Harry Potter's sixth movie was boring
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince film was crap
I understand that it's not easy for a director to be faithful to the book that he's filming and I also understand that there is something called artistic licence and liberty.
However, in the case of the latest Potter movie, I kept wondering if the scriptwriter and director had been on drugs when they wrote/made the movie. (Did they even read the book? I wonder%u2026)
My list of bitter complaints: One. The film begins with attacks on the Muggle world, which is there in the book too. But in the book, the Muggle Prime Minister has a meeting with Cornelius Fudge and the new Minister for Magic, about how the Muggle world and the magic world are colliding. In the film, however, we saw the attacks and then we saw nothing. The next scene had Albus Dumbledore taking Harry to Horace Slughorn's house. So what happened after the attacks? What were they all about anyway? The movie doesn't bother to tell us.
Second. The first half of the film is all about love-romance which is there in the book too but it's hardly the central motif. Burgeoning hormones are very cute, but since nothing actually happens, it makes for very dull viewing. So why did the film go on and on and on about the love thing in the first half?
Third. The burning of the Burrow as it's shown in the film doesn't happen in the book. So why is that scene there? And if you're going to put it in, it's weird that the very next scene is set in Hogwarts where everything seems quite normal and everyone seems to have amnesia about the Burrow being set on fire.
Four. The film gives hardly any importance to the Half-Blood Prince. (The book has so much about him; there is such a sense of mystery). Which is why, in the end, when Snape says, "I'm the Half-Blood prince," if you haven't read the book, you may have a hard time remembering who the hell this Prince fellow is.
Five. In the book, when the Death Eaters come to Hogwarts through the cupboard in the Room of Requirement, there's a huge, climactic battle in the school. In the film, Bellatrix arrives (almost casually) in Hogwarts with three or four Death Eaters and then all of them just stroll out of the school. Huh?
YOUR TURN!
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince film was crap
Fetching blurbs now... please stand byYes, you're right!
SHN says:
Yeah it was really boring "/
Harry potter has really gone downhill recently.
Hopefully Deathly Hallows will be better.
Posted December 27, 2009
harrison says:
it was shit i normaly like harry potter but this is SHIT!!! worst movie they the harry potter dudes have made
Posted December 21, 2009
haaaaahahahaa says:
it was ok just not many main scenes or anythin interesting..
Posted November 19, 2009
Liam XR says:
Harry potter was crap i cant believe film reviewers are saying it is a good lead up to the next films. Even as a lead up HP6 sucked. If i ever got my hands on that idiotic director or WB for making us wait for this crap i would kill them!
Posted November 05, 2009
HP6 was lame says:
Harry potter and the Half-blood prince really sucked. I`m not going to see the next film (Or should i say films)
Posted November 05, 2009
HP6 sucked says:
The harry potter six film was perverted. Did anyone else find the Ginny and Harry scene perverted. She looked like she was going to have sex with him.
Ron has a boner when he eats the drugged chocolates.
Posted November 05, 2009
Scorpio says:
You have my support on this one. HP has been in decline since film five. With HP7 now split into TWO SEPERATE FILMS. I am going to boycott the Films release in cinemas.
HP6 was my favourite book because it was the one where Hogwarts showed it wasnt just a lame spell casting group.
Here are some of the things you missed.
Six: In the book Dumbledore`s grave is shown and the ending is emotional. In the film Dumbledore is barely talked of after his death.
Seven: The attack on the Burrow takes place in the start of book Seven aswell.
Eight: The Burrow was completely destroyed in HP6 (Film) however Harry goes there in HP7
Posted November 05, 2009
nidhi says:
u r completely rite!!! it ws made into kind of a teenage movie wid al d romance n stuff.........n where ws d action!!!!!!!! seriously did they evn read d book.........i really hope they dnt do this 2 deathly hallows too.....lets hope they cover the important parts, n not change it drastically
Posted September 10, 2009
krunal says:
they should have used the book than it would have been the best till now...i hope deathly hallows dont dissapiont
Posted September 10, 2009
Soops says:
you are so right!
and they missed out some really important stuff, like the Gaunt memory and Dumbledore's funeral :L
I just really hope that they learn from it and make the last films really good!
