Richard Metzger's Tell It Like It Is Review of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"
Well, there is simply no beating around the bush about this one. No mitigating factors. Nope, none. The new Harry Potter film, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" is absolutely fucking terrible.
Not a disaster, just a total bore, which is worse. Please don't shoot the messenger, I sincerely expected to like it, but man oh man does it suck. It's mind-numbingly bad. The pacing is all wrong. It felt like we were in that theater for about seventeen hours. My wife hated it even more than I did.
After a fantastically conceived opening sequence (one of the finest I've ever seen, brilliantly executed) my first thought for this review was "Harry Potter franchise kicks it up a notch! Or two!" I was fantasizing about my blurby superlatives showing up on movie posters, but... sadly t'was not to be.
After the first ten minutes the film quickly dropped off in energy and intelligence. After 30 minutes, the suckiness picked up speed. Much of the script made no sense. Some-- like all the villains--characters' actions seem to have no motivation whatsoever. Aside from one or two action-oriented scenes (the Quidditch matches were remarkable), it was an absolute snoozefest.
Looks great, same great cast, all the right ingredients, I grant you that, but I will say it again: The new Harry Potter movie is godawful.I know what you're thinking. Your kids will still love it. Guess again. Your kids will hate it and get restless after 30 minutes. So will you. No one would love it unless the studio was paying them to love it. I don't think the people who worked on it or acted in it love it. No one would like this movie. It's shite. The word of mouth will be horrible.
If you read this far and you still plan to see "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"... as you are sitting there watching one of the worst big budget films in recent memory, a total piece of shit, remember this review and don't say I didn't warn you. Because I did.
the latest
latest episodes
I've never understood the appeal of Harry Potter. He puts up with an abusive family, abusive teachers, yet walks around with the equivalent of a handgun in his magic wand which he only uses to threaten his peers randomly and without lasting result. I've never felt so alienated from the British culture, if that's what he represents?
But other than that Mrs. Lincoln..."
-- MrJM
Harry Potter got darker and darker of the years. He as stated by Individual had a crappy life etc,,,but some how every thing he needed plopped into his lap like steaming pooh. Money bang! New Broom Bang! it goes on and on just as the plot gets weaker and weaker until it turns into the fantasy equivalent of a Spaghetti Western. Yay!
Y'know, Richard's free to dislike the movie all he wants, but considering HP6's current 89% fresh rating, this foul-mouthed, poorly written rant comes off reading like a troll-post from Ain't It Cool News.
Right, 89% on Rotten Tomatoes and 82% on Metacritic leads me to believe this reviewer's just in it to upset fans. Save your angst for the next sparkly-celibate-vampire-fest and let the rest of us enjoy one of the few genuinely good all-ages fantasy series.
Hatty Ponter? What's a hatty ponter?
Honestly, I've never really cared for Metzger's comments on anything. And really, this comes off as some sort of "we're so over Harry Potter" blast.
Being too cool for school was so 1985.
I'll decide for myself, thank you very much.
Torrent link plz?
Opinions are like asterisks - great for bullet points and sound bites, but other than that not a very useful character.
Speaking as someone who came to the films without having read the books, I can only say that they are not for me.
Mostly he was saying that the movie was a boring, plotless mess. Given my experiences with the first two, I don't think this is too unlikely. The two I saw were serious snoozefests.
/Another/ quidditch match in this one? Oy.
Individual @1, well, keep in mind that for the first few books, he's forbidden from using magic outside of school, which keeps him from challenging his family with it. (Although at one point, he intimidates them into treating him a little better, since they don't actually know he can't zap them.)
As far as the abusive teachers go, they've got magic wands too, and they know how to use them better than he does.
But yeah, one of the things that always bothered me about the books was how astonishingly abusive Harry's foster-family was. I was amazed that he didn't get taken away by social services.
i think the potter appeal is that you have this awkward kid, abused, good at nothing, no friends...then he finds out that there is this wonderful magical place where he is not just liked but is a legend, has great abilities, becomes a sports hero, gets to escape his old rotten life. How can you miss the appeal of that on all the awkward, misfit kids and ex-kids?
