Well, I just wanted to make the point that your opinion does not necessarily equal that of everyone else in this world, so maybe it would be better to not call them jerkoffs, etc.

 

 

 

Don't be a douche. There's a way of making your opinion known, and then there is just blatantly insulting behavior.

 

Can your posts get any more pointless?

 

 

 

Actually, I saw the first film far before I even touched one of the books. And secondly, since I am an actor I don't see movies for the fandom anymore so much as I see them for the acting and the cinematography. If you honestly think you can put your worthless words into my mouth and tell me why I choose to see the films then you're really not worth the time nor the energy and your opinion loses all credibility.

 

 

 

Oh so it's even worse than I initially thought. Now you're telling me you became a fanboy of the series after you saw the first film *where* these kids were making their first film and obviously showed a complete inexperience in acting? You have no credibility to speak of to begin with.

Well, I just wanted to make the point that your opinion does not necessarily equal that of everyone else in this world, so maybe it would be better to not call them jerkoffs, etc.

 

 

 

Don't be a douche. There's a way of making your opinion known, and then there is just blatantly insulting behavior.

 

Can your posts get any more pointless?

 

 

 

Actually, I saw the first film far before I even touched one of the books. And secondly, since I am an actor I don't see movies for the fandom anymore so much as I see them for the acting and the cinematography. If you honestly think you can put your worthless words into my mouth and tell me why I choose to see the films then you're really not worth the time nor the energy and your opinion loses all credibility.

 

 

 

Oh so it's even worse than I initially thought. Now you're telling me you became a fanboy of the series after you saw the first film *where* these kids were making their first film and obviously showed a complete inexperience in acting? You have no credibility to speak of to begin with.

 

 

 

There are adult actors in all the films such as the ever famous Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman and the late Richard Harris. Just because your mind can only comprehend that the films are "just made up of children," doesn't mean I can't appreciate the film for whatever I so please.

 

 

 

God your dense, and no one here is agreeing with you so I don't see the point in sitting here trying to degrade my credibility when yours still hasn't even taken off from the ground yet.

The truth is, the greater majority of the people who go out and watch this film are die-hard fans of the series.

 

 

 

It's hard to step back and look at these films from an unbiased perspective, to be honest.

 

 

 

Personally, I really loved this movie. As always, the acting was really superb on everyone's parts, the technical sides of the film (directing, music, etc.) was top-notch. Half-Blood Prince is far from being my favorite book in the series, but so far it's one of my favorite movies from the series! (Prisoner will always be number one, unless by some miracle Deathly Hallows blows me away.)

 

 

 

However, I'm a hardcore Harry Potter fan, and it's really tough to not let that cloud my judgment. I'm sure that this is the problem for loads of the people criticizing the film.

 

 

 

There was a lot that was left out of this film, and so much that they simply didn't add in at all. Even though as a movie separate from the book it was great, when you get down to it, it didn't really do the book justice. When you go and add in a scene where they destroy a location that plays a HUGE part in the seventh book, or in the film tweak one of the most climactic scene from the book, you can't help but cringe a little bit...

 

 

 

Personally, I really felt... I don't know.. I suppose detached would be the right word.. yes, detached when watching this film, despite loving it. Strangely enough, the majority of the film got little emotion out of me. Yes, there were scenes that had me laughing and shouting at the screen, but only two or three scenes really struck a deep cord within me as a fan. For most of the movies, to this day, I can watch them at home on DVD and run around skipping after words.

 

 

 

However, when I screened this one at work the day before our midnight showings, I left the theater with my coworkers kind of in a daze, somewhat depressed and out of it.

 

 

 

(Forgive me if anything doesn't make sense... 4:00 AM reviews are never good!)

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm off from work tomorrow, and plan on seeing it again! Several of my coworkers who felt similar feelings have said it gets better the more you watch it. Here's to hoping!

Just saw it today, with my sister.

 

 

 

Overall, I was impressed, the acting was superb, and, despite some changes, it wasn't that bad, probably the best film in the series.

 

 

 

My main issue is the ending, almost completely different from the book, I was looking forward to how they would do the fight with the Order, the DA and Death Eaters, unfortunately, it was not there.

 

 

 

Another problem is that they extended the duel between Harry and Malfoy, something unneeded.

Just saw it too, and I have to say it exceeded my expectations. There's still a lot of stuff I wish they hadn't changed, though. And all that romance was so cheesy and badly acted. -.- I still liked it, regardless.

Yeah, the romance between Ron and Lavender was like that in the book.

 

 

 

If anything, that barely changed at all, so it was some pretty good acting for that part.

Yeah, the romance between Ron and Lavender was like that in the book.

 

 

 

If anything, that barely changed at all, so it was some pretty good acting for that part.

