Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Massawyrm kind of likes, but is ultimately disappointed with, HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE!!

Well if by Franklancer	Jul 14th, 2009 09:36:35 AM
Massawyrm doesn't like it, in my experience it should be good then.
Mass mass mass... by ScottinDC	Jul 14th, 2009 09:37:40 AM
It needs Cliffs Notes? How many people will see this with no knowledge of the series? You see to think viewers will have no intelligence or insight into the plot - I for one cheer David Yates' decision to not underestimate his audience. You and I couldn't feel any more differently.
Good review Massa by ricarleite2	Jul 14th, 2009 09:38:11 AM
Well done
FIRST!!!!!! by FeralAngel	Jul 14th, 2009 09:38:12 AM
Haha, suckers. See what you can accommplish when you have no life?
AW CRAP FOURTH by FeralAngel	Jul 14th, 2009 09:38:41 AM
Damn~!
zzz by Fortunesfool	Jul 14th, 2009 09:38:51 AM

Yep Feral... by ScottinDC	Jul 14th, 2009 09:39:17 AM
You can be one of those who shout 'first' then self mock themselves only to find they are 4th or 5th.
There's not enough Harry Potter reviews on AICN by CHRISTIAN_BALE_TRASHED_MY_LIGHTS	Jul 14th, 2009 09:41:03 AM
That's sarcasm, that is.
story as it goes by LargoJr	Jul 14th, 2009 09:41:41 AM
At least its entertaining and well written as well as acted... You KNOW DAMN WELL you wont get that from any of the other 'intentional' series adaptations like that aborted turd burgler 'Twilight' I say just enjoy it for what it is, a film about characters you enjoy, and not complain about what it isn't, which would be Shakespeare or Empire Strikes Back, or even Wrath of Khan.
I don't go to Potter films for cute stuff by FeralAngel	Jul 14th, 2009 09:41:44 AM
I go for the dark magic and genuine sense of otherwordliness that Rowling can't begin to invest in her writings (because...psssst...she's the most successful hack writer in history. And good for her. We all have to make a living). And that's the ONLY reason I'm going to see this. I love magic fantasy and the Potter films do deliver on that at least to some degree. I was disappointed as hell with the Narnia films in that respect. Hope to god Fox does a good job with "Dawn Treader" - it's based on work by a GOOD writer and has tons of cool magical imagery in it. Anyway, I'll see "Prince" anyway...except for "Up" this summer has been a bust movie-wise.
ScottinDC, I wasted some of Harry's bandwidth by FeralAngel	Jul 14th, 2009 09:47:03 AM
Making stupid comments. Just trying to fit in. I even misspelled a word. Do I get my robe and weenie badge now?
SOUND AND FURY by Mullah Omar	Jul 14th, 2009 09:48:22 AM
...signifying nothing. It's a damn shame, because Potter fans talk this book up as one of the best. It's sad to hear (in this review and others) that it wasn't translated to the screen with its heart intact.
The Potter films have always sucked by SherlockMonk	Jul 14th, 2009 09:51:11 AM
Their only saving grace is that they're an interesting view into what the world would look like if it were real. If you truly want to be entertained then you need to read the books.
Dude, are you high? It's part 6 in an ongoing series by YackBacker	Jul 14th, 2009 09:54:34 AM
Tell me if RETURN OF THE KING would make any sense to a newcomer? or REVENGE OF THE SITH? These franchises all make little independent sense as they proceed further and further. Your chief complaint is silly.
"There's not enough Harry Potter reviews on AICN" by Big Jim	Jul 14th, 2009 09:57:45 AM
And not a single one mentions the Imax 3D version. Ok, they didn't see it, but I think it is worth mentioning that maybe instead of going to see it now in a regular theater you might consider waiting 2 weeks to see in Imax with 3D scenes. Shitty move on WB's part not releasing both versions at the same time.
I think Massa's off base this time around by seagrass	Jul 14th, 2009 10:07:32 AM
This is the best film in the series, by far. Good review, though!
If Massa hates it then I'll probably love it by SoylentMean	Jul 14th, 2009 10:09:37 AM
That's kinda weird but it mostly seems true. Although I hope we agreed on Transformers 2, because that movie sucked.
Don't listen to Massawyrm. He doesn't know shit! by JarJar25	Jul 14th, 2009 10:09:41 AM
This film was not meant to set up things, that was the last film. The beauty of the films are that you are suppose to go back and read the books and see the films again. They both work well together. Much like 2001 the film and the book, if you see the film, then read the book, you'll be that more satisfied. Yes, reading the book is not required, and you can still enjoy the film, but you are going to get more out of the film if you do read the novel.Go back to your dungeon Massawyrm now! Bye!
Is there any reason by Subtitles_Off	Jul 14th, 2009 10:24:04 AM
for someone who never read any of the books and saw only the first three films to waste any time considering this, at all? No? Ok, then.
