say about any past Potter films.

As for the prophecy thing, I kinda forgot about this, but yeah it would've been nice since it was basically thrown by the wayside in OotP

Surely not my "biggest dissapointment" though. I really don't have many but if anything, I would've loved to seen a DADA class thrown in...

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

From your pov - sure. But keep in mind that tens and tens of millions of ticketbuyers do not have English as a first language. They are either listening to the films dubbed (often inadequately) into their own languages, invariably losing the individuality that the adult actors bring to the dialogue. Or they are reading subtitles as they watch the film: in which case the information they take in is mostly pictorial.

What I have said applies to all big Hollywood studio films which have a huge international audience.

Nor should posters on here decry silent films. American posters in particular should be awarer of their own history: silent films which could be understood and enjoyed by millions of immigrants with poor English, were a factor in integrating those new citizens into the American way of life. By the time the "talkies" arrived, the great waves of immigration were over.

I can't help but see these comments as signs of posters' suspicion of film as a visual medium. Many book fans want the books on screen as it were; mere illustrations of scenes from the novels.

I hope you're not accusing me of ignorance or of bashing silent films. I recently saw the Charlie Chaplin silent film, "Modern Times" in my Ethics class and I thought it was amazing how it communicated issues of society with visuals alone. I have nothing against silent films. I was just stating the fact that these particular films (the HP films) aren't silent films and thus don't need to rely entirely on the visuals. Your argument makes no sense to me. The film is dubbed into many different languages and there is always subtitles. So...what's wrong with a film relying on dialog to tell part of it's story? I mean it's just a fact of modern film that 80% of the story and characters are communicated through the script. There are exceptions like the Star Wars films of-course.

As an American I can understand the POV that the dialog may be difficult to understand. My family have a hard time understanding the dialog because of the strong British accents of some of the actors (mostly the kids). So it can be detracting, but that's the beauty of subtitles!

[FleurDeLaPointe]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

I hope you're not accusing me of ignorance or of bashing silent films. I recently saw the Charlie Chaplin silent film, "Modern Times" in my Ethics class and I thought it was amazing how it communicated issues of society with visuals alone. I have nothing against silent films. I was just stating the fact that these particular films (the HP films) aren't silent films and thus don't need to rely entirely on the visuals. Your argument makes no sense to me. The film is dubbed into many different languages and there is always subtitles. So...what's wrong with a film relying on dialog to tell part of it's story? I mean it's just a fact of modern film that 80% of the story and characters are communicated through the script. There are exceptions like the Star Wars films of-course.

From my POV it's not the idea that a film relies on dialogue that is the problem, but it relies on dialogue as a replacement or poor substitution for aspects of the material that could be far more artistically expressed through the visual. Abstract ideas such as Harry's inner monologues, the description of elation of the magical world and various other happenings cannot be described in terms of just dialog. An interesting scene in HBP is the waitress scene in which it symbolizes very quickly to the audience that Harry is single, Harry is interested in women and Harry is becoming quite the budding young man. Another scene with Ginny appearing in her very own Juliet to Harry's Romeo by the windowsill already symbolizes their eventual hook up.

IMHO that speaks far better and louder than a monster in his stomach growling. But think of it this way. It takes far more time to tell something than it does to show something. Yes film has evolved into a medium that both relies on dialogue and visuals to tell a story, but this reliance on dialogue especially for the HP series and the setting shows that both, if left far too similar to it's literary counterpart, do not coincide well on screen.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

I recently saw the Charlie Chaplin silent film, "Modern Times" in my Ethics class and I thought it was amazing how it communicated issues of society with visuals alone.

I think this is the part from which to build. For films, visuals are the cake: dialog should be an icing. Films work best when the cinema guides and communicates the points, with the dialog punctuating or accentuating the most important ones.

In a sense, however, cinema is the enemy of overlong speech: whereas nothing distracts from speech in radioplays or readings of books, visuals will distract audiences from a long lecture. It's no different from an professional lecture: if you hit a point where you have to digress into a long spoken diatribe (which I do not recommend!), then you really want a blank screen behind you.


I think that Prince offers a few good cases in point. The Burrow attack stands out. Now, I agree that it would have been nice if it had been used more as as stepping stone than just a point-in-case, but that is a future problem for later in the film. However, there we are shown:

1. An example of the Death Eater attacks about which we are told in the book (e.g., Prophet headlines);
2. Ginny acting as "heroic" as Harry, boldly following him through the flames in pursuit of Bellatrix, comparable to things that the books only tell us (and very obliquely at that).

What makes #1 even more important is that it is happening to faces and a place that we've seen established in earlier scenes. People might even remember them from prior movies: given that visuals are second only to scents in inducing memories, this is as good of a shot as you have of seeing anything of "sentimental" value attacked.