Posted September 02, 2009
sadharrypotterfan says:
shocking film so disappointing massive chunks missed out and cost cutting or sheer stupidity by not including the fight seen at the end. warner brothers need a slap for this film and i hope they get it by poor DVD sales
Posted August 31, 2009
simplegirl says:
It was by far the worst portrayal of any of the Harry Potter books. I was completely disappointed in the movie in the sense of honoring the book. It didn't. As a movie on its own, it was entertaining, probably should have been subtitled, as inspired by HBP. I found this movie to flounder terribly. I have read all the books and was so excited about the movie to see it. There was so much emotion missing in this movie. I watched Order of the Phoenix a couple of days later and confirmed my disappointment in HBP. I would love to see what hit the cutting room floor. I hope the director stays true to the book for the final movies. It is disappointing to have followed for this long and to be let down at the end.
Posted August 26, 2009
caitybelle says:
i wouldn't say harry potter was crap, but it definately wasn't the best. And i'm sure we can all agree it was much better than Order of the Pheonix. As a true Harry Potter fan, i do apreciate it when the flms are not identicle to the book, so we're not seeing the same thing twice, but in this case it was changed too much. there was not enough mystique, and it gave no leway to the next film.
How come Harry doesn't get in any trouble about Sectumsempra anyways, he even sees Dumbledore in the next scene. I think the main problem with the films was that the scenes were unconnected, there wasn't a single travelling scene, you were just there. It's alright when there are a couple of jumping scenes, but every single one just jumped from one location to another, it was really confusing and impossible to tell how much time had passed, unless you were a major fan of the books.
All in all, the film was amazing, but the change of soundtrack did not help for a connection with the other films.
Anything and everything about Harry Potter is great, but they could have done a much better job.
Posted August 26, 2009
Shanura says:
It is good but not good like the previous once. I think their should be more magical things, fights..... but i really apprisiate your work
Posted August 23, 2009
Toya says:
I agree 100,000,000% This entire movie was a joke. I absolutely hated it.It's ONLY redeeming feature was that it had SOME lines from the book. But they cut RAB's importance completely. Including the fact that Harry inherited Kreacher, which is very important in DH. The movie was full of pointless scenes, too much romance, and Draco Brooding.
I was VERY disappointed in this movie. They ruined Dumbledore's death, which probably hurt the most. Right next to the lack of Snape. I really want to kick the Director. How could've JKR approved of this?
Posted August 21, 2009
Vidhi says:
u r right. i was very disappointed with the film. the book's much better. i dont think sm1 who hasn't read the book will b able to make sense out of the film...
Posted August 19, 2009
Nelex says:
I read the book, I loved, but the film leaves much to be desired honestly... lackedmany things... could have been much better...U_U
Posted August 18, 2009
Dina A says:
totally agree!!
and the kiss??? i didnt expect it to be passionate, i just expected it to happen in front of many people! but room of requirement?? hell NO
Posted August 16, 2009
Felicia says:
you're right
i'm disappointed with the last movie
Posted August 14, 2009
Amany says:
you are absolutely right.
i read the book first and i was very interested to see the movie,but after i saw it i was depress,
i think if i didnot raed the book i will not be able to understand the movie
i hope the the last one not be so as this one
Posted August 13, 2009
cheryl cole says:
The new ,harry potter is the worst .One because i have read the book`s there much better, there`s lots of fighting but the film is just BORING.
Posted August 13, 2009
Tonja says:
I found the movie boring at places because the plot just didn't seem to pick up. You lose what's happening from scene to scene because they jumped around so much. I'm personally sick of having to explain to my family and friends what was happening in the movie because I'm the only one who's read the book. Not only that but the movie makes no mention of previous books. The movie doesn't really show how much pain and confusion Harry feels after the death of Sirius, as well as the sense of no one loving him. It's hard to see this film as being placed in the series because it's so stuck on minute facts that really don't matter. Furthermore, I strongly dislike how they didn't mention the relationship between Tonks and Lupin, how much Tonks struggled for more but never really received anything back. I believe this relationship is pivotal because in the final fight scene at Hogwarts when Harry sees Snapes memories, it's the images of the dead that spur him to seek out Voldemort. Well without the foundation of their relationship set in this movie, then their future marriage and child don't really hold standing so it's not really something Harry can really feed off of for support. Instead of focusing in on a non-existant relationship between Ron and Hermione, the director and script writer should have been focusing in on the parts that matter most to the future plot. Ron and Hermione's relationship doesn't begin until the end of the seventh novel so why is it even mentioned in this film? They should honestly have focused in on what was to become the most torturous moment in the final films. The only thing that I though slightly saved this movie was the fight between Harry and Malfoy in the bathroom. It's nice to see at least a tiny bit of action in a movie series that should be chalk full of them!