The background magic by Mr Gorilla	Jul 14th, 2009 10:24:06 AM
I think Massy has really hit on something here. I loved Goblet, and enjoyed Phoenix, but I think what Azkaban did so beautifully was bring all the background magic to life to wittily. The pictures in that film were WONDERFUL ('poot out those lights!'), as were the taking head in the pub, the sweets that turned them into animals etc etc. And most of all Buckbeak, who we all fell in love with. There was still a bit of it in GOBLET, but I really missed it in PHOENIX, although there were still nice touches like those horrible kittens on Umbridge's plates.
Fell in love with the Potterverse by PantherMatt	Jul 14th, 2009 10:32:58 AM
To each their own, and all that, but personally, it wasn't moving staicases or Every Flavor Beans or shoddy Skiving Snackbox effects that made me fall in love with the "Potterverse". It was the characters, themes, and plot. Every last one of the films has been flawed, but the Characters, Themes, and Plot have always shown through. The rest is... fine. Massa, I appreciate your review: it succinctly states your feelings about the film, and why you feel those feelings. Well done. In my worthless opinion, though, there are better reasons to fall in love with these stories than the bells and whistles. If the story being told doesn't call for a moving staircase or a poorly rendered cerebus, I won't miss them! 'Course, I haven't seen HBP, yet, so...
He really doesn't know shit.... by AgentCross	Jul 14th, 2009 10:33:47 AM
There's no plot? BS. The plot is Harry trying to get a certain memory from Slughorn so he and Dumbledore can find the horcrux's
HBP is easily the best book by prbt	Jul 14th, 2009 10:51:32 AM
But I'm a bit worried that the film is leaving out some of the pivotal sequences: the schooldays of Harry's ma+pa and friends, Tom Riddle's wyrd relations, the big fight and the funeral. Without those, I'm a bit confused as to what's left.
Dude, maybe you should cliff notes? by spiceybiscuit	Jul 14th, 2009 10:53:15 AM
The book is the weakest of the 7 and that is mainly what the book is about, who is snogging who...so if they picked that plot line then it goes along well with the book. I love it when people complain "I haven't read the books so I didn't understand". As a reviewer of film, would it not be prudent to actually RESEARCH your material before you see it? At this time, in this day in age of web and blogging, I'm sure you could have found a quick overview or the whole fucking book on line to skim through..
I wouldn't mind a look at Emma's Goblets of Fire. by Knuckleduster	Jul 14th, 2009 10:58:09 AM
Or even her Chamber of Secrets, if you know what I mean.
so the review tally is by Six Demon Bag	Jul 14th, 2009 11:06:51 AM
Positive: 2 Negative: 1 Harry's WTF BLABFEST: 1.
Hey Massawyrm, you Tool - remember me? by jansona	Jul 14th, 2009 11:33:26 AM
Another crappy review - strike that - bitch fest about how a movie doesn't meet your standards. I stand my by my original suggestion and that is for you to quit writing about movies and go make one. Bitch Bitch Bitch, thats all we ever hear out of you. "Smoke em if you got em?" God i hate seeing that. Go stab yourself in your eye with one of your smokes and leave the writing to the experts.
This seems like the most honest review of by Series7	Jul 14th, 2009 11:41:42 AM
The movie I've read. Too many other people seem to just buy into it.
It's the source material by Rand92	Jul 14th, 2009 11:49:50 AM
To each his own, but I have never understood the love for the book this movie is based on. It is all filler designed to get us from book five to book seven while providing a history lesson and some knowledge. There was very little plot in the book beyond that. Book six was the weakest and was always my least favorite for this very reason. Aside from the shock ending, what actually happens? Nothing. So it comes as no surprise to me that a movie cannot stand on its own that is based on a book that cannot stand on its own.
I think Massa if one trying to set this up in your mind... by Gabba-UK	Jul 14th, 2009 11:54:21 AM
As the Potterverse's Empire Strikes Back your're doomed to be disapponted with it. Your just asking for it. This was always just going to be stop gap to part 1 of The Deathly Hallows. If it succeds in that and gives us a few laughs it'll have done well in my book.
There's only one Return, and it aint of the King.... by Pissed Off And Bitter	Jul 14th, 2009 12:02:51 PM
It's of the Jedi. Word.
Spot on. by spooky2k	Jul 14th, 2009 12:14:38 PM
Massa...it sounds like you're reviewing the book here as how you feel about the film is exactly how I felt about the book. Not much happened, when it did it wasn't very good and it's a transitory book that is arguably THE worst of the series.
Not having read the books by PantherMatt	Jul 14th, 2009 12:18:16 PM
I dunno, it seems to me that a movie shouldn't need research to be understood. I've read all the Potter books, so I don't have that issue with these movies, but damn: It's not like you need to read "To Have and Have Not" or "Of Mice And Men" to understand the movies. Same should go for the Potters. The Potter movies (from Azkaban onward) have always told slightly different stories than their source books, due to character and sequence deletions. Again, haven't seen HBP yet, so I couldn't tell you how followable it is. I'm betting it ain't all that dense though. It's no Southland Tales, I'll bet...
