Half-Blood, half-baked, whatever. Discussion with mild spoilers (oh, right, like you don’t know every beat already) follows:
The latest entry in the Harry Potter film series presupposes that you’ve either read the books, seen the previous films or–more than likely–both. It hits the ground running and just assumes that you’ll catch up. Even longtime fans can get thrown. I’ve read every book, seen every film, and still found myself saying about fifteen minutes in, “Who the hëll is the brunette?” before realizing to my surprise that it’s a very grown-up Ginny Weasley. (And am I the only one who cannot wait for Julie Walters to bellow defiantly, “Not my daughter, you bìŧçh!” in the last film?)
I have to think it’s a safe assumption. The problem is, if this really were your first exposure to “Harry Potter,” you might come away unable to fathom the popularity of the series, because you would think that it’s the most relentlessly depressing series of books ever to be produced. Even the Brothers Grimm weren’t this grim.
I get that the stakes have been raised with the return of Voldermort. I understand the notion that imminent death is now a very real concern, and that an uncertain future hangs upon our heroes and heroines like a shroud. But did they have to drape the shroud over the film’s color palette? We’re given a world filled with magic that’s so dreary, you half expect it it be in Swedish with English subtitles. To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, it ran the visual gamut from A to B. Frankly, it made my eyes hurt, which in turn makes me a little cranky, I suppose. But films shouldn’t be physically painful to watch. When “Speed Racer” came out, critics dissed it as being an explosion of color. Yeah, well, if these are the extremes of film making, I’ll take that over this style any day.
It doesn’t help that in addition to using exactly two color schemes–mono and chrome–director David Yates mostly gives us endless shots of unsmiling characters that, if they lingered any longer, could be fined for loitering. Cool set pieces are few and far between. Thank God for the Weasley clan: The all-too-brief sequence in the twins’ gag shop is the sole visual bright spot, festooned with energy and color that only underscores the lack of same for the rest of the film. And there’s Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley, the only character who–be it making his Quidditch debut or trying to fathom the depths of young love–is allowed to exhibit any serious bits of humor. And whenever someone does try to make light of the situation, Hermoine smacks them with whatever large piece of reading material happens to be at hand, to remind them that this is a latter day “Harry Potter” movie, gøddámņìŧ; if you want to see someone cracking wise, go watch one of the earlier films.
Some problems simply couldn’t be helped. Helena Bonham Carter’s Bellatrix is visibly pregnant in early scenes, and Tom Felton–although superbly acting the role–is clearly at least five years too old for the part of Draco. But what can you do? You can’t schedule gestation, and when producers floated the notion of recasting the kids several films ago, the outcry prompted them to back off the idea.
At this point the actors inhabit their characters with ease and confidence that only comes from experience (just look at Emma Watson in the first film and this one to see her growth as a thespian.) Alan Rickman does some of his best work as Snape (although with the presence of him, Tim Spall and Bonham Carter, I kept waiting for the lot of them to launch into songs from “Sweeney Todd.”) Jim Broadbent is a welcome addition as Professor Slughorn, although even his natural ebullience is muted by the film’s relentlessly dreary look. Particularly compelling is Michael Gambon as Dumbledore, who has finally–in my mind–put the ghost of Richard Harris to rest in a superbly layered performance, making the Hogwarts headmaster come across as a truly vulnerable human being for the first time. And screenwriter Steve Kloves has done yeoman’s work in getting the Rowling book down to a manageable movie length. Still, if Yates had cut together a film that moved instead of hovered, there might have been time to include a number of missing story elements. Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom, for instance, is criminally underrepresented. Considering the short shrift he’s been given lately, let’s hope they don’t excise his big moment in the series climax. It’s quite a formidable directing achievement to manage to suck out every drop of fun even from storylines involving percolating hormones and young teen love.
The problem is that Yates is directing the series finale as well. If this film is any indication, we’re looking at a possible six more hours worth (split in two) of grim people doing grim things grimly. You keep waiting for the Joker to run rampant through Hogwarts, bellowing, “Why so serious?”
Just because things are darkest before the dawn doesn’t mean they literally have to be THAT dark.