Posted August 12, 2009
Victoria says:
I'm not sure what side i am on. Well first of all Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince wasn't crap. But it could have been better or worse. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix proved that David Yates could do a horrible job. But still this movie could have better. The screen writer left a lot of plot holes and the story was more focused on the relationship between Harry and Ginny, not Harry and Dumbledore like it should have been. But the movie was funny and witty in many ways. But Yates should have directed the story more towards the relationship between Harry and Dumbledore, and the fact that they had discovered a friendship. I still don't understand why the Weasley's house was set on fire. Yates could have cut that scene and done much more with the movie. The fight near the end of the movie could have been a million times better, and Yates could have added Dumbledore's funeral. That was an essential part. But no matter what other people say Harry Potter has made more money than any other movie this summer. David Yates could have done so much better but still a lot worse...
Posted August 09, 2009
Jamie says:
You are correct on all points, I thought the start would be in the Prime Ministers office. I also thought the scene where Ron was in hospital and his stupid girlfriend rocked up, she crapped on for 2 whole minutes, wasting valuable screen time. They could have explored more the relationship with Ron and Hermione and Harry and Ginny, not all the other garbage. The ending should have been the climactic battle scene everyone was looking for. Also when Hermione said to Harry at the very end that he was really dumb sometimes and that they pledged to stick together, they were all watching the funeral by the lake, not up in the tower. That kind of sucked for the last scene. Plus Ron was right there holding Hermione's hand. Overall not bad, but it could have been the same length and put together better in terms of scenes to congeal the story more. Seems like bad editing to me.
Posted August 09, 2009
Waruna says:
I 100% agree with you.Harry Potter is great book and the Harry in the book is lot braver than that coward Daniel Radcliff. He is Attention seeking brat who does not know any thing about acting and the rest of the cast is crap to.Dumbledore is a kind Character with twinkling eyes in the book but in the film he is a !@#$!*^ @#$ bugger. The Movie and the book is completely different.The movie is like a romantic comedy.So fuck all those fucking ppl who screwed this lovely story Harry Potter
Posted August 09, 2009
Camila says:
I completely agree with absolutely everything. I am a huge hp fan and the trailers looked so good i wanted to faint when i first saw them. I couldn't WAIT to see the battle, and it never came. They didn't really explain the malfoy situation in the beginning, so it just looked like harry was a paranoid weirdo for a while. and also, the memories! there were so many memories with such interesting backround and with such important information! what happened to them! And last, the horcruxes were not explained. To people who havent read the books, the ring is just a ring and the locket was just a locket. This ties in to the memories, they werent explained right, and thats actually crucial information
Posted August 08, 2009
Kassi says:
Yeah I liked the movie, but I totally agree that it was crap. I guess I have a high tolerance for retarded things... And I understand that it's difficult to turn a 800 paged book into a 2.5 hour movie. So then keep the important stuff. Which they obviously didn't do. Oh well I like it, it just didn't tie into the next movie. People who watch will be confused. People who read will be laughing at those who are confused.
Posted August 08, 2009
Nana says:
I think this is not "HP6" , it's another story for "hurry botter"!!! RETAKE pls!!
Posted August 07, 2009
Nana says:
I think this is not , it's another story for !!! RETAKE pls!!
Posted August 07, 2009
Camilla says:
what the hell happened to fleur and bill??? I also agree with all the points made. What about the end of the book with the funeral, I was looking forward to seeing that on screen. What a let down.