Massa, you've described every single Potter film thus far. by scudd	Jul 14th, 2009 12:23:34 PM
And from what it sounds like, the last film, as well.
I want to give Massa a Chocolate Frog by buffywrestling	Jul 14th, 2009 12:29:27 PM
He sounds so dissappointed :(
FUCK YOU David Yates by D.Vader	Jul 14th, 2009 01:17:40 PM
And you too, David Heyman. For fucking up all the great potential this film had.
AgentCross, did you see the film? by D.Vader	Jul 14th, 2009 01:21:14 PM
I think what Massa is saying is that the REAL plot, Harry learning about Horcruxes, takes a backseat to all the immature high school fumblings around about love and snogging.
98% at rotten tomatoes so far by Atticus Finch	Jul 14th, 2009 01:32:10 PM
Doing excellent in the reviews so far!
That's the problem with the book too by jimmy_009	Jul 14th, 2009 01:44:29 PM
That was probably my least favorite of all the books. It's not that it's bad, it just seems like an inbetween book to setup the finale. You're being fed a lot of info, but as a stand alone story it's just not that compelling. I still look forward to seeing the movie though simply because even though it's my least favorite of the series, it's still damn enjoyable.
Im protesting by D.Vader	Jul 14th, 2009 01:46:55 PM
I don't want to come out the theater hating the film like I did with the last one. Yates, you suck in my opinion. So I'm not giving you my money for another 2 weeks.
It's not a surprise really by DrPsych	Jul 14th, 2009 01:48:41 PM
This was the book that has the least plot and served as nothing more than a setup for the end. I expected the movie to feel even flatter and it sounds like it does. My wife will still make us go though.
References to Empire by Heckles	Jul 14th, 2009 01:52:21 PM
I get that Empire Strikes Back is the sequel that set the bar, but does every reviewer have to toss in a comparison when a sci-fi sequel comes out?
Count me as another... by em_tee_em	Jul 14th, 2009 02:09:06 PM
...who uses Massa's reviews as an opposite meter. I read what he has to say... think the opposite... and then I have a pretty good idea how I'm going to feel about any given film.
spoil me by idrinkyourmilkshake	Jul 14th, 2009 02:09:54 PM
WHAT THE FUCK IS HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, Now you past the brainfart to me! TELL ME NOW!
I've read all the books by greyspecter	Jul 14th, 2009 02:33:15 PM
and seen all the movies, and honestly the only moments I remember from any of the movies was from the first one when Harry first sees Diagon Alley, and from the finale of Azkaban. The movies just never have done it for me. that said, the complaint that it's episodic is ridiculous. 5 movies out before it, 2 more after it, and HBP is really the one that kicks off the War, more so than any other. Also, I don't like Fiennes as Voldy
I stopped reading as soon as dipshit here referenced... by JackLucas	Jul 14th, 2009 02:37:27 PM
The Empire Strikes Back. That has to be the single most overused and simplistic crutch that so called "movie reviewers" use any time they see that a sequel is trying to raise the tension level and stakes for its characters leaving and open end for the next film. I am SO fucking sick of people doing this. NO MOVIE WILL EVER AGAIN BE THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK!!! The first few times I saw this happen (back in the 90's I think is when it first started) I felt that it was a very stupid comparison to use for any other film series other than Star Wars. Now when I see a "movie reveiwer" pull it out of their bag, I stop reading immediately as I feel that said "reviewer" can't come up with any other explanation of how a film felt to them other than to compare it to something else. Weak fucking sauce, sir. Very weak indeed.
I think Fiennes is fantastic as Voldy by D.Vader	Jul 14th, 2009 02:46:26 PM
But I wish he looked like he did when he first reappeared in Goblet: his head looked more snakelike and scary than it did later, after it had fully formed and became more like a skull.
The Empire Strikes Back is overrated. by Dingbatty	Jul 14th, 2009 02:47:38 PM
It mostly just sittin' around in Bespin. Yoda was the only interesting thing to me from the movie, as a kid in the early 80's.
Even if you've never read the books... by Lenny Nero	Jul 14th, 2009 02:52:52 PM
...you should know what a "half-blood" is. It's only mentioned at least a dozen times, half of them without question in the first couple movies.
JackLucas et al... by Massawyrm 1	Jul 14th, 2009 02:54:14 PM
Think it a crutch if you will, but watch the last 10 minutes of Empire and the last ten minutes of this and play a little game of count the all-too-obvious similarities. But now might as well be as good a time as any to note that nothing says "well informed opinion" like the phrase "I stopped reading when..." It illustrates a certain omniscience that the writer usually lacks. Perhaps had you read past the second paragraph, you would have seen the bevy to explanations I give that have nothing to do with comparison. Just a thought.