I'm a big HP fan. The first two movies were entertaining because the kids were cute, but Chris Columbus is a tragedy of a director. POA was brilliant. Alfonso Cuaron did something which no other HP director has done: he created an outline for the film and then fit the exposition into that outline. Thus, a watchable film. GOF was reasonable entertaining. OOTP, by the same director as HBP was horrible. It was two-and-a-half hours of exposition. I felt like I was watching 100 different characters walk on stage and say two lines so that they could set up the next film. I haven't seen HBP yet, but I cringe in advance. As to all those good ratings, that's Mugglenet's army of a hundred million twelve year-olds stuffing the ballot box.
@Individual #1:
I've never understood the appeal of Harry Potter. He puts up with an abusive family, abusive teachers, yet walks around with the equivalent of a handgun in his magic wand which he only uses to threaten his peers randomly and without lasting result. I've never felt so alienated from the British culture, if that's what he represents?
You'd prefer an American culture version where the kid snaps and uses an actual handgun against his teachers and family?
@Holtt #8:
I believe the traditional saying is "opinions are like assholes, everybody has one."
"Harry Potter franchise kicks it up a notch! Or two!"
R. Metzger
Boing Boing
@ #1: "I've never felt so alienated from the British culture, if that's what he represents?"
There'd have to be a lit more drinking by the students at Hogwarts to depict British culture fairly. The dementors were pretty accurate, though, at least if H.P. was supposed to take place in the 90's. I think they had something to do with the Home Office.
A lot more drinking, yes, that's what I meant to say. Not lit.
kids snapping and going on a shooting spree is not isolated to the u.s.
As for the current rotten tomatoes rating, films usually drop 10%-20% after opening day. Sometimes it goes up.. but not nearly as often as it goes down.
Which means after it all settles out, the new movie can be as low as 69%.. which is still pretty damn good, but also means a lot of people didn't like it.
Clearly this guy did not like it.
@12, yes, I did find last week's episode of Weeds amusing.
Actually, @I_PREFER_YETI, I'm expecting to see
"ACTION-ORIENTED SCENES WERE REMARKABLE!!!"
R. METZGER
Hah, of all the things I expected to see in the comments, that wasn't one of them.
That quote is perfectly usable, too, and without telltale ellipsis usage that might tip people off to the lack of context.
#12:
"On Earth, I am nobody.
But here, I am Den."
I've never felt so alienated from the British culture, if that's what he represents?
Wuthering Heights? Jane Eyre? Mansfield Park? British literature is big on child abuse/neglect and treating poor relatives like servants.
@Avram
But yeah, one of the things that always bothered me about the books was how astonishingly abusive Harry's foster-family was. I was amazed that he didn't get taken away by social services.
I guess you could explain that as part of the magic to keep him alive. As it's only living with his foster-family that keeps the "charm" of his mothers sacrifice working to keep him safe until he is 17.
Or at least that's how it's described at the start of the last book.
I'll wait for it on DVD or TV-DVR, so I can fast-forward the quidditch match, which is the most boring part of any Potter movie. Who cares who wins them? And Gryffindore (or however it's spelled) ALWAYS wins the House Cup. Boring and trivial. So far I've been reasonably taken with the bits where they're trying not to get killed etc.
@23, I'm wont to agree with you.
I agree with #13 (Antinus)
The best so far has been Prisoner of Azkeban.
The previous one (phoenix) was just OK.
At this point the reviews are unimportant----folks will go see it. There's already been a string of films and its an established brand.
Saw it yesterday, at an early showing. I agree that it's slow, and that the screenwriter/director missed the point of the book, but for what it was, it was entertaining. Good humor, good scares, good dark tone. The kids have all grown into being decent actors, especially the young man playing Malfoy, and the effects get better each time. The only thing for me that really missed the mark was the Harry/Ginny romance. The script just gave it no time to seem real.
I don't know what's wrong with me, but I just can't seem to bring myself to care about this movie at all. I've always loved the books and the story, and the movies were always a nice treat. I find that I simply do not care. I think it's because (in my mind) the HP story seems done and over.
