Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Movie)

[TC_llama499]

yeah it didnt have as much fighting as i thought it would have but it was still good. Long as **** but good.

[Afrombean]

Originally Posted by insanefreddy926

Too gory and inappropriate? That's how it happened in the book. I don't care about little 5 year olds who never read it and think it's a great happy magical story. I'm pretty sure when Voldemort resurrected and said "Harry Potter I'm going to kill you" in the fourth movie would traumatize a child way more than some nasty wounds on Malfoy. It's not a children's book. The movie got a PG rating. It wasn't inappropriate enough.

I meant it more in the sense of it being so graphic that it doesn't mesh with the rest of the film. It's tonally dark, yes, but it's not graphic, violent, or gory.

Basically, you can more easily say "Malfoy gets magically cut all over his body" and it'll fit the overall tone of the novel, but if you try to show it in graphic detail, it'll feel wrong. Frankly, what I had imagined when I read the book probably would have launched this film from PG to R.

Originally Posted by PsYcHoZeRoSk8eR

I enjoyed this. I'm now looking forward to the next one slightly more.

I would have really liked for them to go all out, especially with the violence and language and all, but I think they weighed their choices, between going PG-13 and PG, and this was better for the production or whatever it is.

Language?

You're joking right? There's next to no "language" in the books at all.

ps "it was still good. Long as **** but good."

It's that mentality that causes films like this to be too short. Are you aware that WB made Snyder cut roughly a half hour from Watchmen? Why? Not for content. Just because jerks like you have the attention span of a peanut. This film was not "long as ****". I wouldn't have minded it lasting another half hour, and I'd even be good to go for another full hour, assuming they kept as good a pace as they did in this.

[bluguerrilla]

I didn't notice the length.

The main thing I didn't like about the ending was the lack of the fight scene at the end. I mean, they didn't want to do explosions and ****?

The cave scene could have been more intense from Dumbledore. More words, I mean. "Hurt me, not them" etc.

How are they going to find the diadem?


Am I the only one that thinks Daniel Radcliffe can't show emotion to save his life? I mean, it could be partially the director's fault (like the 5th movie 'now actors, don't act!') but who knows.

I did really like this 6th movie, though.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by bluguerrilla

The main thing I didn't like about the ending was the lack of the fight scene at the end. I mean, they didn't want to do explosions and ****?

They removed the fight at the end for two logical reasons that I can surmise:

#1: It didn't affect the story. At all. It was just an excuse for a bunch of action that wasn't really needed in the story, and quite frankly doesn't make much sense. How is it that the Death Eaters could run into such opposition in the night time when everyone should be in bed, and furthermore, how is it that in the enormous castle, all of the students and teachers would be able to group together against the Death Eaters' stealth attack?

#2: There will be an even greater, better, and more epic fight at the end of the film series and they'd be treading similar ground to do it here as well. The only part of the fight that was necessary was Harry attempting to take revenge on Snape and failing miserably. Nothing else matters.

Notice also that they'd be eating screen time by adding in a fight on top of what they already have. So it would either be like 15 minutes or more longer or they'd have cut out a lot of ****. I'd guess they'd just cut **** out to keep it around the 2 hour 30 minute limit that these "epic" films seem to not want to go over.

How are they going to find the diadem?

Could be something as simple as "hey, I think I saw something like that in the Room of Requirement!" They don't need to show it to us in year 6; it is reasonable to guess that a character might have noticed it without it appearing on screen. If you're going to get into those questions though, I think you should be worrying about:

#1: Dumbledore's memorial is important and what happened to his wand is also important (fun fact: before the seventh book came out, the script for movie 6 had Harry taking Dumbledore's wand when he died, but naturally this was nixed when book 7 came out).

#2: The Gaunt ring needs some exposition for it to make sense yet. As far as the film is concerned, Dumbledore found it SOMEHOW and destroyed it SOMEHOW and that's all there is to it. I'm curious how they'll explain this one out in movie 7/8, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised to have Harry just say that Dumbledore had told him all about it before he died, even though this was not shown in the film.

[Wineandbread]

I didn't remember a lot of what I read when I entered the movie, but the movie itself was decent.

I thought the movie emphasized Ron/Hermione relationship much more than was needed.
I also liked how Snape was like, "o hai thar I'm the Half-Blood Prince k bai"

Everything after Malfoy confronts Dumbledore didn't seem right. I thought the Death Eaters were followed? They didn't just march out merrily. And they totally skimped on Dumbledore's funeral. =(