Now, could this have been more tightly tied into one or more of the plots? Sure. (Indeed, this is one of the only places where we see the vestiges of the ?Draco and ?Snape plot[s]: there is a LOT here that I would have liked to see embellished at the expense of Lav-Lav and Quidditch!) Moreover, this scene also provides two cases where dialog is necessary (although the visuals of acting are important, too): Lupin emphasizing to Harry that Harry's hatred is blinding him regarding Snape, and Arthur's development of the Vanishing Cabinet. Sadly, too much of this was a bridge to nowhere....

[MasterOfDeath]

You both have demonstrated areas where HBP masterfully relies on visuals to tell a story. Other plot points rely (mostly) on the dialog. I see a healthy balance here. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

[mrfutterman]

Kubrick used to say that an audience should be able to follow a film with the sound turned off: the visual elements should broadly tell the story.

There are some good examples of visual storytelling in HBP. I would cite Draco's clear guilt and misery at the sight of Katie Bell. Much better, filmwise, than including the Moaning Myrtle material.

I thought that the Snape/Harry hatefest was altogether less happy. Drop your packet of Revels twice in the cinema and you would have missed hearing Harry say that he and Snape didn't see eye to eye, and Remus saying that Harry's hatred blinds him... whatever.

We should have been able to see this hatred, with the sound turned off as it were.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

There are some good examples of visual storytelling in HBP. I would cite Draco's clear guilt and misery at the sight of Katie Bell. Much better, filmwise, than including the Moaning Myrtle material.

I agree entirely with this. Here, the dialog accentuated what was said. Yates and Felton combined did a great job creating an internally tormented Draco in several parts where Draco does not say a word. When the words did come, they hammered home the big points.

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

I thought that the Snape/Harry hatefest was altogether less happy. Drop your packet of Revels twice in the cinema and you would have missed hearing Harry say that he and Snape didn't see eye to eye, and Remus saying that Harry's hatred blinds him...

Agreed. However, why show Harry hating a teacher in a story about teenage sexual politics?

So, imagine that they had cut LavLav and replaced that interactions between Snape and Harry, such as the first DADA class (with some mention of Harry's father) or Harry accusing Snape of covering for Malfoy. Then Lupin's dialog would have worked much better than it did: the audience would have seen that Harry has a strong hatred for Snape just waiting to burst out and that might be robbing Harry of objectivity.

Of course, actually showing that Snape made the Vow would have completely undercut any tension, as the audience already "knows" that Harry is right about Snape. That was a well-done scene: but it really needed to finish with Bellatrix goading Snape to make the Vow and us not knowing if he actually did it.

[MasterOfDeath]

Actually my mom thought that the vow would lead into Snape becoming a tragic hero and dying at the end instead of killing Dumbledore. She fully expected Snape to sacrifice his life to save Dumbledore when he showed up on the tower (esp. with the added scene where Snape motions for Harry to be quiet).

[Noldus]

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

Kubrick used to say that an audience should be able to follow a film with the sound turned off: the visual elements should broadly tell the story.

There are some good examples of visual storytelling in HBP. I would cite Draco's clear guilt and misery at the sight of Katie Bell. Much better, filmwise, than including the Moaning Myrtle material.

I thought that the Snape/Harry hatefest was altogether less happy. Drop your packet of Revels twice in the cinema and you would have missed hearing Harry say that he and Snape didn't see eye to eye, and Remus saying that Harry's hatred blinds him... whatever.

We should have been able to see this hatred, with the sound turned off as it were.

I agree on the Snape/Harry relationship, but there were at least two scenes they speaked to each other, i.e. after the necklace attack and at Slughorn's party. In the first one you could see the hate between them as Snape said "how grand it must be to be the chosen one" and how Harry glanced at him. In the last one, though, it seemed as though they had began to accept each other after the blunder in OotP. Perhaps the film makers wanted Snape to be more likeable and trustful so Harry would find it natural to trust him in the end. Personally I liked the way it was done in the book better with this growing hate. On the other side, Alan Rickman is a good actor and he has always been more quiet and controlled than J.K Rowling's Snape. It's nothing wrong with that since Snape ended up being a good guy.

Originally Posted by Wimsey

Of course, actually showing that Snape made the Vow would have completely undercut any tension, as the audience already "knows" that Harry is right about Snape. That was a well-done scene: but it really needed to finish with Bellatrix goading Snape to make the Vow and us not knowing if he actually did it.

Cutting Snape doing the unbreakable Vow would be stupid because then they would need to tell, instead of showing how it works. Besides, Snape making the Vow doesn't automatically make him evil. He was forced to do it and therefore he could still be working for Dumbledore.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by Noldus

In the first one you could see the hate between them as Snape said "how grand it must be to be the chosen one" and how Harry glanced at him.