Lenny Nero by D.Vader	Jul 14th, 2009 03:01:10 PM
That still doesn't explain what the Half-Blood Prince is. And based on your assumption of what a "half-blood" is, you'd STILL be wrong about what it means in this film.
D, by greyspecter	Jul 14th, 2009 03:26:37 PM
You gotta read the book/watch the movie to find out who it is, doncha?
greyspecter by D.Vader	Jul 14th, 2009 03:29:02 PM
What do you mean?
I already know who it is/what it means by D.Vader	Jul 14th, 2009 03:39:46 PM
That's why I'm confused by your post, greyspecter. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious?
The Empire Example by greyspecter	Jul 14th, 2009 03:39:54 PM
doesn't fit for several reason. 1. That was science fiction, this is fantasy. I know there's a lot of overlap, but scifi is more of an excuse to explore philosophical, religious, social, economic ideas than fantasy, which is more of a straight good/evil struggle. The Force, a Galactic empire (represented by "white" soldiers) that is threatening liberty, women in politics, women balancing their professional lives with their personal lives, rebelling against authority, rebellion for its own sake vs. for a greater cause (Han vs. Leia), etc. All deep issues that are tacitly or explicitly dealt with. What does Potter deal with? Other than Prejudice is Evil? or Murder and Oppression are Evil? Where's the debate about that? 2. Empire was the second of a trilogy. It was around 2 hours long. There was one more movie after this one to explore the characters. Harry Potter has had 5 movies all at least 2 hours long, most considerably longer, with 2 more after this one, which is probably around 2.5 hours, and therefore can take more time and leisure exploring issues and developing characters than could Empire. Even with the Prequilogy, those weren't about Luke, Han, and Leia, so those characters still only had 6 hours total. That's the equivalent of 2 of these movies. 3. As big as Star Wars was, it doesn't have the international following that Harry Potter does. With that comes pressure and scrutiny that nothing outside of international politics could even conceive of in 1981. 4. Lastly and most important, there wasn't a book version of Empire out to compare the movie to. The movie stood alone, and for all they knew, after one more movie they'd be completely finished with it, whereas with HP, the makers know what's coming, and that they'll have 6 more hours of film to follow up story lines and finish a character's arc. The makers of the movie have limited leeway to change or adapt the elements of the story for the movie, since they've got an entire book yet to film.
If you've read the book/seen the movie by greyspecter	Jul 14th, 2009 03:42:29 PM
then you know who it is. But for the uninformed, you don't want to spoil the shocker ending. And who the Half blood prince is directly applies to the ending
greyspecter, many would argue the point... by D.Vader	Jul 14th, 2009 03:45:15 PM
That ESB is more fantasy than Sci-Fi.
OK, I feel stupid... by jabbayoda	Jul 14th, 2009 04:32:13 PM
But which main character died in Empire Strikes Back? Are you talking about Han Solo? Nobody srsly thought Han Solo died, did they? I assume I'm just missing something incredibly obvious here, and I'll soon have to give up the moniker jabbayoda.
I've tried to read the books by smackfu	Jul 14th, 2009 04:33:52 PM
But every time, in my head I would see an old British nanny carefully reading it aloud to a room full of kids with downs syndrome. Because that's how the narrative reads. Like it's using it's 'special voice' to communicate things to you. As far as I can remember, the first novel I recall reading from back to front as a child was the Poltergeist movie adaptation. After seeing that, my sister straightened me out and got me reading Stephen King. Kids don't need to be 'read down' to.
That post reminded me of Empire Strikes Back by Heckles	Jul 14th, 2009 04:38:08 PM
Everything reminds me of Empire. I understand movies. I am great.
Smackfu by greyspecter	Jul 14th, 2009 04:44:06 PM
The books start out juvenile, and progressively get more mature. It's not high art, but it's not idiotic.
WTF Dingbatty? by DoctorWho?	Jul 14th, 2009 04:45:12 PM
I disagree and will resist calling you a troll...but that's like walking into the Apollo and yelling out that you don't like black people.
Cliff Notes. by pacrone	Jul 14th, 2009 05:01:58 PM
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I had to be the guy that filled in the blanks everytime I saw the newest movie with my friends. Some stuff is trivial, but at times I was thinking how the hell are they going to fix that screw up? There are still alot of subplots that they are going to have to play catch up with and I'm wondering if they still can.
smackfu by buffywrestling	Jul 14th, 2009 05:12:11 PM
I'm a Stephen King fan from way back too. I started reading him when the paperback of The Shining was first released. But I don't see why one should be exclusive from the other. Rowlings built up a very textured world and Uncle Steve himself constantly sings her praises as an author. One of the reasons I was waiting for Quint's reveiw is that I know that he has not only read the Potter books but is a King junkie as well. I hear a lot of condesending things about adults liking Potter but, to be slightly condesending back, a good read is a good read. It is the tale, not he who tells it.
I stopped reading when Star Wars was referenced. by OutlawsDelejos	Jul 14th, 2009 05:48:59 PM
Fuck Star Wars.
