My Review of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

[montavilla47]

md wrote:
> Fans of the books KNOW what's going on, moviegoers may be a bit confused as
> the why things happen. For one, the film opens with Ginny and Harry madly in
> unspoken love as Ginny snogs Dean Thomas anyway, and Hermione is suddenly
> infatuated with Ron - sure, there has been tension between hem since
> puberty, but jealousy seems a bit of a stretch all of a sudden (in the books
> it's more of a slow brewing issue.) 

Montavilla47:

The Ron/Hermione stuff is less out of the blue than the Harry/Ginny stuff.  But,
you know, love can be like that, and I don't think it's going to be that hard for
movie-only fans to get.

md wrote:
> Without too many spoilers, ask yourself: how and why does Harry know what
> and for what use a Beazor is and why does his potions master (not Snape now)
> sit and watch a student die when the solution should be clear to him? 

Montavilla47:
The problem of Slughorn watching stupidly as Ron is dying is a holdover from
the book.  He was no more helpful then.  

Harry finding the bezoar is a logical problem in the film, since we haven't 
heard about that trick since PS/SS, and we don't have Harry reading that 
fun, snarky little tip in the Potions book.  And, it takes him forever to find
it, unlike in the book, when he was able to go straight to it.

Plus, we then get one of those scenes where other actors have to *tell*
us what happened.  It reminds me of that clumsy moment in PS/SS when
we learn that Harry made the Quidditch team from Nearly Headless Nick.


md:
> Why is
> there no defenses at the Weasely house if they are in dire danger, why no
> Order members standing guard, no spells around the property and why do the
> Death Eaters attack? (hint, it's not in the book at all!!! so there's no
> answer.) Why does Dumbledore take Harry to the Burrow at the beginning of
> the film (it makes sense in the book, here, no reason.) 

Montavilla47:
What puzzles me is that Dumbledore sort of drops him off in the middle of
a marsh a good distance away from the Burrow--and doesn't bother to tell
anyone that Harry is going to show up.  Leaving the Chosen One vulnerable 
to any random attack by DEs.

Also, later on, the Trio are allowed to wander into the burned-out wand 
shop without even Hagrid's lackluster guarding or use of the invisibility 
cloak.

md:
>Why does Harry take
> orders from Snape at the end without question? Why does no one challenge
> four Death Eaters running amok in Hogwarts and setting Hagrid's hut ablaze?

Montavilla47:
In the film, Harry has no reason *not* to take Snape's orders.  There's hardly
any tension between the two of them, and the key conflict for Harry (Snape 
telling Voldemort the prophecy) is never revealed.

What bothers me is how badly staged and unsuspenseful the moment is
when Snape arrives.  That was, to my mind, the very best moment of the 
book.  I was convinced on first reading that Snape would somehow save 
the day.  And, although I never believed that Snape was acting on his own
in killing Dumbledore, that moment really threw me.  In a good way. :)

But in the film, there's practically no tension at all in the scene--although
there's a bit of tension between Draco and Dumbledore.  I didn't get the 
sense that Snape was making a difficult decision, or any kind of a decision
at all.  

I didn't feel that Dumbledore *needed* help at that point, either.  So, if 
he didn't want Snape to kill him, he'd have snapped his fingers or called 
Fawkes or something.  He didn't seem weak, as he had in the book, and
which made Snape's action seem all the more terrible.

Also, I don't recall Harry ever questioning Dumbledore about Snape's
loyalty.  I liked that they included Lupin's argument about trusting 
Dumbledore's judgment, but the scene between Harry and Dumbledore
was much more dramatic and important and wish we could have had 
that.  

But I hesitate to say I would have sacrificed the Lupin scene, because 
I liked it so much.  Anything with Lupin is good and it established the 
Tonks/Lupin relationship (along with the moment at the door when
she calls him "sweetheart") far better than the book did.


md:
> The movie is fast, humorous, entertaining and a wonder to watch, both
> emotionally and visually. I buy the characters, the motivations, the special
> effects, everything almost. just not the logical flaws that made me scratch
> my head all the way home.

Montavilla47:
I agree with that, mostly.  There was a point when I felt that the film was
dragging, but I don't recall exactly when.  It was sometime after the 
burrow attack.  I liked the teen romance stuff.  That was all pretty cute and
fun.  And I loved how sympathetic Harry and Hermione were with each
other.

Visually, I got a bit tired of muted "blueness" of the color palette.  Harry's
skin tone was so pale that he started to look like Edward Cullen.  

Also, I really missed some of the original musical themes.