That scene did not show hatred by Harry towards Snape. It shows frustration and perhaps even petulance from Harry directed towards two adults (Snape & McGonagal). What we needed to see was Harry visibly angry at and perhaps even challenging Snape. We needed to see this on more than one occasion. We needed to see this repeated at least a couple of more times.

The only other times Harry & Snape interact, there merely seems to be some discomfiture between them. What we really needed to see was Harry directly accuse Snape of working for the enemy: that would have cut to the chase! However, they (and, given what I have read, I am assuming it really was Yates) chose not to go that way.

EDIT: It just occurs to me what they could have done there. They could have showed Harry getting angry at Snape and actually accusing Snape of working with Draco, protecting a fellow Death Eater, etc. Snape could then shout (or hiss in Harry's face) "DETENTION!" as he storms from the room. As Harry turns to shout more, McGonagal then could cut him off by saying that if Dumbledore trusts Snape, then Snape is to be trusted: and if Harry says one more word, then she'll give him detention, too.

Originally Posted by Noldus

Cutting Snape doing the unbreakable Vow would be stupid because then they would need to tell, instead of showing how it works.

They did not need to either show or tell how the Vow works: that is not important. They need to tell what the Vow does (you drop dead if you break it): that is important. It also is unavoidable that it be told: if they just show someone dropping dead, then they still have to explain why.

They also needed to show Harry learning that Snape claims to have taken the Vow (which they did), but then show/tell Harry using that as evidence against Snape. The first part involves doing what they did: showing Harry overhearing Snape. The latter needed to be done multiple times, but was done only once. Rowling did it much more emphatically: Harry raises the issue not once, but four times (to Ron, to Arthur & Remus, to Hermione, and then abortively to Dumbledore.) That is showing a political campaign!

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

There are some good examples of visual storytelling in HBP. I would cite Draco's clear guilt and misery at the sight of Katie Bell. Much better, filmwise, than including the Moaning Myrtle material.

I thought that the Snape/Harry hatefest was altogether less happy. Drop your packet of Revels twice in the cinema and you would have missed hearing Harry say that he and Snape didn't see eye to eye, and Remus saying that Harry's hatred blinds him... whatever.

We should have been able to see this hatred, with the sound turned off as it were.

I totally agree. The Snape/Harry antagonism is diluted in the series anyway, and it certainly was in HBP.

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Actually my mom thought that the vow would lead into Snape becoming a tragic hero and dying at the end instead of killing Dumbledore. She fully expected Snape to sacrifice his life to save Dumbledore when he showed up on the tower (esp. with the added scene where Snape motions for Harry to be quiet).

I thought that Film Snape showed clear signs of inner conflict and humanity. Which is great -- and Rickman, as ever, was awesome -- but I think that Yates was almost giving too much away.

The other half of Snape's story is missing ... his conflict with Harry. (As a Snape fan, I would have wanted to see both sides of Snape!)

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

I thought that Film Snape showed clear signs of inner conflict and humanity. Which is great -- and Rickman, as ever, was awesome -- but I think that Yates was almost giving too much away.

The other half of Snape's story is missing ... his conflict with Harry. (As a Snape fan, I would have wanted to see both sides of Snape!)

I agree. And what the film also lacked was any context in which to place and identify what was shown. If you knew the original plots, then you could infer what was being shown. However, the film needed to actively show us what was happening.

I'm sounding like a broken MP3, but if this had been a story about personal politics, then it might have shown Harry repeatedly interacting with Snape with ironic spins on those interactions making it so that Harry sees what he wants to see ("SNAPE HAS WMDS!!!!") despite the scenes really showing something else.

We also would have gotten an A+ movie and an A+ adaptation!

[Noldus]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

EDIT: It just occurs to me what they could have done there. They could have showed Harry getting angry at Snape and actually accusing Snape of working with Draco, protecting a fellow Death Eater, etc. Snape could then shout (or hiss in Harry's face) "DETENTION!" as he storms from the room. As Harry turns to shout more, McGonagal then could cut him off by saying that if Dumbledore trusts Snape, then Snape is to be trusted: and if Harry says one more word, then she'll give him detention, too.

Actually, I like it Unfortunately we can't change it. It's still a good movie, IMO, especially as a comedy.They can't put too much stuff into a movie, but luckily, having read the book, I can fill in the missing gaps. If I hadn't read it I wouldn't miss it, but then I would perhaps question why the movie felt like a filler or a build-up to the last ones. It would be interesting to see a re-make of it in the future to see how other film makers would approach the novel and to see what they would choose to emphasize on. If they put in too much Snape it might even bore the audience and some might think it's "too much Snape and not nearly as much comedy and romance as it should have been if they were more faithful to the book". I do love different interpretations, but I think I have to direct it myself to get everything right and exactly how I want it

Originally Posted by Wimsey

We also would have gotten an A+ movie and an A+ adaptation!