PAD
• 
Did they cut out Luna Lovegood’s Quidditch commentary???
Sadly, yes. I didn’t realize until the next day when I was chatting with a friend about it and mid-conversation (about another bit entirely, no less) yelled “DAMMIT! NO LUNA QUIDDITCH COMMENTARY!” startling both her and my cat (and confusing the former, who’s never read the books, though the latter took it in stride and went back to begging for snugglings). At least she sported a giant lion head…
.
All in all, I thought the movie was enjoyable. Some of Hermione’s expressions were priceless, especially the smirks whenever she caught Harry staring at Ginny. And I’m not sure, but I think Ron actually had a full gamut of facial expressions… who knew Rupert Grint could maybe possibly actually act? Bonham-Carter as Bellatrix was excellent, and whoever cast Luna should be bought a new BMW or something, ’cause she remains absolutely PERFECT. I wonder if she made any of her own costume designs again…
.
I did have some issues, most of which I won’t talk about so I don’t get yelled at for being a spoiler-monkey… but one thing I’m entirely not sure I like was having the Death Eaters flying about like a reject smoke cloud from the island of Lost. Granted, it’s been a while since I’ve read the books, but I don’t remember THAT…
.
Regardless, I’m gonna hafta see the movie again, just in the hopes that a particular 5 minutes or so, I’ll be able to see the screen without being all blurry from tears… and I’m man enough to admit that they weren’t just welling, they were DRIPPING.
.
And I will be most upset of Neville’s big moment gets cut (heh) from the next movie… or rather, the NEXT next movie. The fact that he was thrown in, even for as short a span as he was, gives me hope, however.
I’ve always thought Rupert Grint could act. I thought he was the best of the three kids in the first movie. True, he was terrible in the second film, because for some reason he was directed to act as though he were playing Shaggy from Scooby-Doo, but he got better after that.
And yes, Helena Bonham-Carter is glorious. I’m in love with her Bellatrix. I mean, I’m in love with her in every movie, but I would pay her to come to my house and play Bellatrix for me. She’s a work of art. Evey time she chants, “I killed Sirius Black!” in that singsong voice I just want to hug her.
(And am I the only one who cannot wait for Julie Walters to bellow defiantly, “Not my daughter, you bìŧçh!” in the last film?)
Not in the least! That’s the perfect angel-devil showdown!
Peter,
I agree with much of what you said. I know I always get into trouble when I say this, but I really liked the Christopher Columbus ones in the series. I liked the lighting. When Harry and his relatives are hiding from Hagrid and holed up in the light house, it’s a dark moment, but there are subtle, muted colors that pop and add life as well as “scariness” to the scenes.
To be fair, Ron at Quidditch was fun. But your right about the desaturated color. The scene with Malfoy hurt and the only real color is the red of his blood was to be ironic “bloodless”. The blood didn’t pop even though the rest of the colors were essentially black and white.
I also felt that Columbus did a better job of mixing the character moments with the plot moments. It didn’t seem like the story stopped to show Harry and Hermione ( or however you spell her name) moan about their respective love lives. I actually found the first two movies to be really fun, with a hint of darkness, yet they flowed. I never felt they were too long. But this one, while I liked it, seemed to be long. There was story they filmed that they could have cut out. I usually get all fanboyish and say, hey they left out x y and z, instead of saying they could have cut out 20 minutes of scenes. A first for the Potter movies.
You’re right about the Nigel character, but I suspect a lot of subplot has been moved to the next two movies. They have five or six hours to fill. But that’s a guess.
But I still enjoyed the film and am glad to have seen it. To be fair, these movies can’t be easy to put together and I’m glad they’ve kept all the actors. Losing only Richard Harris (and that couldn’t be helped) is pretty good for a film series over 10 years. Timothy Spall could have said he didn’t want to get made up for two minutes of film time with no lines and I wouldn’t have blamed him.
The kids are getting older, but I always say to myself, they’re supposed to get older and I won’t quibble about then aging out of the roles.
