![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oatmeal_queenok, so...got to see Half Blood Prince on a random right-time-right-place opening day of tyson's corner today, so i totally took the opportunity.
It's been awhile since I read the book, but the general idea was there when i went in. The whole thing is pretty much centered around...wait for it...the Half Blood Prince along with some pieces of Voldy's soul. whatever. but mainly, it's about the identity and history of this mysterious Prince while other shit is going on around that base plotline.
Like i said, i haven't read it in awhile, but wow, what a switcheroo. It worked decently as a movie, albeit exceptionally slooooooow in weird parts that could have been tightened (i always blame the editors for stuff like that. cause, really, they have ONE job) and there was a lot that seemed rather unnecessary to slam home over and over again, but all in all, fairly entertaining.
what was weird, i think, would be going to see this movie having not read any of the books and only knowing the previous films. So little was explained by the end, let alone a decent amount of screentime as to why it was that the film was NAMED the Half Blood Prince. It leaves the otherwise ignorant viewer rather...well, lost. they don't even reveal who the Prince was til the end, and even then it's like 'oh wait...was that important? really?' -.-
now, don't get me wrong, i like these films, but ever since the first one i have had issues with the acting of MOST of the children. there are a few that have gotten sooo much better as they went (Neville!! Where did you go?!?! Stop serving drinks and get onscreen!) but most have actually kinda stayed about the same.
The kid who plays Harry has wonderful comedic timing, he does silliness and action really well, but not so much with the dramatic stuff. it feels like his lines are read out to him at the last minute, and there isn't much in the way of reaction to what he's saying.
Ron got CRAZY shunted, like, to the point that he was almost a background character, so it was hard to judge with him for this one. that was fairly disappointing since he's one of the main three.
The girl playing Hermione makes me twitch (still). She's far better than she used to be, but her lines always seem so forced. More like she's on stage than behind a camera (and yes, there is a HUGE difference) and what was with all the pining? she was not that desperate for Ron in the book, i know that for a fact, so why'd they make her out to be a jilted prom date?
or maybe i'm just too old now and that's how kids act today? i got nuthin.
Ginny has two expressions. Calm, and freaked the fuck out.
maybe it's just me, but all the raging twitterpated hormones thing srsly just got on my nerves more than it amused me. I was way more interested when people were getting killed then when they were all making out. nice job movie.
and really...don't get me started on Lavender. sweet jesus, someone get Ron a tranq.
i still love Luna.
the only main cast kid that was exactly the way he was supposed to act and be from the books (that had decent screen time) was Draco. well played with your emo, brooding self, dude. i dunno if it was all that hard, but hey, you pulled it off.
on the other hand, i LOVED the two boys who played younger versions of Voldemort, when he was Tom Riddle. He was so frighteningly Damien <3 it was beautifully creepy. and on that note, how the HELL DID NO ONE SEE HOW EVIL THIS CHILD WAS?! holy crap, he was emanating with bad news from the get go. and i loved when he was the devilishly suave hogwarts student. i love his character so much more on screen than i do in the books, which is backasswards, but a tribute to how well he's played at all ages, truly.
for the adult actors, however, that's a different story entirely. i am NOT a Snape lover. good golly, give that man some therapy in the books. but on screen, Alan Rickman owns that character SO WELL that i can't help but like him, in all his sniveling and irritated glory. i never wanted so much for him to backhand all three of the potter trio, just once. even though you're rooting for them, the teenage bullshit was getting so old and there were FAR BETTER THINGS TO BE WORRYING ABOUT. *SNAPESMASH*
i disaprove with how the ending was handled -.- wth. it was like they realized at the last minute that they took too long focusing on unimportant shit at the beginning (spider funeral? was that really necessary?), so now they have to rush through and half ass the end. lame. where was the battle?!?
i shed a tear for Dumbledore, i'll admit it. i really liked the first actor to play him (RIP), but the second one has more than earned his right to beGandalfDumbledore in all his old man of awesome glory. (where was the funeral tho?!!?!? nuuuu!)
one of the few things i recall when i read the book the first time was wondering how the hell they were going to film that scene with the horcrux and the water zombies and everything, but it was actually pulled off rather well. the end kinda annoyed me with the whole 'oh noes we're in danger' right before it jumps straight to 'SOMEHOW, WE'RE OK' and continues on. huh. k, then. oh look! more teen drama!