In your opinion, yes I think I would have liked it too, but I know there are plenty of people who just love it as it is and gave it A+ I gave it C (or 4 out of 6) after the first time I watched it and haven't changed my opinion yet.

[cour7]

Originally Posted by KlausBaudelaire

My vote is D.
I enjoyed the movie, being a Potter fan, but I didn't love it.
It felt too long, and I can't stand Dumbledore's absence for almost one hour, I didn't like that previous characters were not properly re-introduce, and the new ones were useless, most of them.
HBP will just be remember for his cinematography and for Gambon's performance, and for the question of the century: seen he acts so good, why not use him more?
Didn't like the burrow attack, not because it wasn't in the book, but 'cause it was pointless in my humble opinion.
But nevertheless, from Slughorn's confession to Dumbledore's death, the film shows its best.

i agree... the burrow attack was not good...i really think that any book lover would be dissapointed in the movies...mostly because what makes the books so good are the details and sadley there just isnt enough time to make a good movie...but as a book lover you do hold some respect for all the movies but i am always torn when i watch them because they are always kinda crappy

[CandyCane23049]

Originally Posted by cour7

i agree... the burrow attack was not good...i really think that any book lover would be dissapointed in the movies...mostly because what makes the books so good are the details and sadley there just isnt enough time to make a good movie...but as a book lover you do hold some respect for all the movies but i am always torn when i watch them because they are always kinda crappy

Me being a book lover I disagree. The only movie I was somewhat disappointed with was OOtp. On the other hand HBP is my favorite so far. I don't want all the details in the movie like it's in the books. I don't long movies like LOTR's.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by Noldus

In your opinion, yes I think I would have liked it too, but I know there are plenty of people who just love it as it is and gave it A+

Well, although I do engage in devils advocacy from time-to-time to keep my wits sharp, this is not one of them: so, yes, these things are my opinion! However, I will again stress that how much I like a film and how highly I rate that are two different things: I like plenty of movies that I will happily admit to be trash; conversely, there are some movies that I dislike that I think to be excellent films.

Still, what really is important for a series is whether audiences liked a film, not why audiences liked a film. All of the data indicate that audiences liked Prince. So, not only will most of them return for Hallows 1, but it is possible that positive word-of-mouth will increase rentals of Prince and perhaps increase the box office for Hallows 1. However, this is topic for the box office thread.

The potential difference is that had the movie ditched Lav-Lav for Snape, then it is possible that people would have left talking more about the quality of the film rather than the entertainment value of the film. It is not as if this would have given Prince Oscar chances or anything - Prince is, after all, a summer film and a Harry Potter film - but that might have broadened the impact of word-of-mouth on rentals over the next 11 months. However, as Stephen Jay Gould always noted, you do not get to rerun history....

[KlausBaudelaire]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

EDIT: It just occurs to me what they could have done there. They could have showed Harry getting angry at Snape and actually accusing Snape of working with Draco, protecting a fellow Death Eater, etc. Snape could then shout (or hiss in Harry's face) "DETENTION!" as he storms from the room. As Harry turns to shout more, McGonagal then could cut him off by saying that if Dumbledore trusts Snape, then Snape is to be trusted: and if Harry says one more word, then she'll give him detention, too.
They did not need to either show or tell how the Vow works: that is not important. They need to tell what the Vow does (you drop dead if you break it): that is important. It also is unavoidable that it be told: if they just show someone dropping dead, then they still have to explain why.

To those who say that not showing the Vow is impossible, well...it's possible indeed, just the idea of how it might work:
Snape:...but it might be possible for me to help Draco.
Narcissa: Severus!
Bella: Swear to it...make the unbreakable vow!
Narcissa: Bella, I trust him there's no...
Bella: There is need indeed. Oh, it's just empty words, he'll do his best effort sure, but when it's time to take action he'll just slither behind Dumbledore, oh, on the Dark Lord's orders of course...bloody coward.
Narcissa stares back at Severus.
Narcissa: Severus, what say you?
She holds out her hand to him.
Bella: Yes Snape, what say you? WHAT SAY YOU?
Snape is cornered, he opens his mouth to speak and we cut to weasley's joke shop.

Sorry for the OT, but I think Wimsey's idea would work.
Also, showing Snape making the Vow during the Prince's Tale in DH would be more effective, because that would really complete the puzzle

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by cour7

.i really think that any book lover would be dissapointed in the movies...mostly because what makes the books so good are the details and sadley there just isnt enough time to make a good movie...but as a book lover you do hold some respect for all the movies but i am always torn when i watch them because they are always kinda crappy

Welcome but... you can only speak for yourself. I like the books, but do not consider that the details make the books "so good". And I consider that one of the films (PoA) is better than the novel.