I don’t envy the filmmakers at this point. The early Potter books were tough enough to translate, but the later books have so much more material and layers to them that it’s really hard to do them justice. Now they have to gloss over key points. For example, Harry’s treating “the Half-Blood Prince” as a friend he would like, wanting to know who it is and the betrayal of finally discovering the truth. It’s not totally necessary to advancing the plot, so I can see why they dropped it. At this point the key points were to show the horcruxes, develop the future relationships and remove the mentor from the storyline.
I missed the funeral, though I did like the raised wand tribute.
And if they take Neville’s triumph away, I will be seriously upset. The good news, though, is that they seem to be taking a lot of time for the final battle. Somewhere along the lines of 30 minutes of screen time is being devoted to it. That may actually be too much, but I’ll withhold judgement until I see it.
I can’t disagree with Peter or the other posters in saying that the film is dark, but it didn’t bother me all that much in light of much of what was happening in the film. That said, I seem to remember reading somewhere (it might have been in Entertainment Weekly) that Yates and his cinematographer originally submitted the film with a bold and unusual color scheme that was quickly rejected by the powers-that-be at Warner Bros, so Yates had to go back in and re-grade (adjust the color) for the entire film. I would loved to have seem that original cut, especially since cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel worked on Amelie, one of my favorite films.
What struck me about this film, even more so than previous efforts is that it made the assumption, probably quite reasonable that many of the people seeing it have already read the book, or at least have access to kids who could provide a running commentary. There were a number of characters that weren’t introduced at all, which probably doesn’t make a big difference with the most of the regulars, but I don’t even remember Lavendar Brown being introduced by name until after Ron broke up with her. I’m prepared to be wrong on that if sombeody is about to see the film.
In a way, the Potter films are sort of unique in that you sort of have to read the books, although I thought Watchmen suffered the same problem. The down side to that approach is no matter how good the film is, you still know the bits that are missing. That didn’t bother me most of the time, the one notable exception being Harry’s stat of mind after his encounter with Draco, where he realizes he’s gone too far in terms of using the liner notes of his borrowed potions book, followed by Snape getting Harry to turn in the book. It’s a wonderful sequence, and I was quite sorry to see it missing in the film.
As far as Bonham Carter looking pregnant, I actually missed that, but I found that her characterization was so far over the top that it tended to unbalance the scenes that she was in (with the exception of the unbreakable vow sequence at the beginning). Much as I like the actress, I found that a little bit of Bellatrix went a long way, especially when you’ve also got a death eater like Fenrir Greyback who is absolutely chilling in the books, who is virtually silent in the movie, and again, almost unidentified but for a wanted poster with his name on it.
Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed Half-Blood Prince, but like all HP films, you have to accept them with all their flaws as well.
I agree with you about Gambon, Peter. I never cared for his Dumbledore, and felt he completely ruined the character in the beginning of the fourth film, when he angrily shook Harry, demanding to know if he tampered with the Goblet–the complete opposite of how Dumbledore acts in the book, not just in that scene, but in general (and in stark contrast to when he saves Harry from Barty Crouch Jr. at the end of that story, in which he is angry in the book). But in this film, I don’t know what it is, I don’t know if its how he looks, his voice, or whatever, I finally was able to see him as Dumbledore. Richard Harris looked and sounded liked a wisened and unflappable ancient wizard, and Gambon just came across as too young-sounding and verbally animated. But in this film, he does look and sound old and controlled, as if he’s holding back a lifetime’s worth of knowledge and emotions.
I didn’t notice the color palette or the dreariness, since I was just watching it to see how they adapted the book. I enjoyed it on those terms.
I always had a problem with Gambon’s Dumbledore in Prisoner of Azkhaban. While they are talking in the hospital wing, he obliviously thumps Ron’s bandaged foot — causing Ron to wince in pain.
That one scene, meant to inject humor, made Dumbeldore seem to be a bumbling oaf, not a sharp, observant and wise mentor.
Jim Henry writes:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually, I don’t think that’s the point of the scene. Dumbledore is deliberately *playing* stupid in that scene; he’s pretending to offer vague sentiments while coming off as a senile oaf — while subtlety hinting to Hermione exactly what she and Harry need to do to save Harry’s godfather (and the Hippogriff). He’s being silly to conceal the fact that he’s encouraging his students to break the law.
Harry: “We did it, sir!”