Posted August 07, 2009
No way, Monkeybrain!
soumya says:
the movie as such wasnt that bad........but..........if u havent read the book and leaving out the certain things u mentioned,it was quite entertaining!!! but yeah i do kinda agree with u becuz they shudnt change the story so drastically
Posted September 10, 2009
Jordan says:
i feel the movie was good, it had a good balance of comedy and darkness. It was a book that had the ability to be played with, but I agree with you on some parts, but not all. The school battle, I really wanted to see, but some of the other things seemed to just fit.
Posted September 09, 2009
YOUR MOM says:
You suck, your website sucks, and this movie was awesome. I read the book and loved it!
Posted August 17, 2009
Lilly C says:
I don't exactly think it was crap, I do like my movie adaptations to be exactly like the book, but at the same time, were I a non-reader, I would've thought it was pretty good. But since I did read the book, I though it was like they just made a collage of various scenes of the book and other new (non-existent in the book) scenes to give the non-readers a sense of what really is happening, yet they never really explain to them what is happening... I was expecting a scene with the two ministers, and nothing remotely similar to that appeared in the film. The burning of the Burrow was like, a total brainfart, I didn't understand why they decided to put that in, in the first place. I got the same feeling during the first part of the movie, it was all lovey-dovey, but I was expecting something to connect it all, it felt very disconnected to me, the entire movie felt disconnected to me. Having said that, I think visually, it was a success. It was very dinamic and very beautiful. All in all, it was funny, but it felt like they put together a collage of their favorite scenes of what happens in the book and put it together in the film.
Posted August 14, 2009
sfeps says:
i aggree in lot of your aspects but i think the movie was GOOD! i mean lot of scences which were in the book were'nt in the film BUT for example qiuiditch was much better than in in ALL films!! i think the film is more realistic as in the other ones, and the love stories in this film were a PERFECT contrast to the fightenend scenes! in my opinion the film is very short but he is good !
Posted August 13, 2009
William says:
I agree with you on alot of points, but I think that this movie was definately a good one. Sure, I do think that there shouldve been a battle at the end and that there shouldve been more about the Prince and less about the love and romance, but it was definately better than the Prisoner of Azkaban. Now that movie was crap. However, that's just my opinion. I did like the Burrow and Quiddich scenes though. Those were awesome scenes. All in all, the movie was good.
Posted August 08, 2009
William says:
I agree with you to a point. I do agree that there should have been a fight at the end of the movie. However, I did like the Burrow scene. That was pretty cool. I also thought that the quiddich scenes was pretty cool as well. I think that they couldve done alot more with the story but it was definately better than the Prizoner of Azkaban. Now that movie was crap. Just my opinion. However, I do think that it was a good movie, even though they left a whole bunch of stuff out. I just hope the next movie is better.
Posted August 08, 2009
preknan says:
Oh, yeah. Remember! All of the films producing is under monitor of J.K. Rowling. If the film was released like this, it must have the 'OK' statement from Rowling herself.
Posted August 08, 2009
preknan says:
Many of my friends say that the film is not good. Not good doesn't mean it's crap, isn't it?
If you read the book, you can imagine many things until the details. But, human has limits. They only can make the film in they point of view. Everyone has their point of view. Like you. If you like it, then you like it. If you don't, then you don't. You want the film be very similar to the book. But, in the film, you can't tell the viewers the 'Harry's mind' most of the time, unlike the book.
Many other films, which is an adapted from a book, can't tell the whole 'inner' story. I've said it before, human has limits. They (the movie producer, etc.) had done what their best. Respect their efforts! Make a film isn't easy.
If you think you have a critics then can make the film better, why don't you send it to them by an letter, e-mail, or anything else?
I'm sorry if this comment make you feel offended. I just want you to respect others.
Thank you.
Posted August 08, 2009
Devika17 says:
I do agree with your points, especially points 3 and 5. I think it would be insanely amazing if they could make a movie that completely followed the book.Unfortunately, it was not so. But i think despite the differences, it was still a great movie. The romance in the first half did make the movie slightly more comical than all the others. I enjoy the books very much, but i have learned to separate my liking for them from my liking for the movies. If i didn't i would be sincerely disappointed as you are! I am a huge harry potter fan, (books and movies) really enjoyed the sixth film, and am awaiting the upcoming last ones.
