Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
So, I had 15$ in my paypal account and used it for Andrew and I to go see Harry Potter last night. It was awesome. There were goods and bads, of course, but I was surprised overall. I will also preface this with saying that we watched the other 5 movies before going last night so we saw it with the disasters of the most recent movie(s) fresh in our minds.
First, I am going to touch on the overall feel of the film and it's filming techniques since it will probably be the shortest to talk about. It's funny because the film was filled with awkwardness that made me laugh a lot. Partly because of absurdity and very little because it was hilarious. The reason I think this happened is because the book/movie was so much darker than previous ones, and it soften that, I think they tried to make this awkward and funny. I find myself doing the same thing in real life. I crack jokes when I am uncomfortable or on the verge of losing it and crying (Snape killing Dumbledore is a great example). I didn't get that devastated feeling in the end of the film like I thought I should.... but at the same time, I found myself more emotional when Snape was fleeing with the others than when Dumbledore actually died. I also found things made me laugh that probably should not have been funny (for example, the cave where the inferi and fake locket were kept reminded me of crypton!).
Along this train of thought, I found that this was the first movie Michael Gambon portrayed Dumbledore correctly. A part of me wonders if this was intentional or unintentionally intentional. What I mean by this is that he seemed eccentric (which he is supposed to be), when before now wasn't the case. But I am not sure if this was done on accident in an attempt to show that people have reason to think he might be getting too old to run a school. He played Dumbledore so authoritative in the previous movies that it was a nice change.
There was a lot of focus on sexual tension in the film and this has gotten negative feedback. But I think people fail to realise how much of the book it's self was focused on this too. It's possible that we notice it less when we read, but more when we see it on a movie. To pretend like the book wasn't as ripe with teenage hormones as it was in the movie is just silly. And Lavender.... Oooooh Lavender. Haha, I was mildly annoyed at first because of how cute she was. I remember reading the book and hating her instantly because she was SO irritating and a serious creeper. But in the movie, I found her to be so cute and somewhat quirky.... until she started in on the WON WON.... That's when I remembered why she was not cute, but irritating and silly.
Onto a more plot related point, while I understand the reason for this change, I hate that it happened. The burrow. Wait, what? An attack on the burrow? Huuuuuh? Yah. From a film and business perspective, I understand. They needed something to happen in the middle... they needed to not have a battle at the end because it was too similar to 5, and 7 or something like that. But really, the scene was pointless (yet devastating, omg) except to annoy me with changing my precious Ginny (I'll make the ginny point later). It's like, they lost their house! And now what are they going to do. But they never mentioned it again... and I think that's weird. If the reason they needed to add it was because they needed something to happen in the middle, then I think that is not a good reason. Why? Because I will bet that 95% of the people who see these movies have already read and love the books, so boring them a little in the middle to make it closer to the book... or adding the battle at the end... or HELL, saving the money to use on affects at the end that were NEEDED, would not have bothered the fans.
Going to go off on a couple character tangents again. Lupin (and Tonks, I suppose), NOT ENOUGH SCREEN TIME. Hahaha, but that's just because I love Lupin. And... why did Tonks look like Paula Abdule? That made me so sad. I was also annoyed with the fact that they were suddenly "together"... It's like... wtf. No time for it, I guess, but it made me sad because I loved that part of the book.
And now to Ginny. Ginny is pretty much my favorite character. I've always been a Ginny/Harry person. I was mostly satisfied with how it was portrayed in this movie with exception to a couple of things they had Ginny do because they made her seem so subservient. One of the things that makes Ginny amazing is that she is independent and strong. The two things that stood out to me were where she feeds Harry and ties his shoe. These two things bugged me so freaking much. I do not see her as this sort of person at all, nor did it ever imply this in the book and that bugged me. With that said, though, even though it was changed completely and made very little sense, I love the scene where Ginny and Harry are in the Room of Requirement. Loved it.
Last character, I swear, but Draco. As much as I hate Draco because he's a complete tool, I think Tom Felton was fantastic. I love how Draco was looking more and more like Lucius as well. I think the character was spot on and I enjoyed him. Interestingly enough, I think Felton blew most of the other actors/actresses out of the water.
And back to plot since Draco leads me to the final scene. I knew I wasn't going to be happy with this because I heard before that neither the battle nor the funeral were present in the movie. I feel that leaving out the battle was a huge mistake. Huge. There was absolutely no purpose for the group of death eaters to show up through the wardrobe. They came and immediately went to where Draco and Dumbledore were. Why? If it was just to make sure Draco did his duty, there is no reason they all needed to be there. If it was to wreak havoc, then havoc should have been wreaked! And yet... there was none. Unless you count Bellatrix setting fire to Hagrid's house (then hagrid magically appears unscathed where dumbledore's body lie). It was just silly. The movie made a big deal of the wardrobe and Draco's job like the book did, but never gave us the reason it was so important.
And since I have been rambling on for over a thousand words already, my last point is the very, very end. Fine, they couldn't afford or manage a funeral will millions of dollars of cg and actors/actresses. I lived with that. I found it quite sad with all the children and professors mourning and crying around Dumbledore's body (though, I cracked a joke about raising lighters or cellphones in the theatre when they all raised their wands). But, the part that made me so sad was they did not show Dumbledore being entombed. They has an opportunity to and they SHOULD have. They showed his wand (wtf) on his desk... and even had fawkes come out and cry and fly around.... Had they gotton rid of some of the CG they didn't really need, they could have had fawkes entomb Dumbledore and I would have had little issue with the very end. But alas... they did not. And the fact that Dumbledore never explained the remaining Horcruxes annoyed me. How is Harry supposed to know where to start if Dumbledore never fully explained his findings and the two of them had no time to discuss Horcruxes with each other? Who knows.
BUT! With all of that said, I still liked it. Ha! I LIKE IT LOT.
First, I am going to touch on the overall feel of the film and it's filming techniques since it will probably be the shortest to talk about. It's funny because the film was filled with awkwardness that made me laugh a lot. Partly because of absurdity and very little because it was hilarious. The reason I think this happened is because the book/movie was so much darker than previous ones, and it soften that, I think they tried to make this awkward and funny. I find myself doing the same thing in real life. I crack jokes when I am uncomfortable or on the verge of losing it and crying (Snape killing Dumbledore is a great example). I didn't get that devastated feeling in the end of the film like I thought I should.... but at the same time, I found myself more emotional when Snape was fleeing with the others than when Dumbledore actually died. I also found things made me laugh that probably should not have been funny (for example, the cave where the inferi and fake locket were kept reminded me of crypton!).
Along this train of thought, I found that this was the first movie Michael Gambon portrayed Dumbledore correctly. A part of me wonders if this was intentional or unintentionally intentional. What I mean by this is that he seemed eccentric (which he is supposed to be), when before now wasn't the case. But I am not sure if this was done on accident in an attempt to show that people have reason to think he might be getting too old to run a school. He played Dumbledore so authoritative in the previous movies that it was a nice change.
There was a lot of focus on sexual tension in the film and this has gotten negative feedback. But I think people fail to realise how much of the book it's self was focused on this too. It's possible that we notice it less when we read, but more when we see it on a movie. To pretend like the book wasn't as ripe with teenage hormones as it was in the movie is just silly. And Lavender.... Oooooh Lavender. Haha, I was mildly annoyed at first because of how cute she was. I remember reading the book and hating her instantly because she was SO irritating and a serious creeper. But in the movie, I found her to be so cute and somewhat quirky.... until she started in on the WON WON.... That's when I remembered why she was not cute, but irritating and silly.
Onto a more plot related point, while I understand the reason for this change, I hate that it happened. The burrow. Wait, what? An attack on the burrow? Huuuuuh? Yah. From a film and business perspective, I understand. They needed something to happen in the middle... they needed to not have a battle at the end because it was too similar to 5, and 7 or something like that. But really, the scene was pointless (yet devastating, omg) except to annoy me with changing my precious Ginny (I'll make the ginny point later). It's like, they lost their house! And now what are they going to do. But they never mentioned it again... and I think that's weird. If the reason they needed to add it was because they needed something to happen in the middle, then I think that is not a good reason. Why? Because I will bet that 95% of the people who see these movies have already read and love the books, so boring them a little in the middle to make it closer to the book... or adding the battle at the end... or HELL, saving the money to use on affects at the end that were NEEDED, would not have bothered the fans.
Going to go off on a couple character tangents again. Lupin (and Tonks, I suppose), NOT ENOUGH SCREEN TIME. Hahaha, but that's just because I love Lupin. And... why did Tonks look like Paula Abdule? That made me so sad. I was also annoyed with the fact that they were suddenly "together"... It's like... wtf. No time for it, I guess, but it made me sad because I loved that part of the book.
And now to Ginny. Ginny is pretty much my favorite character. I've always been a Ginny/Harry person. I was mostly satisfied with how it was portrayed in this movie with exception to a couple of things they had Ginny do because they made her seem so subservient. One of the things that makes Ginny amazing is that she is independent and strong. The two things that stood out to me were where she feeds Harry and ties his shoe. These two things bugged me so freaking much. I do not see her as this sort of person at all, nor did it ever imply this in the book and that bugged me. With that said, though, even though it was changed completely and made very little sense, I love the scene where Ginny and Harry are in the Room of Requirement. Loved it.
Last character, I swear, but Draco. As much as I hate Draco because he's a complete tool, I think Tom Felton was fantastic. I love how Draco was looking more and more like Lucius as well. I think the character was spot on and I enjoyed him. Interestingly enough, I think Felton blew most of the other actors/actresses out of the water.
And back to plot since Draco leads me to the final scene. I knew I wasn't going to be happy with this because I heard before that neither the battle nor the funeral were present in the movie. I feel that leaving out the battle was a huge mistake. Huge. There was absolutely no purpose for the group of death eaters to show up through the wardrobe. They came and immediately went to where Draco and Dumbledore were. Why? If it was just to make sure Draco did his duty, there is no reason they all needed to be there. If it was to wreak havoc, then havoc should have been wreaked! And yet... there was none. Unless you count Bellatrix setting fire to Hagrid's house (then hagrid magically appears unscathed where dumbledore's body lie). It was just silly. The movie made a big deal of the wardrobe and Draco's job like the book did, but never gave us the reason it was so important.
And since I have been rambling on for over a thousand words already, my last point is the very, very end. Fine, they couldn't afford or manage a funeral will millions of dollars of cg and actors/actresses. I lived with that. I found it quite sad with all the children and professors mourning and crying around Dumbledore's body (though, I cracked a joke about raising lighters or cellphones in the theatre when they all raised their wands). But, the part that made me so sad was they did not show Dumbledore being entombed. They has an opportunity to and they SHOULD have. They showed his wand (wtf) on his desk... and even had fawkes come out and cry and fly around.... Had they gotton rid of some of the CG they didn't really need, they could have had fawkes entomb Dumbledore and I would have had little issue with the very end. But alas... they did not. And the fact that Dumbledore never explained the remaining Horcruxes annoyed me. How is Harry supposed to know where to start if Dumbledore never fully explained his findings and the two of them had no time to discuss Horcruxes with each other? Who knows.
BUT! With all of that said, I still liked it. Ha! I LIKE IT LOT.