 

 

 

They made Hermione express her feelings for Ron a loooot more than she does in the book.

 

 

 

I kind of liked it though.

 

 

 

The Ron/Lavvy bits were great :lol:

She needed to show them more clearly in the film to make it more noticeable.

 

 

 

Would have been too hard to pick up on subtle hints such as those in the book.

 

 

 

Though I hated that Tonks and Lupin were actually in a relationship, rather than it building up to it.

She needed to show them more clearly in the film to make it more noticeable.

 

 

 

Would have been too hard to pick up on subtle hints such as those in the book.

 

 

 

Though I hated that Tonks and Lupin were actually in a relationship, rather than it building up to it.

 

 

 

True, but in the grand scheme of the things Tonks and Lupin being together really isn't that important. =-/

Yeah, I felt it could have been left out, rather it just being there.

Yeah, I felt it could have been left out, rather it just being there.

 

 

 

Now THAT is true. In a directorial sense it should have either been left out, or made a greater deal of. But really, just left out. It was pointless to have it in, but to be entirely honest with you, i think they hinted at it because otherwise the fans that go crazy with their "Lupin/Tonks ships" would grab the pitchforks. lol.

I'm always left wondering when they throw easter eggs like that in whether the casual watchers/people who haven't read the book get it at all. I don't think people are apt to even recognize Tonks, much less know anything about her :\ Even Lupin has taken a backseat, and after being absent from GoF I wouldn't be surprised if viewers didn't know who he was either.

I'm always left wondering when they throw easter eggs like that in whether the casual watchers/people who haven't read the book get it at all. I don't think people are apt to even recognize Tonks, much less know anything about her :\ Even Lupin has taken a backseat, and after being absent from GoF I wouldn't be surprised if viewers didn't know who he was either.

 

 

 

Audiences who don't read the books and don't obsess over the movies will definitely not notice it. But I think that's how it is in every "book made into a film," deal...they put in things that only fans will recognize in order to make them happy.

 

 

 

See, the trick is, how do you make a harry potter film that will be a great film but also keep the fans from not exploding their guts all over it? It's really hard and basically impossible when it comes to the diehard fanfreaks that want 10 hour long movies for a 500 page book, but putting in subtle hints at things like Lupin and Tonks is a way to do it. If Lupin and Tonks were completely absent from the movie it would have just given crazed fans one more reason to yell up a storm, even though we ALL know it's not an important detail of book 6 at all.

I watched it yesterday and to be honest it was okay. I think it's a lot better than OoTP (which I never liked that much in it's film incarnation) but HBP was pretty good. They didn't miss TOO much out that I was worried about.

 

 

 

Throwing Aragog in like 'oh look he's dead!' seemed kinda silly, same with Slughorn's fish story. I loved Tom Riddle though, he was far creepier than I'd ever imagined. The burning of the Burrow made me sad though, because it was so pointless. Again on pointless - random girl at the start of the film? Wtf? Were they just trying to make Harry out to be a ladies man or something? Speaking of romance, Room of Requirement? -.- Did not like.

 

 

 

I think the lake seen was done rather well. The first Inferi's hand really [cabbage] me up, but after that I was more concerned pondering how Dumbledore could shoot fire IN water...

I didn't understand the point of the cafe scene, was the whole "riding trains" thing in the book anyway?

 

 

 

And it will be good to what they do in the next movie for the wedding scene with the Burrow being destroyed. :lol:

No, Dumbledore came to Privet Drive to pick up Harry and explain to the Dursleys that he comes of age next year. They then apparate to Slughorn ect.

 

 

 

Interesting though, they cut out a chapter with explanation & quite important information in (that Harry inherited Grimmauld place and Sirius's things ect) for a scene with Harry chasing a bit of skirt... interesting.

This is going to contain a few spoilers if you haven't read the book.

 

I was quite disappointed having just read it. They replace Dumbledore's funeral with a stupid, completely irrelevant scene featuring the Weasleys' house, and the scene with the Death Eaters' fight in Hogwarts with the pointless train station bit at the start. The Invisibility Cloak was horribly underused considering in the book Harry keeps it on him at all times. And at the end of the book Harry breaks up with Ginny but at the end of the film he gets given Ron's approval. Also thought Daniel Radcliffe's acting was a bit robotic.

 

On a lighter note though, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint were brilliant, as was Tom Felton, and the scenes in the Pensieve and the bit on the lake were superbly done.

 

 

 

Edit, Racheya just posted lol. Yeah the Grimauld Place bit's quite important considering how it's involved in the next book.

 

Speaking of which, I really want to know how they're going to split the Deathly Hallows into two films! (at least they won't miss so much out this time, hopefully.)

