Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

[Argus]

Admittedly I'm not one of those who ever fell for the Harry Potter craze. I've been reading Science Fiction and Fantasy since I was ten, but the cutesy pie nature of Harry Potter just never really interested me. I did catch the previous movies on television, though, so I'm not ignorant of the basic premise. Anyway, I was recently persuaded to join a couple of friends at an IMAX presentation of the latest Harry Potter. I was not much impressed by the state of high fantasy as demonstrated by Hollywood these days.

The first ten minutes, admittedly, were kind of neat because they'd done it in 3D. But after that the movie wore on, a sort of teenage-angst theme occupied much of it with the good guy, the bad guy, and the girls. The romances were, to say the least, improbable and sudden. The magic was, for the most part, pretty low key and silly.

When wizards fight, it seems, they shoot little sparks from their wands, but aside from that they could as easily be shooting each other with glocks or phasers. Oh, and now and then they shout, perhaps to add emphasis. Bang! I got you, ya dirty rat!

Harry Potter is an unremakable boy as to looks and demonstrated abilities. He doesn't seem capable of doing anything particularly magical for a wizard, can claim no particular powers above his peers, and does nothing heroic in the movie. In fact, in his only confrontation with real wizards he is brushed aside somewhat contemptuously like a yapping poodle. "Go way, boy, ya bother me". Hermione, who used to be the brainy, nerdy girl is just a typical lovesick teenage girl with no special aptitude for anything. These kids have developed into very ordinary people of little real interest except for Luna Lovegood, a fairly recent addition who continues to be intriguing.

The special effects, aside from the opening 3D, or lacklustre. They're sufficient to the story, but as the story calls for nothing much that isn't saying a lot.

When I think of some of the fantasies I've read, and the descriptions of fights and trials between and among wizards, this one just makes me snicker.

[Oleg Bach]

I was fine with this bit of occult anti-christism - but when they sprung it on the kids that one of the old characters was gay - showing no signs of it in the book or the movie - then I saw occult being abused and misused..Why the hell would the media suddenly release the idea that - a person is outted after the fact - He was not outted in the movie? I think that this whole craze kicks Christianity in the face and attempts to weaken our young with occultiism - which is simply trickery...Look up the term magic - it means "trick" The Harry Potter craze tricked and made dupe of millions of kids - all written by some former welfare mum that sold her soul for riches - now that's magical..

[Riverwind]

When wizards fight, it seems, they shoot little sparks from their wands, but aside from that they could as easily be shooting each other with glocks or phasers. Oh, and now and then they shout, perhaps to add emphasis. Bang! I got you, ya dirty rat!

All story lines with magic have put restrictions on what it can do otherwise there would be no tension or plot - the magic would just solve everything. In most cases, the limitations are as irrational and as arbitrary as the magic itself. In Harry Potter magic is a stick turned into a phasor gun.

Harry Potter is an unremarkable boy as to looks and demonstrated abilities. He doesn't seem capable of doing anything particularly magical for a wizard.

Gandalf in the Lord of Rings was really nothing more than an old man in a pointy hat. The magic is simply a backdrop for a story that is ultimately supposed to be about people. On that front the Harry Potter movies are not that compellling.

These kids have developed into very ordinary people of little real interest except for Luna Lovegood, a fairly recent addition who continues to be intriguing.

I really wanted Harry to hook up with Luna when I read the books - but alas - he goes for the popular chick. OTOH, the fact that I cared enough about the character to have an opinion is a sign, IMHO, that the author did something right.

When I think of some of the fantasies I've read, and the descriptions of fights and trials between and among wizards, this one just makes me snicker.

The trials of Harry are much more evident in the books. The movie does not really explain that the reasons why he is in such a pivotal role. The movies also omitted all of the back story for the bad guys which gave the books a lot more depth (i.e. you could actually emphathize with some of the bad guys after reading the books).

[Oleg Bach]

Hear of nerdy Trekers - but not Poters!

[kimmy]

Harry Potter is an unremakable boy as to looks and demonstrated abilities. He doesn't seem capable of doing anything particularly magical for a wizard, can claim no particular powers above his peers, and does nothing heroic in the movie. In fact, in his only confrontation with real wizards he is brushed aside somewhat contemptuously like a yapping poodle.