I hope Gandalf kicks some ass in this one. by Knuckleduster	Jul 14th, 2009 06:16:53 PM
I hear he's one of them gays.
So, basically, they made a direct adaptation... by Dr. Magnifico	Jul 14th, 2009 08:00:20 PM
Seriously, that book was a hot mess filled with great ideas. Anything dealing with the actual plot of the Death Eaters is great, and there are goddamn zombies, yet all that ever actually gets focused on is the stupid Babysitter's Club romance story plopped in the middle. No one ever pays attention to Draco's scheming and Rowling never gives us a compelling reason to give a shit about the relationship between Dumbledore and Voldemort, because the main characters are too busy awkwardly being in love at each other and the author is just looking for her excuse to fit the phrase "All you need is love!" into a conversation. I was a huge fan, having read each book at least 4 times (with POA & OOTP around 7 apiece), but this book just sucks. Deathly Hallows fell flat with me as well, but at least it felt like a complete story and not a random series of anticlimactic events strung together by a love story that would make Aaron Spelling gag.
Uhhh... by Toulon	Jul 14th, 2009 08:05:28 PM
"What losses we endure aren’t of the characters we are terrified for or afraid to go on without." You're kidding, right? One of the biggest, most loved characters in any of the books isn't someone we are "afraid to go on without?" You've lost me.
Yes, there are goddamned zombies... by D.Vader	Jul 14th, 2009 08:18:08 PM
And its FUCKING PG!!! Insanity!
hmm by Foureighteenplustwo	Jul 14th, 2009 08:33:56 PM

hmm by Foureighteenplustwo	Jul 14th, 2009 08:40:50 PM
Sorry massa, but the question was never WHAT half blood prince is, but WHO it is. If you've followed along with anything that is harry potter, be it the books, or the movies, then you should know what a "half-blood" is by now. And even in the novel, their desire to find out exactly who it is comes as an afterthought to everything else that is going on around them. A book that is just used to help harry pass classes should definitely not be that important anyways. And that's all it was used for, no matter who it belonged to. Basically this review is a little off to me, because you seem to be misinformed.
Foureighteenplustwo- that still doesn't explain ANYTHING by D.Vader	Jul 14th, 2009 08:51:06 PM
Why would he call himself the Half-Blood Prince? Where does the prince come from? Is he royalty? What's the deal? I can totally empathize with Massa wanting a real explanation for the nickname, which the entire film's TITLE is based around, other than just a small reveal as to whom the title belongs to.
Mmmmmmm by GINGE_MUPPET	Jul 14th, 2009 09:07:42 PM
But did you WATCH it ..... The ghost of Wolverine remains.
Yeah, but he liked Taken.... by coconutgroves	Jul 14th, 2009 09:15:09 PM
So what does that say? Need to have an understanding of previous chapters? It is a series you doosh.
"the film seems to be lacking the background magic..." by Admonisher	Jul 14th, 2009 09:55:22 PM
I lay a large portion of this squarely at the feet of composer Nicholas Hooper. He's a mediocre talent at best. John Williams infused real magic into the series ... and, in PRISONER OF AZKABAN especially, a sense of emotional transcendence. Hooper can string notes together in a way that doesn't inspire "dislike," to use Massa's word ... but he simply doesn't have the chops to be capable of either magic or transcendence. At any rate, this is a great example of how film music might not usually affect the bottom line at the box office, but remains a vital part of the art of filmmaking nonetheless. POA remains the best score of the series. Pray that Williams returns for DEATHLY HALLOWS.
I actually agree with Massa for once. by Kid Idioteque	Jul 14th, 2009 10:41:43 PM
But I didn't ultimately give the film a pass. The complaints you had were bad enough, but the high school melodrama and a couple terrible supporting performances ruined it for me.
I reaLLy enjoyed reading this review. by MiTior	Jul 14th, 2009 10:52:42 PM
This was an honest one, nut just a bitchy review for the sake of being fun.
Massawyrm by jae683	Jul 14th, 2009 11:53:13 PM
Read the books already. They're ten times better than any of the movies.
Being more of a T.V fan than movies I.... by slimballs	Jul 15th, 2009 01:39:10 AM
had no problem with the way this played out. This film felt like the episode of a show just before the big series finale. I can understand why some people would be underwhelmed by this film because it's really just there to set up the final story.
greyspecter by Massawyrm 1	Jul 15th, 2009 03:30:15 AM
A point by point rebuttal. 1) Star Wars is NOT Science Fiction. It is Space Opera. There is a BIG difference. Space Opera is Fantasy set in space. There is Zero science to the fiction. If you'd like to delve further into the Harry Potter/Star wars connection, start examining the stories of two orphan boys living with their aunt and uncle until an old man shows up and tells them that they're special and takes them off to train them in the ways of magic so he can one day face a dark lord with whom he is inextricably tied. 2) Don't let the numbers confuse you. If you need the HP saga broken down for you in terms of three act structure, 1-3 is act I, 4-6 is act II and Book 7 is the culmination of act III. 3) You're high. Somehow mistaking Star Wars as some localized phenomenon only tells me that you're either far too young to be discussing the cultural impact of Star Wars or that you suffered some blow to the head since. 4) Now you're just making stuff up. I can't compare two epic sagas because one started as a movie and got turned into books while the other started as books and became movies? There's nothing in this argument that even makes sense.