 

Edit, Racheya just posted lol. Yeah the Grimauld Place bit's quite important considering how it's involved in the next book.

 

Speaking of which, I really want to know how they're going to split the Deathly Hallows into two films! (at least they won't miss so much out this time, hopefully.)

 

They'll probably take this opportunity to squeeze in as much extra crap that wasn't in the books as they can.....

 

Edit, Racheya just posted lol. Yeah the Grimauld Place bit's quite important considering how it's involved in the next book.

 

Speaking of which, I really want to know how they're going to split the Deathly Hallows into two films! (at least they won't miss so much out this time, hopefully.)

 

They'll probably take this opportunity to squeeze in as much extra crap that wasn't in the books as they can.....

 

 

 

No, they'll use it to tie the plot together.

 

 

 

Look, I would love a closer adaptation, but this is an adaptation. Due to the fact that the books had a tendency to bring up previously tangential/apparently irrelevant things later and make them critical plot points, early directors left them out with no later books yet published to tell them that they shouldn't.

 

 

 

Bill has not once even been mentioned, and Charlie only briefly in PS and GoF in regards to the dragons. How do you have a believable wedding scene with a character no one has ever heard of beforehand? Ron suddenly having a brother that's getting married, and the wedding consequently being a critical scene (Voldemort takes over the Ministry), would seem very deus ex machina. Granted, they may yet do this in the two movies remaining, but it could be in an entirely different context: Tonks and Lupin, perhaps. Two characters that have at least been seen a few times.

 

 

 

The Burrow scene, while I'm not wild about it, was still somewhat needed as a reminder, halfway through a movie that has been largely focused on teen drama, that there is a war on. As much as I love a movie less focused on action and flashy magic, it's easy to see how audiences may become bored. In fact, that is a frequent criticism.

 

 

 

As far as the Grimmauld Place inheritance goes, yes, I expected that to be in there. But Rowling had to tip of the writers/director of OotP to leave Kreacher in in the first place.

 

 

 

Splitting Deathly Hallows into two gives them a good five hours. I expect the first part will address many of the plot points left out of HBP. If the die-hard fans can't handle a bit of transitional tweaking, too bad. They expect too much.

Hmm... I wonder what they'll call the 2 Deathly Hallows movies? Surely not Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 1 & 2?

 

 

 

I think that Bill as a plot can be left out really, there's no point throwing him in now. I can see them using Tonks and Lupin as a way to make the wedding work. I just hope that they don't throw random stuff in, that they do tie up and fix the loose plot ends ect.

Hmm... I wonder what they'll call the 2 Deathly Hallows movies? Surely not Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 1 & 2?

 

Maybe Pt. One and Pt. Two? Part makes it sound more official. :P

And TBH, the girl who plays Ginny is ugly.

Blasphemy :o

 

 

 

My eyes are burning!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

She isn't all that good looking. I reckon Hermoine and Harry is heaps better, Hermoine is one sweet piece of [wagon] :XD: Ron just doesn't seem to fit with Hermoine, they are completely oppisite in every way imaginable. For them to be attracted makes no sense at all.

 

 

 

And how could Hermoine like a carrot-top? :?

And TBH, the girl who plays Ginny is ugly.

Blasphemy :o

 

 

 

My eyes are burning!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

She isn't all that good looking. I reckon Hermoine and Harry is heaps better, Hermoine is one sweet piece of [wagon] :XD: Ron just doesn't seem to fit with Hermoine, they are completely oppisite in every way imaginable. For them to be attracted makes no sense at all.

 

 

 

And how could Hermoine like a carrot-top? :?

 

 

 

Because Ron is brave, sensitive and cares for hermione, you emotionless pit. lol.

 

 

 

Sorry, I had to say it. Just because you can't see two people together doesn't mean they aren't happy together. Biggest load of crud ever.

 

 

 

Oh, and I could just say the obvious and say it's that way because the author wanted, intended and wrote it that way.

 

 

 

Oh, and P.S. Opposites attract if you've never heard that before. Me and my ex boyfriend were polar opposites and we had a very fufilling two year long relationship which only ended because we both had to move to opposite ends of the country.

I think Ginny's quite pretty. And also, Ron and Hermione make perfect sense because they're best friends. I mean, if they've coped with each other's company for seven years. And some would say they're just like a married couple in that they've always had petty arguments and forgiven each other, time and time again. Plus...

 

[hide=Spoiler]they make sense because if Harry had married Hermione instead, that would have left Ginny and Ron :?[/hide]

One of the worst movies i have seen in 2009. The fact that they left out around 3 crucial parts from the book automatically deducts 5 stars. On the other hand it did have superb effects, and great acting as always, and a little humor.

 

2/5