While not a dedicated follower of the books or the movies, I gather that Harry is not *supposed* to be particularly powerful or gifted, and that the reason he has been made the focus of all of this intrigue is a mystery to everyone (except for the evil guy with no nose.)

The trials of Harry are much more evident in the books. The movie does not really explain that the reasons why he is in such a pivotal role. The movies also omitted all of the back story for the bad guys which gave the books a lot more depth (i.e. you could actually emphathize with some of the bad guys after reading the books).

I have not read the books, but I have heard critics complain that the movies are a pale shadow of the books.

One particular comment I recall is that Rowling is so skilled with dialogue that each character has a unique speech pattern that is consistent throughout the series and which can be associated to a specific English regional dialect; by contrast most authors are only able to do 3 or 4 speech patterns at the most... the words they use might be different, but the sentence structure and pacing remain the same regardless of who's talking.

(J.R.R. Tolkien has 20 different speakers at the Council of Elrond; each is unique. But Tolkien was a linguist primarily, and an author only by hobby.)

I was fine with this bit of occult anti-christism - but when they sprung it on the kids that one of the old characters was gay - showing no signs of it in the book or the movie - then I saw occult being abused and misused..Why the hell would the media suddenly release the idea that - a person is outted after the fact - He was not outted in the movie?

I write, and I know far more about all of my characters than I have any need to write in a story. Any author does the same. I don't need to write in my story that my heroine was afraid of the dark and slept with a night-light until she was 10 years old, but I need to know that because when the lights go out and there are footsteps in the hall, I need to know how she is going to react.

Rowling was asked questions about her characters, and she let her interviewer in on some details that she had in mind when she created the characters, yet had no reason to include in the book. That she had thought about the sexual orientation of a character in a story where nobody actually has sex just means that she had an understanding of the character she wanted to create.

I think that this whole craze kicks Christianity in the face and attempts to weaken our young with occultiism - which is simply trickery...Look up the term magic - it means "trick" The Harry Potter craze tricked and made dupe of millions of kids - all written by some former welfare mum that sold her soul for riches - now that's magical..

And this is just a load of crap. How have kids been "weakened" or "duped"? Rowling got millions of kids to put down their Nintendos and their Pokemon cards and pick up a book. She should probably receive some sort of medal for this.

That Rowling may have been a single mother at some point is of no consequence... she's made herself a billionaire with the power of her imagination and her writing skills. If that's such a simple trick to accomplish, where's YOUR billion dollars, Oleg? I bet the entire world wouldn't scrape together more than a nickel for the collected works of Oleg Bach.

-k

[Guest TrueMetis]

I'm never gonna watch this movie cause this was the book that ruined the series for me. Rowling sucks her books are pathetically good vs evil, black and white were is the gray? If you want a book with some actual depth read George R R Martins A song of Fire and Ice. Of course if you really liked Harry Potter don't read it because most fantasy book look like crap after reading A Song of Fire and Ice. Even LOTR looks like crap compared to it.

[Oleg Bach]

I'm never gonna watch this movie cause this was the book that ruined the series for me. Rowling sucks her books are pathetically good vs evil, black and white were is the gray? If you want a book with some actual depth read George R R Martins A song of Fire and Ice. Of course if you really liked Harry Potter don't read it because most fantasy book look like crap after reading A Song of Fire and Ice. Even LOTR looks like crap compared to it.

Rowling is no Dickens. There are not great expectations here.

[Riverwind]

Rowling sucks her books are pathetically good vs evil, black and white were is the gray?

A steady diet of deeply flawed heroes bumbling through to an ambiguous end gets boring after a lot of repetition too. Batman makes me appreciate Superman and vise versa.

[Wild Bill]

I'm never gonna watch this movie cause this was the book that ruined the series for me. Rowling sucks her books are pathetically good vs evil, black and white were is the gray? If you want a book with some actual depth read George R R Martins A song of Fire and Ice. Of course if you really liked Harry Potter don't read it because most fantasy book look like crap after reading A Song of Fire and Ice. Even LOTR looks like crap compared to it.

"A Song of Fire and Ice"? I tried to get through it but I kept falling asleep! I think ol' George is getting old.

The man COULD write, I well know! Back in the 80's I read his "Armageddon Rag". From the moment I opened it I couldn't put it down.

Chaque a son gout, I guess.