In the books, the action steadily rose up till the 5th book, and then the dropped off for the 6th (this one). HBP (the book) seemed to be mostly exposition and answering a bunch of the questions from the first five books, however, these should have been answered in the LAST (I think). Also, in OotP, Prof Umbridge is so in-your-face, despicably horrible, she drowns out any lurking dread of Lord V running around doing crazy evil stuff. Deathly Hallows seemed like an incredibly contrived 'lulwut?'. The big confrontation between Lord V and Harry didn't even really matter that much, the real climax of the story of the showdown between Mrs Weasley and Bellatrix.
/Holy crap, I've just had a massive nerd rage moment without even realizing it. I'm going back into Plato's Cave now.
I've seen maybe two of the Harry Potter movies, and read none of the books. I found the movies a pandering, twee (isn't that the British word for something all quaint and cutesy?) bit of Anglophilia, with a half-assed retread of the Chronicles of Narnia thrown in for some kind of plot skeleton. Come on, do the English really wear scarves that often?
Then again, I also hated the LOTR movies, aside from the battle sequences. (I'd read the books first in that case, though.)
sheesh, it's a movie. I liked it. I didn't go expecting War & Peace.
Dear Hollywood,
F**K YOU!, please stop treating us all like morons.
Is there any point in going to the movies anymore?
Seriously, the last few films I've been to, walking out felt like someone had just mugged me for 20 bucks and smiled condecendingly at me the whole time.
no matter how flash their gun looks ... you still just got ripped off.
It was fantastic for the fans. It mostly catered to people who read the books.
Such an elegantly put critique...
I'm sure he's 100% right that no one at all will like it.
After the first ten minutes the film quickly dropped off in energy and intelligence. After 30 minutes, the suckiness picked up speed. Much of the script made no sense. Some-- like all the villains--characters' actions seem to have no motivation whatsoever.
So it was faithful to the book, then. That's something.
#29, you're in the same boat as Mr. Metzger, I'm afraid. There's ways to express your dislike of a movie without being a douche about it.
I don't doubt it's an awful movie. So far, all of the other Harry Potter movies have been terrible. I say this as a big fan of the books. The things that make a good novel are not the same things that make a good movie.
two things to keep in mind: Hollywood is populated with and run by abject cringing cowards who barely control their fear enough to let their greed move them forward.
and: idiots and disposable income go together.
I liked the books
I hated the movies
TAKUAN - shouldn't that be "an idiot and his disposable income are soon parted"?
Dear Mr. Metzger,
I would like to thank you for your abusive post concerning Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. It has come to my attention, over the years, that the more critics pan a particular movie the better it is. I think the reason has to do with the fact that critics, as a class, do not produce anything that they write about, and therefore have absolutely no knowledge about the subject matter.
In this case, the movie was taken from a book. The book is rather extensive, and contains a great deal of material that is supportive of the next in the series. Not only that, but if you had been paying attention, you'd have realized that each of the stories is deeper and darker, and that the Half-Blood Prince endes without a positive resolution.
But why am I telling you this? You've already made your determination. Good luck with that.
yes my dear Monkey, but first: catch your idiot.
I just got home from the theater. It wasn't that bad. It wasn't great either. It is true it was a little slow.
If you are a fan I would go see it. If you are not, well, I never really saw the point in watching a Harry Potter movie with out having read and enjoyed the book first.
You all know it's a story for children, right?
The book was about two things:
1. Harry and his friends getting the final school drama/personal development since Harry, Ron, and Hermione won't be returning to Hogwarts.
2. Harry learning how Voldemort keeps not dying so he can figure out how to kill him for good (and removing Harry's final protector so he will have to confront Voldy on his own).
The movie did a pretty good job of conveying these while cutting out most of the subplots that aren't strictly necessary to Harry's conflict with Voldemort. In my opinion Goblet of Fire was the worst movie, because it cut the conflict-with-Voldemort part of the plot so it made no sense and added extra action to an action-filled story at the expense of character development. The Half Blood Prince book has no action until the end, so I think they actually did a decent job of not making it boring as a movie. It's basically a set-up for Deathly Hallows anyway.
Sounds about right. This film is based on the book that ended my fun reading romp through Harry Potterdom. I swear the 6th book was ghost written since it had none of the charm or pacing as the earlier 5 books. And the snoggin, good god what a horrible term and having read it x # of times made me give up reading in despair. Slow, boring, and cardboard characters is my description of the 6th book.