Posted August 07, 2009
charlie says:
And Ginny was hot!
Posted August 04, 2009
charlie says:
You all are mistaken, it was the funniest harry potter film.
Posted August 04, 2009
bekbek09 says:
I thought the movie was great!
The only part that was wierd was the Burrow scene and then in the beginning where Harry was stuck on the train under his Cloak and LUNA found him...not TONKS...?? but other than that,i thought it was probably one of the best HP movies!!it was very suspensful, and it if i hadn't have read the book about 20(billion) times before,then it would have probably kept me wondering throughout thr whole thing!
Besides,if they put everything in the movie,it would be like a zillion hours long!!! let's please be realistic :)
Posted August 04, 2009
£Lf says:
You're right about your points but i don't think that the film is crap. The director can't put all the things in the book to the movie. And there's one more thing: The movie isn't the same in the book in all of harry potter films. So something can change and it doesn't make the movie so crap.
Posted August 03, 2009
FutureGinnyPotter says:
Although I do agree with your points, I agree with those only if I do compare the movies to the books. Obviously the directors cannot put everything from the book into the movie. We have seen it in every movie, why make a big deal out of it now? SEEING the destruction of the muggle world made the movie that much more interesting, and the opening scene shorter, then it would have been had the ministers talked. The romance thing was interesting, and it made the movie different from all of the other movies. And it made it funny in parts, which as I said, was an interesting change up. The burrow burning did not happen in the book, and I agree it was weird, but I think the director just wanted to show how bad it was getting, and how terrible the death eaters were becoming. The movie DOES have stuff about the half blood prince in it, and although not as much, like I said, time restraints. He does end up having to get rid of the book, attacking Malfoy with it, becoming excellent at potions, etc. And, as much as I do wish that they had had a battle at Hogwarts, they may have not wanted to put in another one, since basically half the second part of the seventh movie, if they don't cut anything out, would be an epic battle. If they had added in another battle, then the audience would have gotten bored, or just tired of watching fighting. Leaving out this battle was a smart choice in the long run. The only thing I was upset about was that Dumbledore did not have his funeral. I was thinking that they could add that to the beginning of the seventh movie, part one, but then realized that would mess up how the seventh book was planned. So I guess Dumbledore does not get a funeral. Which is disappointing. But in response to the person who said the burning of the burrow was so they could cut out the wedding in the seventh movie, they would not be able to do that. Too many things happen at the wedding that are important, and I do not think that they could pull off cutting out the wedding and make it good. But, they are magic, so they could probably figure out a way to fix the burrow.
Posted August 03, 2009
Drake says:
if you think it is bad then you probably arent looking at it in the correct view. this movie cut out too many important pieces of information and will not map out the next movies correctly. Bill and Fleur were not in this movie, and they did not properly introduce fenrir greyback. Also you should keep in ming that the book is a very long book and if tey put in all of the information it would have been 3 1/2 to 4 hours. i personally would not have minded sitting through that but SO MANY viewers would have. and i know a lot of people would disagree,but this book was the 2nd worst book in the series! of course it was crap! the point of this storyline was to map out the next book! i think the reason for jk rowling to make these movies (besides the movie and career promotion) was to show the viewers what she sees as she is writing this magical story. obviousley we may not see it the way she sees cuz we all have different brains! on a new note, they knew it wasnt going to be that good so they covered it up with funny moments to make it enjoyable. i think people are being a little to harsh, and i hopethat this insight will convince you to look at it in a different way, or at least try to give it a better chance
Posted August 02, 2009
Preston P says:
the burning of the burrow was in there because JK Rowling told Yates to put it in there. i dont know if it needs to be in there for the next two movies or what...
i do agree however that there needed to be a battle royal at the end. i was kinda pissed about that. but i did like the movie. you do make some good points tho.
Posted August 02, 2009
Palmer says:
First point: The beginnings and endings are regularly changed to make more sense on film than in print. You haven't noticed this before now? Film is about visualization. Rather than having Fudge talk with the 'recent events' (cinematically boring), they decided to show them (you noticed the whole bridge collapse, right?).