Dumbledore: “Did what? Good night.”
PoA is the only movie I feel Dumbledore is handled well, and I think the playfulness in the performance is due to Alfonso Cuaron’s direction for Michael Gambon. And without Cuaron to encourage subtlety and charm, Gambon’s Dumbledore became just another bearded authority figure just like every other bearded authority figure in fantasy stories.
Luigi, I agree with you about that scene in Goblet of Fire, which I saw again quite recently, so it’s relatively fresh in my mind. But I always put the blame on director Mike Newell, who I believe worked very closely with the actors and could well have pushed them up certain paths they might not have gone.
One can’t help wondering though, would there have been a built-in bias against Gambon if he had been cast in the role from the very beginning and didn’t have to suffer comparisons with Harris and his portrayal of the character?
Funnily enough, I think Dumbledore gets short-changed in the film version of Half-Blood Prince, as opposed to the novel, where Harry and Dumbledore a have a number of lengthy scenes together that really cement their relationship together. While I realize that a lot of those scenes had to be cut down or eliminated, it’s still a shame.
“We’re given a world filled with magic that’s so dreary, you half expect it it be in Swedish with English subtitles.”
Ok this had me howling with laughter, I know exactly what you mean – and have hunch exactly which movie this is referring to. Trust me if you’ve grown up in one of the Nordic countries it’s even more funny (and worse) because of how epidemic this style is here. This is why most young non-depressed Nordic moviegoers tend to be very good at English.
The problem I’ve always had with HBP is the book, I always thought that the book was rather disjointed and the plot action would always get caught up (harry runs and gets ron’s book to give to snape, etc). If only Jo and the screenwriter got together and created some masterwork because Jo gets some things right with what should happen and so did the screenwriter.
Basically I always did think HBP would have been a better movie. And even if my view is biased knowing that I know what was going on, I still think that to a point. That point would be the ending. The end stunk so bad, I liked the book’s better with all the chaos–then again when the battle of hogwarts happened in the seventh book I felt that was kind of a cheap repeat.
I know the funeral would have been a slogger to sit through as well but I think the end needed somthing instead of “hogwarts is pretty. Go ahead and snog Ginny, Harry”). Other things I didn’t care for–the attack on the burrow which again defeats the purpose of book 7 (much like they did in 5 when umbridge broke down the door to the room of requirement). It wouldn’t have killed them to explain things more. I think they should have included the gaunt memory or at least have more in the orphanage or a mention of voldermort’s mother and his obsession with ancestry.
Overall, it just was a lot smoother with the subplots of the love issues, you could see it progressing instead of come out of nowhere like it pretty much did in the book. The scene changes were a bit more smooth. McLaggen was great, still a jerk but more palitable. Everyone else did a great job acting even Felton who usually doesn’t sneer as much as he could (looks too happy not snotty–like in GOF). I guess the only issues I had with it were little things that they should have used to their advantage. But oh well.
I believe Kloves said he dropped the fight at Hogwarts because it would deflate the other fight at Hogwarts in book/movie 7. I did like how it was pared down to just the Harry / Snape confrontation, that’s where the drama is. We’ve seen a lot of people waving wands about yelling “CRUCIO!” throughout the series, so losing another magic fight is no big deal.
I thought the action sequence in the middle was very well done – shaky cam and near silence – but it did feel a bit manufactured. Notice how Ron wasn’t depressed about it back at school, and they never mentioned it again. I thought in book 7 the attack at the wedding happened at the Wesley house, but I’m pretty sure I read it happens somewhere else.
So he decided to undercut the dramatics of this film because he was concerned about a movie coming out in two years?
.
Yeah, uh…no.
.
PAD
Actually, my bad, it was producer David Heyman who the quote is attributed to http://tinyurl.com/p22f93
And he says the were “avoiding repetition” by removing the battle and not that specifically Kloves decided to change it but “we decided” which could mean everyone involved in the production from Heyman to Kloves to the catering guy.