Excellent review, Massa by ProoferFromHell	Jul 15th, 2009 04:09:12 AM
Thanks for your great explanations. I don't disagree with any of your points.
A good honest review by drunkenmonkey73	Jul 15th, 2009 06:34:47 AM
Now thats more like it. This was one of the best books, I loved HBP, but if you say: it is going to remembered as one of the lesser ones then they have had the wrong man for the job. Again! I hear Del Toro is interested in directing Deathly Hallows. Hope he does, or this series will end with a wimper and not a bang.
So, mr. wyrm by greyspecter	Jul 15th, 2009 10:07:54 AM
You don't that it matters that arguably the most successful series of novels ever being adapted into movies makes a differences on how the movies are made? That there are millions of people intimately acquainted with the story, the various nuances of the characters and events, the lurid descriptions of things, and that each person has imagined it slightly differently? That before the first storyboard was ever designed, millions of people already had opinions what the Inferi looked like, or Aragog's funeral? That the expectation and anticipation of 5 previous movies and novels didn't affect the production and execution of the movie? Would you argue the same was true of Lord of the Rings? Whereas with Empire, the audience had absolutely no frame of reference other than what the filmmakers decided to show them. They had no other details or stories, or anything else. Wouldn't that give Lucas et. all complete carte blanche to make their own world however they chose to, to make characters sound, act, and look however they wanted, to make action scenes and set pieces as they wanted to, without any fear of disappointing fans' expectations?
Really no need for SEVEN books or SEVEN movies. by knowthyself	Jul 15th, 2009 10:21:11 AM
The problem is you can feel the author just stretching out the plot to accomodate some absurd premeditated number of books they plan to release. Nobody should ever PLAN to write seven books. Tell your story. Don't over extend it. The potter books are the same shit recycled seven times and finally in the last book SOMETHING important happens. Yawn.
Original Title: Harry Potter & The Half-Gay Prince by The Green Monster	Jul 15th, 2009 10:25:28 AM
It's true. Potter is terrible. Star Wars rules.
Massawyrm - .... by jansona	Jul 15th, 2009 10:26:54 AM
"Star Wars is NOT Science Fiction. It is Space Opera" Having fun creating your own movie genres? Your ignorance leaves me in awe.
Jansona, are you new around here? Or... to the world at large? by D.Vader	Jul 15th, 2009 10:29:17 AM
Star Wars has ALWAYS been described as a Space Opera. If you're going to have a grudge against Massa, at least make sure your arguments against him make sense.
D. Vader by jansona	Jul 15th, 2009 11:49:23 AM
No sir, not new around here at all. Do i have a grudge against the Tool? Yes i do. Do I find it acceptable that certain people view Space Operas as a movie genre - No I do not. Maybe a sub-genre if you wanted to stretch it. Do I think Star Wars is a Space Opera - No i do not. Maybe you could say Episodes 1-3 were in a sense, but not 4-6 as 1-3 really pushed the relationship between Padme and Anakin.
Truth be told by knowthyself	Jul 15th, 2009 12:03:30 PM
Space Opera is a nice way of avoiding the science fiction title.
You don't go to the "space opera" section by knowthyself	Jul 15th, 2009 12:04:29 PM
Of a book store.
Its fantasy by D.Vader	Jul 15th, 2009 12:07:48 PM
Just about everyone will agree Star Wars is more fantasy and has more in line with Campbellian adventure than it does with scifi.
The history of Space Opera by D.Vader	Jul 15th, 2009 12:08:51 PM
Its not like Massa just invented it overnight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S pace_opera
knowthyself by Massawyrm 1	Jul 15th, 2009 01:50:12 PM
No, you go to the Science Fiction/Fantasy section of the bookstore. Space Opera fits in nicely there. And yes, for those that wish to argue, Space Opera gets lumped in with Science Fiction, and rightly so. But it is, in truth, closer to fantasy than Sci-fi.
greyspecter by Massawyrm 1	Jul 15th, 2009 01:56:23 PM
I absolutely agree with that these are differences between the series. But they have no bearing on my review or the comparison to EMPIRE. Referencing EMPIRE is critical shorthand telling the audience about 2-400 wds about the mood, tone, story angles and cliffhanger the film will leave us with. Story-wise it holds. These works are remarkably similar. Note that nowhere here do I criticize the filmmaker, the adaptation nor the original source material for the faults - I simply discuss the existence of the faults and help put them into words for those folks who wander out of the film struggling to put into words why the film didn't feel right to them. From the volume of e-mail and tweets I've been receiving, I hit the nail on the head for some folks. Watched the film again last night and still, sadly, feel the same way. I understood a few more elements and picked up on a number of subtle hints about the backstory, but still felt unfulfilled. It's not my least favorite Potter - that's still Goblet of Fire - but it's down there.