Second: Another interesting thing about the Harry Potter series is that it's about more than a boy-wizard and his wild wacky world. It's about real life. It's about growing up in extraordinary circumstances (as all teenagers seem to think they do), dealing with the outside world, and how that is generally easier to manage than even dealing with themselves. You know. Like real teenagers. Leaving out the "love thing" would've been a disgrace to the humanness of the story.
Third: My best guess is they burnt the Burrow to forgive the fact that they won't be starting DH there. No Fleur and Bill in HBP, no wedding.
Four: Better that than being constantly choked on it. I just recently saw Terminator Salvation. I went through the movie being constantly reminded that THIS IS JOHN FREAKING CONNOR. It was annoying. Anyway, the book itself was less "who is this Prince guy, anyway?" and more "what is Malfoy up to?", which is exactly what the movie covered.
Five: This was the only part that disappointed me. I was looking forward to the duel. Bummer...
Posted August 02, 2009
kenzie says:
i thought the movie was great! and if u never noticed, they cut a lot of stuff out of all of the movies!
Posted August 02, 2009
nense says:
I think the movie is quite okay.And the Deathly Hallows movie (first part) will have the end of the Half-Blood Prince in it.
Posted August 02, 2009
christy says:
ok first of all, its pretty hard to include everything that is there in the book, cos most of it is just stuff that fans wanted to see instead of the things that were actually essential to the plot. secondly, i think that in order to NOT make the movie 10 hours long, they had to stick to the actual plot, disregarding most of the dialogue and all that... eg. when harry and ginny kissed, it was not in the room of requirement, nor was it ginny that kissed harry (it was actually harry that kissed ginny). but what had to happen was that they kiss, end-of-story. and with harry and slughorn at hargid's house, things played out a little differently than in the book, but what was meant to happen eventually DID happen. thirdly, even though the whole love thing is not the "central motif" in the book, it makes for a few laughs, which is especially good for the people in the audience who have not read the books, and who may need more than what happens in the book to keep watching the 3-hour movie - instead of just walking out cos it's so boring. fourthly, i heard from a friend that the director didn't want to repeat himself by having ANOTHER massive battle at the end. and i agree to an extent, because the fight in the ministry in the fifth movie was meant to be like nothing that anyone had ever seen before in the harry potter movies. but i still would've like to see the fight at the end. ok, i'm not saying i LOVED the movie, because as a loyal harry potter fan, i was a little disappointed with the fact that they weren't as faithful to the book as they were with the first two movies (which were closest to the books, in my opinion). but i can see that some changes needed to be made in order to cater for EVERY person viewing the movie, not just the fans who (i'm guessing) stayed in the cinema for the entire movie - even though they were disappointed with it - for the simple reason that they were loyal to the whole harry potter world (books, movies, etc).
Posted August 02, 2009
Obsessed Muggle says:
Who cares how the movie compares to the book? i can tell your a die-hard fan like me, and i respect your love for the books and i feel the same desire to have your image of the books come to life on the screen. however, even if the movie is different from the movie, who cares? those who haven't read the books, think its still entertaining cause they don't know what changed. those who have, become disappointed but still love the book. I had the same frustrations that you had after watching the movie but i soon became aware of how very difficult it would be to make the most popular book series in history come to life the way that each individual imagined it. i think this is why its a split opinion. for some of us, it suited our own image of the book, while it didn't for others. i agree that some things in the movie were unclear. i think they will polish these things off in the last two movies because this movie seemed like mostly a set-up for the final movies, which they promised to do EXACTLY like the book. As for the burrow thing...i didn't understand that at all. Although i was panicking while watching the movie simply because i had absolutely no idea what was going to happen. My opinion as to why they added this sceen is that it was sort of a substitute. They took out the battle at hogwarts at the end because they didn't want it to look like the 7th book were there is also a battle at hogwarts. i can see where they are coming from but it was nonetheless very frustrating to me. since they took that epic battle out, they had to include some action in the movie and i think thats where the burning of the burrow came into play. i dunno, we all have our different opinions but what it really comes down to is how you choose to enjoy this version of harry potter because its the only one we got!