Still, I do agree with them because, as an overall series and for people not reading the books, it would seem more dramatic to put an epic battle in Hogwarts at the very end of Deathly Hallows. (example: the second Death Star battle in Star Wars feels a tad redundant and unoriginal) And, like I said, the real point of that hubabaloo in HBP is having Harry confront Snape, and that is still there (and very well done). It’s only drawback is Hogwarts staff looks a tad ineffectual that the bad guys kill off Dumbledore and then the Death Eaters simply walk out blowing stuff up along the way with nobody trying to stop them except Harry. But hey, they’re wizards, they can get away very easily, I guess. It’s magic!
I see your point about leaving out the battle in Hogwart because of taking away from it in the last book/movie but did it make sense for death eaters to enter Hogwarts without any resistance? Snape would have known because of being in contact with Vold..He Who Must Not Be Named, but the Order of the Phoenix should have had some sot of presence. It just would have made more sense. There are many other things left out that I thought should have been at least mentioned, but the movie in my head is always better than the movie I sit in the theater and watch.
I don’t really agree with Peter. I did notice the weird photography but it didn’t really bother me. If it was a result of changing the timing because of Warner Bros not liking the original than they probably worked it all out for the Seventh. I think the thing is the humor in the earlier films were based on magic. Practically all the magic in the Columbus films and even up to GOF were kind of delightful and whimsical. Now the magic shown is really scary and dangerous and most of the comedy now is character based but I liked a lot of it.
I hope for the first part of Deathly Hallows captures the excitement of the trio off alone on an adventure outside of Hogwarts that I felt reading the book. It’s scary but fun as well. The second part will have the big battle of Hogwarts and hope it’s the same excitement too.
I really couldn’t disagree more. I thought the movie was nearly perfect (the only real flaw, from a filmmaking standpoint, was the scene near the beginning in Ron’s bedroom, which was shot and edited very strangely and awkwardly… it was almost like a parody of the typical shot-reverse-shot scene). In fact, I thought it was a vast improvement over the book, which I thought was mostly pretty dull, and easily the best of the film series.
I thought the cinematography was absolutely gorgeous. The dark tones and muted color palette seemed very appropriate, and helped to show not only that these were dark times for the characters, but that the films, like the characters themselves, are growing up and maturing.
And I completely disagree that everyone but Ron was humorless. Harry was actually pretty hilarious. Daniel Radcliffe has grown leaps and bounds as an actor, and he has never been more confident or charming than he is in this film. His subtle little reactions and facial expressions were brilliant. David Yates really knows how to direct actors. Even Emma Watson was decent in this film (although she was terrible in the last one). And Luna and Lavender were never not funny.
Felton’s age didn’t bother me, either (I think he was only 20). After all, when are teenagers in movies ever played by actual teenagers? This movie is actually a less egregious example than, well, pretty much any other TV show or movie set in high school (like Glee, for instance, which has a 27-year-old man playing a high school student).
I actually disagree that it was too dark, in fact I thought it was one of the more lighthearted entries in the series (ending aside). That scene when Harry takes the good look potion was absolutely hilarious and easily the funniest that Radcliffe has ever been in the series. Also that little bit when Harry and Ron struggled for the potions book (after stopping and looking at each other) was gold. As was the whole potions scene (and Watson looking progressively more exasperated as it went on) I think by dropping the majority of the Voledmort flashabcks, the movie lost a bit of menace that crept up the spine of the story. (Also, if they had kept in the Voldemort goes back to Hogwarts memory, it would have gotten Ralph Fiennes back into it. And it’s good to establish showing your bad guy to the audience – not just kid versions – if a huge chunk of the story is devoted to defeating him). As it stands, the movie is mostly a lot of romantic screwing around and then a really heavy ending. But I liked it quite a lot overall. Not the best HP flick, I toss up in between Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet for that – but a solid entry in the series. It wasn’t better than the book – Order of the Phoenix was the only movie that pulled off that bit of magic (I love the Harry is possessed by Voldemort ending in the movie. In the book it’s two throwaway paragraphs that are rather confusing, the movie it becomes the emotional climax of the flick) – but it was pretty close.
y’know, I rather liked it.
I didn’t really miss the funeral scene, as it would have been redundant.