.__.
and, as always, ILU Dame Maggie Smith. You will forever be my McGonagall (and Mother Superior) in all your short scripted glory. if only the writers felt the same and gave you the awesomeness to work with that was in the books. *sigh*
the humor in this was well played. i found myself laughing a great deal more than in any of the other movies, but not inappropriately. it was written straight for kids being kids and being amusing idiots while they're at it. and i was glad to see a lot of the humor from the books actually brought to attention, especially with such a darkening plot.
whoah there, flaming Weasley house o.o that was...new.
am i wrong, or was that not supposed to happen yet?
wtf, where was percy, bill and charlie!?!? WHERE MA WEASLEYS AT?
they had a hard time bringing in new characters and actually involving them in the plot. like the VERY INTERESTING bad guys who were suddenly appearing in random places to blow shit up, but were never really introduced. they were just there to be...scary, i guess?
all in all, i laughed, i cried (just a little!), i shivered and i cheered. and i'd definitely see it again, because the awesome outweighed the bad and it was still beautiful onscreen.
i'm not falling over myself impressed, but i approve.
and on a random side note, a resounding FUCK YOU to Tyson's Corner. i have never had a good experience driving there and i HATE the snobby whino pricks that use it as a high society social hookup. this time, i was literally stalked back to my car by an asshole in a souped up mustang so that he could snag my parking spot. and i'm not talking a few feet, i mean from the entrance to the mall all the way to the opposite end of the parking lot (which is a huge damn parking lot, btw), he may as well have been pushing me with his fender. assHOLE.
It's been awhile since I read the book, but the general idea was there when i went in. The whole thing is pretty much centered around...wait for it...the Half Blood Prince along with some pieces of Voldy's soul. whatever. but mainly, it's about the identity and history of this mysterious Prince while other shit is going on around that base plotline.
Like i said, i haven't read it in awhile, but wow, what a switcheroo. It worked decently as a movie, albeit exceptionally slooooooow in weird parts that could have been tightened (i always blame the editors for stuff like that. cause, really, they have ONE job) and there was a lot that seemed rather unnecessary to slam home over and over again, but all in all, fairly entertaining.
what was weird, i think, would be going to see this movie having not read any of the books and only knowing the previous films. So little was explained by the end, let alone a decent amount of screentime as to why it was that the film was NAMED the Half Blood Prince. It leaves the otherwise ignorant viewer rather...well, lost. they don't even reveal who the Prince was til the end, and even then it's like 'oh wait...was that important? really?' -.-
now, don't get me wrong, i like these films, but ever since the first one i have had issues with the acting of MOST of the children. there are a few that have gotten sooo much better as they went (Neville!! Where did you go?!?! Stop serving drinks and get onscreen!) but most have actually kinda stayed about the same.
The kid who plays Harry has wonderful comedic timing, he does silliness and action really well, but not so much with the dramatic stuff. it feels like his lines are read out to him at the last minute, and there isn't much in the way of reaction to what he's saying.
Ron got CRAZY shunted, like, to the point that he was almost a background character, so it was hard to judge with him for this one. that was fairly disappointing since he's one of the main three.
The girl playing Hermione makes me twitch (still). She's far better than she used to be, but her lines always seem so forced. More like she's on stage than behind a camera (and yes, there is a HUGE difference) and what was with all the pining? she was not that desperate for Ron in the book, i know that for a fact, so why'd they make her out to be a jilted prom date?
or maybe i'm just too old now and that's how kids act today? i got nuthin.