Posted August 02, 2009
Annie says:
There was this stupid and unnecessary scene with the girl in the bar in the beginning - instead of which there should have been the discussion of the ministers or even the grazy vistit of Dumbledore to the Dursleys (which was not necessary for the plot but at least it would have been amusing), or something really important. And I think HP is something like Snape's book, but now he was nearly thrown away. I'd say the film is half crap, but since there are only two options and I'm an addict, I's say it was not crap :D
Posted August 02, 2009
Abby says:
The half blood prince was one of the better potter films. With harry potter it seems like they just keep getting better. If you think that this film was crap just because the book is different your crazy. JK rowling didnt direct it so you have to know that its going to be different if it was the same then there woulld be no mystery because you would already know what is happening and when because of the book. But i do respect your opinion and obviously you given this alot of thought.
Posted August 01, 2009
hermione says:
Harry potter and the half blood prince was an excellent movie and it is just starting the introduction to the 7th movie, deathly hallows, which i think from the book is really really good so it is not crap!!
Posted August 01, 2009
Luna says:
I have to disagree.I am a HUGE (and i mean HUGE) an of the books, and the movies, although, of course, i prefer the books.I think this one was really good though very different from the book and from the other movies.I went into the theater knowing it was going to be changed alot, and so I wasnt expecting the awesome H/G kiss or the battle. I read the scene by scene like a million times.I obsessively watched the trailers. So I was prepared for the different things they added and what they took out.All in all, it was funny and good and I really enjoyed it and think it was the best yet.
Posted August 01, 2009
Scarlet Letter says:
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince had all of the elements of the book, and I think that is enough. Sure, I was a little dissapointed with the absense of the last battle in the book but I know that they cannot put every single little thing in the book into the movie, they would be 5 hours long! I am happy with how the movie ended and can't wait to see the final installment in the series.
Posted August 01, 2009
Peter says:
Another thing is that most did like the break from the seriousness. Even the actors in some interveiws stated that. They might have overdone it a bit but none the less it was a nice break. And I think they want to leave as much as they can for the last one so that it is absolutly amazing. I mean it does reveal alot in the book about the seventh so they want to keep people guessing and wanting to find out. Which is probably why they didn't add al of the memories. I forgive this movie for everything pretty much except not having teh White Tomb, some sort of battle at the end and the pheonix song and it flying away that night not a day llater.
Posted August 01, 2009
Dreyesbo says:
First: the points raised by this article do not match the title. Perhaps if the title were "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince film as an adaptation was crap" it would be more fitting, but still an opinion. The points raised were just things lost in the book to movie adaptation.
As a movie, it works well. It sets the plot well, the characters are fleshed out, and it entertains. The cinematography was beautiful, and the camera work outstanding. I find this film second to Cuaron's Azkaban (just as HBP, it took creative liberties, which made of it a better film).
But I might be a bit biased. I'm a hardcore Potter and film fan.
Posted August 01, 2009
Daniel says:
Oh they had to burn down the Burrow because they are apparently cutting the wedding in the next movie becuase the actress who played Fleur refused to come back and reprised her role. So instead of dealing with it they cut it but thats the only part they are cutting. I was diaapointed though that the wpic battle wasn't in there though. I don't understand why they cut it. I didn't bother me that they didn't put in the Prime Minister part becuase they sorta saved it when Hermione said her parents know something bad his happening so it indicates that muggles are aware something is happening beyond their control. And anyways I try not to be too critical of these movies becuase I try to enjoy myself then let things get in the way. All in all it might not have been the best but it was still decent.
Posted August 01, 2009
Is Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince Game good?
The sixth Potter game should defnitely be better than the movie.
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Amazon Price: $19.99 (as of 12/30/2009)
RELATED NEWS: FODDER FOR ARGUING MORE
by kaplan
I am a webmaster, a filmmaker and a dreamer all rolled into one. I love to do work that I enjoy, and get paid for it! At this moment of my life, its p...
(more)Explore related pages
Emma Watson- Emma Charlotte Duerre Watson was born in France on April 15, 1990. At school in...
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, released on July 16, 2005, is the sixth...
Harry Potter World
- The seven-part Harry Potter series of fantasy novels was written by English auth...
