View Single Post
  #146  
Old September 5th, 2009, 9:20 am
FirstOne617  Undisclosed.gif FirstOne617 is offline
Second Year
 
Join Date: 17th July 2009
Age: 27
Posts: 143
Re: Half-Blood Prince Movie Reviews v.2

I had to give it a B (by the poll scale, not overall grade). I saw 3 times, and it was still as entertaining every time. It was a very good adaptation, despite the additions and omissions that will inevitably occur. What diehards should remember is that filmmakers need to market to more people than just us. It can be tough, but you have to disassociate yourself from the book somewhat in order to really enjoy the movie.

That being said, though, the Burrow scene just really got me. I probably would have given this movie an A, the first time that would have ever happened, if the Burrow scene was not put into the movie. I understand the point that they were trying to get across, that nowhere was safe anymore, not even Harry's favorite home, yadda yadda, but...I feel that they sacrificed too much to have that put into the movie. I know what I said above about dissociation, but the novel was so character-driven that it really missed a crucial point when they put in the Burrow scene instead of, say, Pensieve scenes.

My second issue is the lack of characterization they put into Voldemort. He's my favorite literary villain, and that's because he's more than evil. He's human, much as he tries not to be. In the movie, however, young Tom Riddle was less a handsome orphan fearful of death than Damien from The Omen slipping in unnoticed. What Rowling did was dilute Voldemort's evil in the book. What Kloves did was reinforce it. Tom Riddle just looks and talks like he's one evil son of a gun. How could they not tell he was evil?

My third, less important issue is Slughorn. People have said that Jim Broadbent did a great job in his role and he did. The problem was that his role was the doddery old fool looking for someone to tell stories to, a companion of sorts. I didn't get that from the novel Slughorn. I got more of a "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" vibe, someone less clingy and more of a forceful personality. A minor gripe, at best.

Now that all the gripes are gone, time for the positives. I enjoyed this movie immensely, as stated in my first paragraph. It was funny and dark and emotional and easy to get drawn into. The scenes between Hermione and Ron were funny (The Three Broomsticks) or heart-wrenching (Quidditch party) and I don't generally get emotionally involved. I'm a 17-year-old guy, for crying out loud. The effects were great, and this movie didn't drag like the last one did, despite it being 15 minutes longer. That's because it was generally more entertaining. It's hard to break down exactly why it was so enjoyable.

On to something else that I've seen in the posts here. I think people are confusing sexual tension for romantic tension. Sexual tension implies that there are issues with the actual act of reproduction, while romantic tension is more of the teenage "I like her, but she's going out with someone else" deal that we got.


__________________
"The problem is, intelligence isn't distributed evenly amongst the general population..."

"The problem isn't that there are too many fools, it's that the lightning isn't distributed correctly."
-Mark Twain

"There, did you think to kill me? There's no flesh and blood in this cloak to kill. There's only an idea. Ideas are bulletproof. Farewell."
-V

FIGHT ON!

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links