Agree with the points Massawyrm made BUT...(spoilers) by Steepdog1	Jul 15th, 2009 02:23:51 PM
I think if you agree that the movie was for the most part thoroughly enjoyable, than you are being a tad harsh. However, while I usually hate people who complain too much about movies not being like the book, the book succeeds where this film fails. In the movie we lose, as you pointed out, any explaination of why Snape is the Half Blood Prince...but also the whole sense of betrayal as he comes to admire the Prince, and then finds out it is the douchebag who just killed his mentor...that kind of puts an exclaimation point on the fact that no one listens to harry about not trusting Snape. Also gone from the ending is a whole battle, with Deatheaters vs. students and teachers, ending with, among other things one of ron's brothers being disfigured...just stuff to up the stakes. I also thought the film really needed a dumbledoor funeral scene...they could have had the same dialogue between the three main characters in a funeral scene...instead they chose to end the movie in the EXACT same way as the fourth movie...its as if they were adapting for stage, not screne by leaving out big set pieces/ background scenery. A funeral sc ene would have added much more emotional weight to was happened and what is to come. I've come to the conclusion that Yates is not very skilled at ebding films in a satasfactory mannor that holds emotional weight. Which is sad, because thats part of what made the books so good.
I bow to your superior wisdom, wyrm by greyspecter	Jul 15th, 2009 05:12:18 PM
I haven't seen the film, so I'll assume you know of what you speak. The movies have never done it for me. The original trilogy surpasses all HP movies.
Harry and yourself have really made a huge mistake in not readin by MalkovichMalkovich	Jul 15th, 2009 07:51:36 PM
Harry, in his review refers to Ginny as "Jenny' for Gods sake. The filmmakers know that a majority of the audience will have read the books and the films must be judged based on that. The films, as popular as they are, are adaptations of the most popular series of novels in the history of modern literature, and must be seen as that. They are merely the surface gloss of the books with only a touch of the darkness, humour and depth. 'HBP' was visually, a beautiful adaptation, but was sorely lacking in terms of being a good adaptation of the 'story'. The changes they made at and towards the end were large, distracting and dissapointing to say the least.
Well by Arteska	Jul 15th, 2009 10:35:17 PM
Most of the time in a forum like this I think creators would be destroyed for wasting so much time on retreading material or obviously handholding...it's a bit too aloof to knock them for this because what they are doing here is actually quite remarkable given how we are normally fed things. I think this is filed under can't please 'em all no matter what you do.
I liked it... by In_Rainbows	Jul 15th, 2009 11:21:37 PM
but then again I've only seen one other one.
shouldn't have to read the book to enjoy/understand by Warcraft	Jul 16th, 2009 12:00:39 AM
the movie. fuck that research shit. a person shouldn't have to research a god damn fucking thing to enjoy ANY type of movie. either the movie is good and can properly tell it's story, or it cannot. what a fucking cop out arguement. also, the story in this film fucking stucked. 2 hours and 45 minutes to get a fucking memory, kill dumblefag, and find out snape is a double agent. oh wait they reveal that at the beginning. fucking stupid. i'm beginning to think the last book doesn't need two movies. just sum this bullshit up in an hour and a half and end this farce. this is the first potter film to actually piss me off. i'll be catching the rest on dvd. fuck this bullshit. fuck!
HP>Star Wars by OptimusCrime	Jul 16th, 2009 01:47:27 AM
And it isn't even close. This movie was a bit dissapointing, but only insofar as it failed to live up to the monumental standards set by the book. Star Wars? Not bad, but as far as I'm concerned they only batted .500 in that series. PS: I love Revenge of the Sith and hate A New Hope. Eat it.
OptimusCrime by greyspecter	Jul 16th, 2009 07:22:42 AM
Everybody's entitled to their opinion. Even ones as abysmally erroneous as the ones you expressed.
of course the movies should stand by themselves by just pillow talk	Jul 16th, 2009 07:31:55 AM
I've read the books, but ain't no fucking way that should be "required" to watch and enjoy the movies. And OptimusCrime, you're insane. None of the Potter movies can come close to matching ESB or ANH. It's not even close. And even with all the problems with Jedi, the end battle and final scenes with Luke and Vader blow away anything in the Potter series. The Potter movies are, however, better than the prequels.
So, its pretty muchj JUST LIKE Empire strikes back then? by Geomancer21	Jul 16th, 2009 08:49:55 AM
got it.