I am not going to see this movie, i wanted to read book 7 but after book 6, ick!
The movies haven't failed to excite me because they're particularly bad. Some of the portrayals of the characters have been really good (I like Bach's(?) Hagrid). It's just that after reading the books there aren't any surprises in the movies. I -know- exactly how it will go and how it will end. The movies are really more of a gallery to show me someone's interpretation of how the universe looked to them when they read the book.
@#48 FNC: That's exactly how I felt about the first several movies; They feel more like flash cards of scenes from the books. A kind of indulgence for fans, not like a well-made film that happened to be an adaption of a book.
Please, forgive my ignorance, but is this not a movie based upon a book? Assuming this is so, how can one criticize the plot of the movie for being boring? I realize that the plot could indeed have been boring, the pacing terrible, etc. but the book was written first, right? Either the BOOK has plot holes or the FILM is not accurate to the book (or both).
A review at this stage should indicate whether or not the reviewer has read the book, in my not so humble opinion.
If you're going to make something into a movie then it has to work in that context. I really don't care how complex the series of books were - if the movie cant convey it and it doesn't work as a stand alone product.. then they've failed as movie makers. Just because things can be turned into a move doesn't mean they should.
The potter movie series just aren't that entertaining. It's ordinary fantasy, average drama and the climactic scenes are a let down.
Why is this a post on BoingBoing? Movie review like this are written every day.
I'm honestly very surprised at these reactions. This was my favorite of the movies so far. The visual effects, the humor and the score was IMHO really well done and far better than the other movies. This one also seemed to get better coverage of the book as well. When it was over I really struggled to try to remember anything significant that was left out. The past few movies left out large chunks of interesting stuff. This was also my favorite book of the series, which also seems to put me in the minority opinion.
I am the kind of viewer/reader that doesn't just want a story, I want an entire world filled with interesting rules, characters and mythology. I really like the exposition, I want to know all the details because I am interested in the world.
I was really disappointed with Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
I thought it was visually stunning. The directing and special effects are better than any of the previous films. I just thought they left so much out that it'a actually not cohesive in the plot.
Well, when we went to see it tonight the showings were sold out and small children were crying, disappointed, that they couldn't get in... So I don't have an opinion yet, but OOTP only tip-touched the high points. I expect the same. Not completely satisfying, but I'm not a 9 year old.
The Harry Potter books are escapist literature. They're not high art. They're not meant to be. The author makes no attempt to state otherwise. The plot is very open about its escapist nature.
The films are trying to be the very same. They're not going for movie of the year, they're going for an interesting 2 hours of your time to entertain you for a little while.
Admittedly the books can be better at the quality of that escape, but it's not precisely fair to cut too deep into them for not meeting fairly high standards of filmmaking. At the end of the day it's merely an escape akin to watching a sitcom for half an hour, albeit with better writing. It's in the same class of entertainment as a Michael Bay film... and hey, it's far from being like a Michael Bay film.
It has come to my attention, over the years, that the more critics pan a particular movie the better it is. I think the reason has to do with the fact that critics, as a class, do not produce anything that they write about, and therefore have absolutely no knowledge about the subject matter.
What say you about Waterworld? Ishtar? Howard The Duck? Battlefield Earth? Tyche, I'm interested to know what you think about those films in particular, because if what you said is true, then undoubtedly, you feel that they are Hollywood's Finest Moments.
I'm visualizing your DVD shelf right now. I see a copy of Gigli right next to Showgirls...
#3 Demidian: Just to clarify, many Spaghetti Western's had fantastically complex and well executed plots, and in general were much better films than Western Westerns. I'm not sure where your stereotype came from, but there are a number of Spaghetti Western titles that regularly make "top films of all times" lists, and quite a few legendary filmmakers (Kurosawa and Scorsese to name a couple) as well as many critically acclaimed contemporary filmmakers (Clint Eastwood apes Leone across the board) site Spaghetti Westerns and their makers as influences and inspirations.