[Argus]

I'm never gonna watch this movie cause this was the book that ruined the series for me. Rowling sucks her books are pathetically good vs evil, black and white were is the gray? If you want a book with some actual depth read George R R Martins A song of Fire and Ice. Of course if you really liked Harry Potter don't read it because most fantasy book look like crap after reading A Song of Fire and Ice. Even LOTR looks like crap compared to it.

If you say so. I didn't get through the second book. They are toweringly depressing, ceaselessly dark and humourless, at least up to that point.

On the other hand, I have read and enjoyed Tolkien repeatedly.

[segnosaur]

I'm never gonna watch this movie cause this was the book that ruined the series for me. Rowling sucks her books are pathetically good vs evil, black and white were is the gray?

First of all, while it IS true that there is a lot of black and white/good vs. evil in Harry Potter, keep in mind that the series was originally geared towards children/younger adults.

Secondly, there IS a significant amount of 'gray' in the books. Yes, Vodemort can be considered pure 'evil', Dumbledore 'good', but many of the other characters DO have a certain ambiguity, and their motivations are not always clear. For example:

- Draco, may be considered 'evil', but is unable to accomplish his goals in HBP

- The motivations for Snape's actions are as yet unclear

- Even though Harry can be considered MOSTLY good, he still often lets baser instincts (revenge, etc.) dictate his actions

[segnosaur]

When wizards fight, it seems, they shoot little sparks from their wands, but aside from that they could as easily be shooting each other with glocks or phasers.

Ummm... so? What's wrong with using their wands as weapons? Would you have enjoyed the movie more had Harry been packing an M-16 rather than his wand?

(From a logistical standpoint, it makes sense that they would use wands rather than guns... no need to worry about ammunition, and the wand would have non-combat purposes as well.)

Oh, and now and then they shout, perhaps to add emphasis.

Or, it could be the result of excitement/adrenaline of the combatants.

Harry Potter is an unremakable boy as to looks and demonstrated abilities.

So? What's wrong with that? Its the story of an average person put into extraordinary situations, something that's common in modern media. It makes him a bit more identifiable to the average person, and makes it more interesting than the 'Superman' who can fix all problems.

He doesn't seem capable of doing anything particularly magical for a wizard, can claim no particular powers above his peers...

Actually, in the previous movie Harry was actually skilled enough to TEACH his peers certain magic (the defense-against-the-dark-arts stuff).

...and does nothing heroic in the movie. In fact, in his only confrontation with real wizards he is brushed aside somewhat contemptuously like a yapping poodle. "Go way, boy, ya bother me".

So, single-handedly chasing down a group of people responsible for killing someone isn't considered a 'heroic' gesture (even if he was unsuccessful at the end)?

Hermione, who used to be the brainy, nerdy girl is just a typical lovesick teenage girl with no special aptitude for anything.

Although they didn't emphasize Herminone's intelligence as much as they did in previous movies, she DID get invited to the Slug Club.

[bloodyminded]

I don't much care for any of the Harry Potter movies...but thanks to my girlfriend, I've seen all of them.

This is the worst of the lot. A truly awful movie.

(Now, hopefully some of the trollish wags here won't suddenly get their undies in a knot, informing me that since I have not seen every movie ever made, I have no "right" to judge any of them. )

[ToadBrother]

I don't much care for any of the Harry Potter movies...but thanks to my girlfriend, I've seen all of them.

This is the worst of the lot. A truly awful movie.

(Now, hopefully some of the trollish wags here won't suddenly get their undies in a knot, informing me that since I have not seen every movie ever made, I have no "right" to judge any of them. )

The books ain't that great either. The first three or four were pretty good yarns, but it was pretty clear that towards the end Rowlings had become the fantasy version of the Star Trek TNG screen writers, using more and more labored mago-babble to move the story forward. She's a good enough writer for children's books, but when the themes got darker and more complex, she reached her limit. So don't blame the movies. Garbage in, garbage out.

[bloodyminded]

The books ain't that great either. The first three or four were pretty good yarns, but it was pretty clear that towards the end Rowlings had become the fantasy version of the Star Trek TNG screen writers, using more and more labored mago-babble to move the story forward. She's a good enough writer for children's books, but when the themes got darker and more complex, she reached her limit. So don't blame the movies. Garbage in, garbage out.

Well, I can't speak to the quality of the books. But it isn't the case, in my opinion, that all the movies suck, and this is more of the same. Rather, all the movies are mediocre...except this one, which is epically bad.