Ginny has two expressions. Calm, and freaked the fuck out.
maybe it's just me, but all the raging twitterpated hormones thing srsly just got on my nerves more than it amused me. I was way more interested when people were getting killed then when they were all making out. nice job movie.
and really...don't get me started on Lavender. sweet jesus, someone get Ron a tranq.
i still love Luna.
the only main cast kid that was exactly the way he was supposed to act and be from the books (that had decent screen time) was Draco. well played with your emo, brooding self, dude. i dunno if it was all that hard, but hey, you pulled it off.
on the other hand, i LOVED the two boys who played younger versions of Voldemort, when he was Tom Riddle. He was so frighteningly Damien <3 it was beautifully creepy. and on that note, how the HELL DID NO ONE SEE HOW EVIL THIS CHILD WAS?! holy crap, he was emanating with bad news from the get go. and i loved when he was the devilishly suave hogwarts student. i love his character so much more on screen than i do in the books, which is backasswards, but a tribute to how well he's played at all ages, truly.
for the adult actors, however, that's a different story entirely. i am NOT a Snape lover. good golly, give that man some therapy in the books. but on screen, Alan Rickman owns that character SO WELL that i can't help but like him, in all his sniveling and irritated glory. i never wanted so much for him to backhand all three of the potter trio, just once. even though you're rooting for them, the teenage bullshit was getting so old and there were FAR BETTER THINGS TO BE WORRYING ABOUT. *SNAPESMASH*
i disaprove with how the ending was handled -.- wth. it was like they realized at the last minute that they took too long focusing on unimportant shit at the beginning (spider funeral? was that really necessary?), so now they have to rush through and half ass the end. lame. where was the battle?!?
i shed a tear for Dumbledore, i'll admit it. i really liked the first actor to play him (RIP), but the second one has more than earned his right to be
one of the few things i recall when i read the book the first time was wondering how the hell they were going to film that scene with the horcrux and the water zombies and everything, but it was actually pulled off rather well. the end kinda annoyed me with the whole 'oh noes we're in danger' right before it jumps straight to 'SOMEHOW, WE'RE OK' and continues on. huh. k, then. oh look! more teen drama!
.__.
and, as always, ILU Dame Maggie Smith. You will forever be my McGonagall (and Mother Superior) in all your short scripted glory. if only the writers felt the same and gave you the awesomeness to work with that was in the books. *sigh*
the humor in this was well played. i found myself laughing a great deal more than in any of the other movies, but not inappropriately. it was written straight for kids being kids and being amusing idiots while they're at it. and i was glad to see a lot of the humor from the books actually brought to attention, especially with such a darkening plot.
whoah there, flaming Weasley house o.o that was...new.
am i wrong, or was that not supposed to happen yet?
wtf, where was percy, bill and charlie!?!? WHERE MA WEASLEYS AT?
they had a hard time bringing in new characters and actually involving them in the plot. like the VERY INTERESTING bad guys who were suddenly appearing in random places to blow shit up, but were never really introduced. they were just there to be...scary, i guess?
all in all, i laughed, i cried (just a little!), i shivered and i cheered. and i'd definitely see it again, because the awesome outweighed the bad and it was still beautiful onscreen.
i'm not falling over myself impressed, but i approve.
and on a random side note, a resounding FUCK YOU to Tyson's Corner. i have never had a good experience driving there and i HATE the snobby whino pricks that use it as a high society social hookup. this time, i was literally stalked back to my car by an asshole in a souped up mustang so that he could snag my parking spot. and i'm not talking a few feet, i mean from the entrance to the mall all the way to the opposite end of the parking lot (which is a huge damn parking lot, btw), he may as well have been pushing me with his fender. assHOLE.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 05:11 am (UTC)But the movies themselves are sparkly and fun, so I tend to forget that there's a book series of the same name and treat them as two separate (but equally entertaining) series.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 02:35 pm (UTC)and the movies ARE sparkly and fun <3 so i think that's pretty much why i keep going to see them and buying them on DVD :3
no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 10:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 02:33 pm (UTC)and agreed! i really didn't like snape in the books (oh tragic unloved woe!), but i love him in the movies.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 05:15 pm (UTC)There's tension and backstory that's hard to film, or you'd have hours and hours of filler (Lord of the Rings anyone?) You'd have 7 or 8 4-hour movies, that's nuts. Though I'd totally watch it if showed Harry getting naked in the tub in the Goblet of Fire. <3
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 01:56 am (UTC)And about the guy in the car following you...I'd have weaved in and out of rows of cars making it an awful pain for him to figure out where I parked. But then again...I think it's funny to irritate jerks.