Be Excellent To Each Other

Went to see the new Potter flick last night. Haven't got time in work to say much about it, but it had some of the best set design, art direction, costuming and prop work I've yet seen in a film. And that's not a damning-with-faint-praise there, the treats on offer made the film something of a delightful art gallery for me. As for the atmosphere, a richer, darker skein once again. The magic was subtle and unshowy in the main, and this led to a deeper feeling of the magical world. There were some wonderful shots, such as Dumbledore simply standing in front of an amusingly apt billboard. It was a pleasingly understated film more concerned with characters too. I didn't mind the lack of a big showdown as so much emotion was flying about, in fact I feel refreshed by the lack of a big, loud battle at the end. Jim Broadbent wins acting honours once again in a film, but Gambon brought some amazing stuff to the party. Of the three young 'uns, I'd have to say Watson was best followed by Weasely, but Radcliffe acquitted himself well and was especially funny in the luck-potion scene. Plaudits also to Luna Lovegood and Draco Malfoy, one the living embodiment of whimsy and the other delivering a pretty good, fearful, self-loathing performance. All in all a strong eight out of ten I think, with me tempted to add one extra point just for the sheer visual richness of the film. I never tired of looking at a single frame, and consequently, the film.

8.5/10 I think. More than makes up for Transformers 2.

Anyone else seen it?

I really enjoyed it too. Memtioned it briefly in the Movie thread.

going on wednesday. Latest posible showing to avoid the Cheeeeldren!

I thought this was going to be about Stephen Hendry

As someone who has had nothing to do with Harry Potter before - not seen any of the other films, nor read any of the books, I thought this film was a gigantic waste of space.

I accept I'm not really the target market, and that without any knowledge of the Harry Potter universe I should expect that things won't necessarily make any sense, but this was a "Matrix: Reloaded" or "POTC: Dead Man's Chest" - nothing much really happens and it's just a vehicle to get you on to the last films.

Nothing was resolved.

The title, Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince - why is it called that when the Half-Blood Prince is basically an entirely inconsequential part of the film? Even the reveal at the end was wasted.

The black swirly things (death eaters?) wreaking havoc in London is never mentioned anywhere else in the film, and there are other pointless inconsistencies. Why does Broadbent's character get all angry and antsy when Tom Riddle asks him about some sort of dark magic, when as part of his potions class he teaches the kids how to create a potion that kills anything in an instant?

I wasted 2.5 hours seeing it. I don't often feel that strongly about films, but I would have walked out halfway through had I not been taking Shin to see it.

The filmmakers should accept that not everyone will have seen the other films or read the books, so should at least make some sort of effort to have it be a bit more self-contained so that people like me can understand what's going on. Meh.

Completely agree Gaz. I have only read the last two books and thought they were actually very well written. This is the onlt Potter film i have been able to compare to the book and as such is my least favourite yet. It might as well have been called Harry Potter and the bridge to the last Films (yes, there are two more to go).

Oh, and Luna Lovegood is excellently played again!

Buh-buh-but it's the sixth film in! If you haven't followed the others you shouldn't really be watching it - it'd be like picking up a book six chapters in. (Obv if you have an arm-twisting Potter-fan girlfriend, this is difficult.) If they tried to explain everything and put context in all over the place, the film would have become a bloated, expositionary mess.



This was the 'Empire Strikes Back' in the series, and thus a difficult bridge. (Though Empire is far more successful artistically than any other bridge films) I was more entranced with the characters, emotion and the immersive depth of the world than with the plot or action that, admittedly, was occassionally shaky. A jolly good flick, I still maintain.

EDIT: OOPS. Spoilers.

The thing is Gaz, this is clearly the 6th of 8 films, with one overarcing plot. It isn't like Bond, where each film is self contained, nor is the story simple enough to be done and dusted in 3 like Star Wars. LoTR will be the same, it is designed to be seen as a whole.

I haven't read or seen any of the books or films either, so I'm resigned to starting from the beginning just to understand what is going on.

Er, big fucking spoils there Petey.

I haven't read the books, but I recommend watching all the films in sequence. Thoroughly entertaining.

I'm not sure what this post achieves. Other than saying, 'I readily accept I don't know anyhting about this, but talk I shall'.

The sixth book is the weaker book and is a link between the childhood books of 1-5 and the adult book of 7. The only thing that really happens is the ending, which does come out of nowhere, right at the end in the book and could have been dealt with differently. More than any of the films, if you've read the book you could easily skip this film.

Ginny is a bit hot though.

Argh. Sorry, head full of cold. Fixed.

Yup.

It's basically a film for people who have read the book, IMO. And that's fine, but they should at least make some effort to make them more accessible for people who haven't.

All this stuff about it being a story arc over many books - fair enough, but the titles of the books themselves (and the films based off them) lead you to believe that each one has a definite plotline within it exclusive to that film. Now, I'm led to believe that the other HP films do have appropriate "subtitles", i.e. The Goblet of Fire does feature a goblet of fire quite prominently. I get the impression that the Chamber of Secrets film/book has a Chamber of Secrets as a big part of it and that everything relating to that is resolved by the end of the film.

I didn't get that impression at all from THBP - it's clearly just a stepping stone to the next films, and I fucking hate that.

*Issues the Stand Down command to the Pylon death Squad*

I don't agree. I only know that it's the 6th film (didn't know there would be 8 ) because I've not been living under a rock for the last 10 years.

I had no idea that the Harry Potter books/films were one overarcing plot until just recently while researching why the hell the book was called The Half-Blood Prince. The titles of the books and films don't make this clear.

Pete works in a library. It would have to be death by elocution.

Where can you get the 'well written' editions of Harry Potter books?

I can only find the 'poorly written, bloated, derivative tat' versions...

Those would be the first three.

I've not seen this, and likely never will (the first was enough, thanks. Damned girlfriend with her rubbish taste in films. The crap I sat through with her...), but I will say that the trailer I saw in the cinema for it the other week made it look excellent. I often cringe at how awful trailers are - nobody seems to know how to make a good one anymore. But this one was very good.

I'd give you 'vaguely entertaining', but well-written? Goodness.

I'm actually reading the Potter books presently. Goblet of Fire is sat next to the toilet at home. Not bad for a children's book.

Something something goblet of fire something toilet something something eat less spicy food.

Few - oh, carry on.

I have seen all the films bar this one, and read all the books.. I quite enjoy them as childrens stories.

I'm being dragged to see Harry Potter and the Stick of Wood sometime next week. I suspect my evening will start when Helen brings me a nice glass of milk, then I wake up in the cinema.

For a kids' book, yes. I thought they were very tightly written, but I wasn't the intended audience when I read them three years ago so haven't really explored the competition.

Ah - a vital qualifier.

Yes they are childrens films 7 books that adults watch and read..

Why? Why should books for kids be judged against a lesser standard? What the hell makes something a "kid's book" anyway? Beyond See Spot Run, anyway.

I wouldn't think of children's books as a lesser standard, I'd think of them as a different standard. When a series starts off with the main character finding out that he's really a wizard and rich and famous and great and his guardians are bastards and YOU could be a wizard too, I'd think of them as children's books in the vein of Cinderella.

Ah, the Changeling Fantasy

Whether they should be or not, they are. Shallow characterisation, weak plot containing glaring holes and a lack of atmospheric depth are things that wouldn't be criticised in a book aimed at 10 year olds to the extent that they are in a book for adults.

Still not a patch on Mortal Engines. Or Henry Tumour.

I quite enjoy the Harry Potter books but they do drop off in quality toward the end. But the world created is quite vital and alive. There's some sillinesses and irritations but overall I find them a thoroughly entertaining bit of escapism. What are the exact problems that people find with them? What is it that makes them 'poorly written'? What are the precise faults.

Anyway this is definitely the second best film of the series and I didn't even have a problem with the slightly different ending. I thought Draco Malfoy's scenes were often pretty good. Portraying the pressure he was feeling very well. Presenting him as a more human character than just an evil monster. He has certain expectations to live up to. It's an Empire Strikes Back moment. In many ways the new ending is more pleasing as it's not just a big flash bang wallop one where you can't fathom what's going off.

All in all I say everyone who doesn't like it is a rubbish miserable grump. So there.

I'm not sure that the Luna actress is very good though. Even if she does look a bit like Little Boots sometimes.

The Luna actress isn't actually acting. I saw a docu about the last film where they interviewed her and she is exactly that.

I like the books and the movies and I didnt really rate the new film.
Thought it had pacing issues and lack of anything happening - they even made the "exciting" bits unexciting and the burning of the Weasleys house was unneeded bobbins.

Thoroughly wasted Greyback too. I think he had, what, one line?

Plus, I felt the overall tone was ruined by most of the film being a teen rom-com.
Whilst parts were genuinely funny I felt they over-egged it.

But yeah it looked nice. Malfoy was good too.
Maybe ill see it again and think differently.

I think it would have been difficult to shoe horn in all the elements of the book. A little bit of a few things was effective enough I think. I still want more Helena (Bellatrix) though.

I quite liked the more drama talky side to this film. It had felt too hectic previously. After all the best things about the potter books are the characters.

Bellatrix was overused, but I guess they have to get their £££ worth.

Cant beleive they missed out the Gaunts. Big error.
Hope they cover this in the next film/s

Does hermoione get her tits out?

They've all hit puberty, the next one is called Harry Potter and the Hairy Stones.

Phwoar! That Harry Potter stinks!