What I really liked this time, was the SCORE! It really clicked with me, which is unusual. Movie scores usually leave me frustrated as often composers will completely take over a scene with their music. In Half-Blood Prince, I felt the music was complimentary when used, and not missed when left out. Bravo!
I thought my favourite musical bit was when Harry and Dumbledore were outside of the cave, great bit there.
I completely agree about the music. It was a very subtle and elegant score, and very atypical of recent Hollywood movie scores, which like to hammer home the emotional truth of the scene. I thought Hooper did a great job in the last movie and an even better job this time around.
And yeah, the loss of the funeral scene seems to be the biggest complaint of the movie’s detractors, but you know what? I don’t even remember the funeral scene from the book! You’re right, it would have been redundant.
I have a feeling that years, possibly decades, from now, probably after my own time on this planet has passed, someone will do the Harry Potter books as miniseries, possibly a joint effort between the BBC and an American network. And then, they’ll get in all the material that the movies had to leave out.
I haven’t read a smidge of the Harry Potter books. The first four movies were comprehensible. The last one obviously was missing half the book. This one was a fricking mess.
I was honestly bored by the film. Fell asleep about 4 times. The visual gags and background bits that gave the previous ones life were largely absent.
We saw it with a gaggle of teenage girls, who giggled and laughed at *everything* in the film. Anything funny, anything implying romance, and a whole lot that was neither? Did they do this at Twilight, too?
What was with the photographers at the start? I’m now told that they were carryover from the last scene, but they “read” like a flash forward to later in the film.
So those were Death Eaters and not Dementors flying around? Who could tell?
Who were the other couple at the Weasleys? I think I remember him from the last film, but um, huh? And why did Harry run out of the house and through the fire (and why did Ginny follow him)?
That genuinely was Helena Bonham Carter? Jeez, when I said to my film companion that it was here from Sweeney Todd (the first film we watched together), I thought I was joking!
The film just kind of ended. It felt like there was another “beat” due at the end, but it never came.
Don’t think I’ll bother with the last two films. Save the $20 and spend it on something that won’t confuse me with what’s not there. An Eregon video, maybe. (Cheap shot)
Oh yes, and…
Why was Sirius Black important? Should I care? (I assume RAB on the horcrux note must be, was it Reginald Black?)
Why was the Half-Blood Prince titleworthy? After who it was was revealed… that’s it?
I know it’s dramatic to pull a cloth off a cabinet, but why did Draco keep putting it back on?
Thought Jim Broadbent was great, though.
I always viewed it as while its ostensibly about the potions book, the real “Half Blood Prince” of the book is Voldemort and the overall point of the the book is that it’s an in-depth examination of his history. But since they cut out, like, 75% of the flashbacks, they kinda missed the point.
Half-Blood Prince is a far more apt title than Goblet Of Fire was. That one just seems plucked from the story at random.
Goblet of Fire is a better title than the working title, Harry Potter and the Doomspell Tournament, though.
Harry was running after Bellatrix, who killed Sirius, his godfather (and Sirius was important because he was Harry’s godfather). Ginny followed him because she loved him.
Sounds like you should have rewatched the previous movies before watching this one. Most of your problems with it stem from simply not remembering the other films. That’s not exactly the movie’s fault.
Although you have a point about the Half-Blood Prince. That story line was more important in the book, but they downplayed it for the movie so the title is like, “huh?”
“Who were the other couple at the Weasleys? I think I remember him from the last film, but um, huh?”
Remus Lupin and Tonks. Remus has been around since the 3rd film, shouldn’t be that tough for most people remember. Seriously, a lot of your questions do not seem to be actual flaws in the film as much as your apparent lack of interest in the franchise.
“Who the heck is the pointy eared guy on this ships bridge and why should I care?”
MASSIVE SPOILERS BELOW, JUST IN CASE
Well, I felt in a few sections that Stephen Klowes in Half-Blood Prince not only took a hatchet to the book in order to make it fit into the movie, but tried to insert some of his own original scenes as well. I didn’t mind so much some of the missing materials, but others simply made no sense. I’ll point to Harry taking on all the Death Eaters by himself. In the original movie, the Death Eater, Malfoy and Snape didn’t have time to turn around. I don’t have the books with me, but I believe that Snape stayed behind just long enough to duel Harry.