The sooner by Arteska	Jul 16th, 2009 09:05:15 AM
things can be discussed without contextualizing them in relation to Star Wars (and all the ridiculous and nonsensical baggage that now conjures up, stupidly) the better.
optimus, it's ok to love rots, it's just the two... by Warcraft	Jul 16th, 2009 10:47:18 AM
before it failed to set it up properly. that's george lucus' fault, not rots. i know that sounds weird, but yeah, if you were to remake ep 1 and 2 with some fleshed out characters and good story telling, rots would be fine as is. the only reason rots seemed rushed are because A:the first two failed to set it up, and B: it was the endgame for the trilogy, there wasn't anymore time for character development, shit had to happen, and it had to happen fast. it was the first two prequel's job to set shit up, not rots. rots did it's job and delivered as a trilogy capper.
geomancer, allow me to edumacate ya by greyspecter	Jul 16th, 2009 11:04:07 AM
I've studied under Mr. wyrm's benign tutelage, and can teach you. You see, HBP is strikingly similar to Empire, virtually identical as a matter of fact. It's almost exactly the same...just not as good. Why, you may well be wondering? Well, I've not had that particular lesson, so when the Massa schools me, I'll pass the lesson on to you. Just to recap: Empire and HBP virtually identical in every respect. Just vastly different in quality. For reasons unknown.
d.vader by Foureighteenplustwo	Jul 16th, 2009 01:42:44 PM
f you've read the book, WHY they call him that, has no bearing on the plot. His last name is "prince" basically, and he's a half blood. WOW. They will have to show snape's back story for the 7th and 8th movies, because it's crucial to the plot, and fleshing out snape's character. but still, his actions of the past have more signifigance than his name. If you havnt read the books, then it's just logical to assume that he is a highly powerful "halfblood wizard", and that's why they call him prince, and move on. that's it. The reason for no dumbledore funeral is to avoid repetetive actions in the movies. They cut the dursleys out of past movies, and also quidditch for those exact reasons. You will get your funeral, and you will get your battle at hogwarts. But if they would have done both of those in this film, then that would have been a considerable portion of (probably) movie 8.
FourEighteenPlusTwo, you're right, its very simple by D.Vader	Jul 16th, 2009 02:30:51 PM
So why not bother to explain it within a few lines? Its just lazy. You want viewers to think Snape is royalty? That's just stupid. And how is Dumbledore's funeral repetitive? Its just background for the current end scene and it works better. And don't try to assume you can predict the future. No one other than that fickle bitch Speculation has suggested that the funeral will be in the next movie. Even if it was, it'd be a bad way to start the film. There's enough in the books already.
Also, FourEighteenPlusTwo by D.Vader	Jul 16th, 2009 02:33:24 PM
As I've said above, the two battles at Hogwarts are COMPLETELY different. Its foolish to say if we had a battle at the end of this film, a considerable portion of movie 8 would be lost. Same goes for the funeral. The funeral does not need to be a long drawn out scene the way you seem to suggest it should.
I hated Part 3 when it came out by The_Ritty	Jul 16th, 2009 10:51:01 PM
cuz it wasn't at ALL like the book...I still think it's the weakest entry but watching again after it came out on dvd I realized that like most books or what have you that are transferred into another medium they exist on their own. Go read the book if you want that experience. I get it, but there's nothing we can do about it. PS anything is better than The Unborn which I'm watching right now - this movie is pure shit and I hate David Goyer. Yes, HATE.
Massawyrm is the guy who complained that by AsimovLives	Jul 17th, 2009 04:12:04 AM
No Country For old Men didn't had enough plot and was irritated that there was no shootout between josh Brolin and Javier Barden's characters, he basically berated that movie because it didn't play to cliché. Excuse me if i don't find our friend Massawyrm's reviews all that trustworthy.
The_Ritty by AsimovLives	Jul 17th, 2009 04:13:16 AM
What could you possibly hate in Harry Potter 3? The excelent filmmaking? Excelent filmmaking skills makes you hate a movie?
I never read any of the Harry Potter books by AsimovLives	Jul 17th, 2009 04:14:39 AM
and i find no difficulty whatsoever in following the plots of all the HP movies. At all.
What made me fall in love with the Potterverse by AsimovLives	Jul 17th, 2009 04:23:04 AM
was the characters. The magic stuff was just sideshow. If anybody felt inlove with the Potter miovies mostly because of the magic display, then give up being a movie geek. No self-rspecting movie geek would fall so hard merely on fireworks displays, for they complement the stor,y they are not the story. Give up being a movie geeks and go seat with the kids on the last rows who spend the whole movie talking and throwing popciorn to one another, that's where you belong.
Spot on review Massa by kinksy	Jul 19th, 2009 08:52:03 PM
I agree 100% with what you wrote. I sat in the theater confused by my indifference when I've always been so enchanted, entertained and enthralled by the previous HP's. A lot was missing, and it had nothing to do with the books (I stopped reading after POA, but am informed of what happens by my son who still reads them.) This film fell flat, and I was so disappointed I was nearly heartbroken.

Talkbacks

Massawyrm kind of likes, but is ultimately disappointed with, HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks