Kevin's Watch

Here are some things that I thought were really good.

Spoiler

+ Broadbent as Slughorn was very well done. Not exactly like I imagined, but he did so great a job I can't complain.

+ Harry using the liquid luck, Slughorn and Hagrid drinking, etc.

+ Ron drinking the love potion meant for Harry

Infelice wrote:Ive just seen it and overall I was very happy with it. Only one criticism for me.... there should have been a bit more drama surrounding the events near the end of the movie.
.

Agreed to a bit more drama at the end of the film e.g it would have been better with some of the order involved in the final battle scene as it is in the book , but I love harry Potter books but found the film a bit of a damp squid , it just never seemed to jel together , not enough action and too many lovey dovey scenes, in that I would point the finger at the director .
So hopefully they will reconsider making 2 films out of the last book unless theycan get a great director to work on it.

My review.
(yah, i'm back -- sorry for the absence -- life is sunny that way)

HP&tH-BP

8 out of 10

**** SPOILERS ****

Overall a really great addition to the series.
Acting: Great all around as usual. Broadbent was fabulous, adding the right amount of sliminess and tragic regret needed for the character. I LOVE Gambon as Dumbledore ... his little bit after going to the loo in the muggle house was hilarious (the knitting book part) .
All three principles (Harry, Hermoine and Ron) develop and grow. I lovd all the little student parts of the movie, but the classroom stuff did feel a little slim - a petty complaint considering the what had to be chopped to get a watchable movie. Radcliff was very good, and I thoroughly enjoyed his part after he took the 'luck' potion-- the subtlties of it were great. And, wow! Ginny and Hermoinie are become true hotties! (I feel sooo dirty).
And the girl who played Luna is wonderful! Her scenes, although brief, are great (love the dress!)

Plot: It is difficult to asses this as I have read teh books so cannot give an accurate account if there was enough for a non fan to enjoy. My wife (who has not read the books) said she felt a little in the dark. But after listening, I think most of her confusion is due to not paying attention to the movie. It is surprisingly dense with info that readers would just take in motion, but others have to watch and listen closely.
The tower scene was BRILLIANTLY done. I didn't like the book version. I found Dumbledore's insistance earlier to do everything he says, NO MATTER WHAT, a great lead up to that scene when, upon returning to the school, he tells Harry to go get Snape. His absolutely shocked and paralyzing moment when her realizes what has just happened is great, - especially when Dumble asked specifically for Snape, who shows up and bids Harry to silence, and then ---!
Great stuff. Almost exactly how I imagined it to be... Snape and Malfoy played to perfection.

Production values were amazing (as always).

One of my complaints is that the visuals may have been TOO bleak and greyed. I know that is suppose to reflect the tone of the film, but... <shrug>
I am glad they took out most of the memory stuff, and happy they stayed with their 'guns' and kept in a lot of the kids personal moments.
And the end ... just how I wanted it ---

Now bring on DH!!!!!!

Heh, today a coworker who hasn't read the books told me that she'd seen it over the weekend.

She said she was surprised that Snape turned out evil, and the Dumbledore got killed. Then, she said... "I wonder what will happen in the next book!"

My response?



"Voldemort kills Harry, and Snape's a hero because he killed Dumbledore!"

Spoiler

The best part is, she doesn't believe me!

Hyperception and I saw the movie today.
All I can say is...
well...
They have a lot of explaining and backtracking to do in the next two films...

Rigel wrote:Something else I just thought of:

Spoiler

With the cuts to exposition, Harry is in a much worse position at the end of Movie 6 than the end of Book 6. Basically, he still doesn't really know anything about the Horcruxes.

Though they DID hint at Harry himself being a Horcrux.

Harry gave the memory to Dumbledore, and listened to Slughorn explain it didn't he?

come to think of it, there was that one part that bothered me .. and it was purely a directing/editing faux pas...

Spoiler

VERY little attention was given to the fact that Harry learned that really NASTY spell he used on Malphoy from the HBP book! I think the connection should have been made more strongly that the author of this book, although a genius, was twisted and dangerous. To a reader it is cool to see it there, but a non-reader it may slip by....!

Usivius wrote:come to think of it, there was that one part that bothered me .. and it was purely a directing/editing faux pas...

Spoiler

VERY little attention was given to the fact that Harry learned that really NASTY spell he used on Malphoy from the HBP book! I think the connection should have been made more strongly that the author of this book, although a genius, was twisted and dangerous. To a reader it is cool to see it there, but a non-reader it may slip by....!

Precisely!
Not enough exposition on who or why the HBP was as he was was given. wayfriend is so right in regards to that, and IMO at least, it is essential to the entire story arc.

Yeah. A lot of the Voldemort stuff can be explored in DH without much trouble. But frankly I don't think anyone who hasn't read the books will have much of a notion as to why this movie has that title.

Nor did the movie explain what "Half Blood Prince" even means.

Zahir wrote:Nor did the movie explain what "Half Blood Prince" even means.

Good point, Zahir.

Something else just occurred to me: One would assume that the kids have gotten papers back from Snape that have been marked up (in Harry's case, one would further assume, *liberally* marked up). How come nobody recognized Snape's handwriting in the potions textbook? Did Snape think far enough ahead to disguise his handwriting in the text (presumably so he didn't get fined for marking up a school text)? And don't the kids have to buy their own books? Hmm, this story line is beginning to come unraveled...

Ali, I never pegged you as a niggler... just kidding.

Well, regarding handwriting analysis - unless there is something especially unique about someone's handwriting, like a capital 'S' that is made to look like a fire-breathing duck every time - how many people would actually notice that two pieces of handwriting are similar? I mean, aside from the fact that they didn't know who the HBP was and were occasionally thinking about who it could be?

Second, the story dealt with the book availability -- students normally purchase their own books, but Harry and Ron weren't expecting to be in potions that year, so they took two of the school's copies that were available in the classroom. And apart from that, I assume even Diagon-alley deals in used books. I'll bet nobody keeps *all* their schoolbooks - except Hermione, of course. And besides, wouldn't the potions class have been taught in what was until very recently Snape's classroom...? Of course, that line of thinking makes one wonder why they didn't figure it out sooner...

dw

Those are problems which were in the book to begin with, no?

wayfriend wrote:Those are problems which were in the book to begin with, no?

I've only read it once, but, if I recall correctly, Snape or Dumbledore (or perhaps Slughorn?) does tell us the book was planted for Harry's education

Probably Slughorn, since he was so keen to have Harry in his class. But yes, this problem was in the book to start with. I'm just thinking that Snape's such a unique sort of slimeball that *some*thing about his handwriting would be unlike anyone else's. Tho he would've been a kid then, and people's handwriting changes over time... Bah. You guys are taking away all my fun.

... or that there might be at least one "Severus + Lilly TLF" in one of the margins.

wayfriend wrote:... or that there might be at least one "Severus + Lilly TLF" in one of the margins.

...I honestly thought that was only a girl thing...

Menolly wrote:

wayfriend wrote:... or that there might be at least one "Severus + Lilly TLF" in one of the margins.

...I honestly thought that was only a girl thing...

It is in that names are spelled out... guys (if they are young enough, anyway) will use initials, "S + L TLG". In that way, they can claim it has nothing to do with them, even though it clearly does( ah, the actions of the logical sex )

Orlion wrote:

Menolly wrote:

wayfriend wrote:... or that there might be at least one "Severus + Lilly TLF" in one of the margins.

...I honestly thought that was only a girl thing...

It is in that names are spelled out... guys (if they are young enough, anyway) will use initials, "S + L TLG". In that way, they can claim it has nothing to do with them, even though it clearly does( ah, the actions of the logical sex )

But, in that case, guys do it more permanently, like carved into a tree or in wet cement, or places where writing out the name is not really feasible anyway, right? I don't think I've ever seen it done on a personal belonging of a guy, such as a binder or book or...?

Menolly wrote:

Orlion wrote:

Menolly wrote: ...I honestly thought that was only a girl thing...

It is in that names are spelled out... guys (if they are young enough, anyway) will use initials, "S + L TLG". In that way, they can claim it has nothing to do with them, even though it clearly does( ah, the actions of the logical sex )

But, in that case, guys do it more permanently, like carved into a tree or in wet cement, or places where writing out the name is not really feasible anyway, right? I don't think I've ever seen it done on a personal belonging of a guy, such as a binder or book or...?

We try to keep such things secret... seems to make the feelings expressed by those initials more real if no one ever knows anything about them. Then, when we grow up and learn that men can't have feelings, such fleeting objects such as notebooks, binders, etc. are destroyed with the rest of our naive boyhood... except for the more permanent parts of the world that we have disfigured which we try to ignore