In the movie, the Death Eaters seem to have free reign of Hogwarts, and when Harry attacks Snape, Snape defeats him and then, when Bellatrix wants to finish him off, says “No! He’s the Dark Lord’s.” I gotta tell you, I really wanted to see the scene afterwards.
Voldemort: “How did it go?”
Bellatrix: “We did well. We killed Dumbledore AND beat Harry Potter!”
Voldemort: “Did you kill him?”
Bellatrix: “No…Snape said that he was yours to kill.”
Voldemort: “Excellent. Tell me, did you happen to bring Potter back after you’d beaten him?”
Snape: “…”
Voldemort: “Oh, come ON now!”
You get the idea. I felt a lot like I was being treated to a montage of scenes from the book, without a lot of thought given to the connections between them. And I kinda hate saying that about Klowes because he must have agonized over that script, trying to figure out what was best to keep in and what could be removed. One can only imagine he’s doing cartwheels at this point because he doesn’t have to fit a whacking huge plot into one movie anymore.
One bit of criticism I would like to level at him, though, is his inclusion of whole scenes that weren’t in the book. He could have at least taken a little time to start up the beginning with Dumbledore visiting the Dursleys, and not had Bellatrix and the three Death Eaters set fire to the Weasley’s house, a scene which did nothing for me.
Chris, on the one hand I would agree with your point about adding ‘new’ scenes when too many scenes from the book were already cut out, but in terms of story construction, if you chop out major chunks of narrative, you may have to ‘add’ a few bits and pieces so the story ultimately makes sense.
With the added scene at the Weasley house, one of the other journalists asked producer David Heyman about that when we were doing doing a set visit for the film, and he said they wanted to place Harry and Ginny in the center of something dangerous to keep that sense of what was going on,’ presumably outside Hogwarts, They talked to Rowling about it who was supportive of the added scene.
Joe,
I get where you’re coming from, which I think leads to my overall point–I thought the movie was way too disjointed, and the added scenes did nothing to help me connect the narrative together.
I don’t want to come off as a pompous fan or a wanna-be writer telling a pro what they should do, but certain things I was waiting for the payoff and they just didn’t seem to happen. Things like Harry and Ginny, and Ron giving his (kind of) approval. Like Snape giving Harry detention for almost killing Malfoy, among other things. I do get why the producers wanted to keep that sense of danger, but I thought burning down the Weasley’s home was pretty much violating the last sanctuary, especially in terms of the last book. Just my opinion, though.
I should like to point out that I didn’t hate the movie, no exceptions. There were quite a few very nice touches, but overall I just didn’t feel like the coherent story was there. Sorry…
Pretty much ditto to everything you said, PAD. I finally got to see HALF-BLOOD today and I get the feeling that David Yates believes that he needs to make a “serious” film and that means draining out as much whimsy and wonder as possible.
Up till now, ORDER OF THE PHOENIX was my least favorite of the movie series. I hoped, as was the case with the other films, another director would take the helm. When that didn’t happen, I hoped that perhaps OotP leadeness was due to the usual screenwriter, Steven Klowes, not penning that one. Now I conclude it was most likely due to Yate’s directorial hand.
This really bugs me since I am apparently doomed to watch a joyless and, dare I say, deathly serious DEATHLY HALLOWS. I am sadly resigned that my favorite scene from that book, when Harry walks into Luna’s bedroom and is overwhelmed by Luna’s painted declaration of friendship, will be the first scene excised.
I guess we have different definitions of “whimsy,” “wonder,” and “joyless.” Because to me, it was the most whimsical, wonderful, and joyous movie of the entire series. Even the little moments, like Aragog’s funeral, were filled with utter joy, not only for the characters, but for the art of cinema. Every shot was so lovingly composed and crafted that I had tears in my eyes for most of the running time.
.
Now Columbus’s two efforts, those lacked whimsy and wonder.
.
I wouldn’t worry about that scene from Deathly Hallows being excised, because A. Yates seems to really love Luna, and B. it’s being split into two movies, so there is much more room for stuff like that. I’d totally forgotten about that scene, but you’re right, it was one of the best moments of the book.