I agree with the commenters above who flagged the third film, Prisoner of Azkaban, as by far the best of the series. Stephanie Zacharek of Salon spotted that one early, so I'm inclined to trust her glowing review of this new one:
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2009/07/15/harry_potter_review/
The sixth film in J.K. Rowling's series has beautiful special effects, and something even more rare: Magic
Am I the only one who noticed that the film version of Prisoner of Azkaban forgot to include any explanation of WHY everybody thought Sirius was a murderer? It seems to me like that's a pretty big plot point to leave out.
Who is this Metzger guy and why should I care in the slightest what he thinks? I just got back from seeing the movie, and this review makes me think he must've seen some other movie called Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
#61: From what I remember from the third movie, Harry stumbled into the faculty plus Minister Fudge at the Three Broomsticks, where he overheard a conversation about Sirius' misdeeds. Shortened scene. What they forgot to mention in that film was that the makers of the Marauder's Map were Sirius, Lupus, James et al. Somewhat less important, but considering how much of the art direction (the ending credits especially) focused on the map, one would've thought the script would reflect that.
Wow, I really nerded out there.
As for the movies, I'm looking forward to seeing the new one. They're certainly not great cinema, but I did like the books. What can I say; when you learn to read thanks to cRPGs of the late 80s and early 90s, you develop a soft spot for fantasy epics. I'm sure this one is the same as all the others: a bit pointless if you didn't read the books, poorly paced, and dumping a lot of plot in favor of flashy action sequences.
Lets get real...the simple reason these books and films are so beloved is they got a generation of disconnected children to read *something* again.
Anyone with a brain and shred of honsety at their disposal knows full well Rowlings novels are watered down Tolkienesque mediocrity with a bit of limp witchcraft and teen angst thrown in for good measure..
It's a winning formula, just a craftily concocted as the woeful teen melodramatic gibberish of the Twilight novels and films.
I dozed through the first book and had a similar experience with the first 3 films. I'm now completely disinterested. But hey, if it got kids out of their DS's and consoles for 5 seconds...fine.
To me, the Harry Potter films have always felt a bit too muddy in the middle.
It's as though the plot halts entirely about 20-30 minutes in, and only comes back in the last 10 minutes. You could wander out of the theater and hit a bar for an hour and miss nothing.
Good != Successful. Did Transformers teach us nothing?
I'd like to suggest that Teresa be allowed to disemvowel Metzger's post. I don't think we'd be allowed to comment in that tone with that sort of language. I found this movie entertaining which is why I went to see it.
To the person who thinks Harry Potter represents British Culture. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is like saying American Idol represents American music....
As for the other person who made up the asterisk analogy, as a programmer this doesn't work for me.
I'm an avid reader of fantasy and I think Harry Potter sucks, a few of the films are okay I suppose. You got to hand it to Rowling though, she's made a fortune by mashing together every fantasy trope going.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-%26-entertainment/britain-flocks-to-childish-wizard-rubbish-200907161910/
Barry Magic and the Wizardy Fairy Prince or whatever the film is called is excellent.
The Barry Magic stories are clearly superior to any of the so-called 'literary' classics. No other series of books confronts with such savage, gripping clarity the experience of being a boy wizard under the tutelage of a benevolent magic owl called Mr Pobblechops.
"Has Joseph Heller got a family of benevolent magic owls? No, he hasn't. Has JG Ballard got 10,000 flying moles in tinsel cowboy hats? No, he hasn't.
"I bet if Joseph Heller wasn't dead he would freely admit that Barry Magic and the Trumpet of Chaos makes Catch-22 look like a right load of old sh*t."
It's true, the movie was god awful slow, feels like you are stuck in pergatory forever.
My wife loves HP, and insisted we see the movie on opening day. It was so boring that halfway through the film *she* suggested we leave. Knowing her love for HP, I told her lets stay, it will get better. Big mistake.
Funny thing is, like 30% of the theater cheered when the movie ended. I think they were just happy to get the heck out of there.
I think RM illustrates perfectly how difficult it is for commercial filmmakers to make a well paced, coherent and entertaining movie.
It also serves to illustrate how easy it is for them to make a badly paced, incoherent and boring movie and get away with it, because people will love it regardless.
I recently experienced this with Terminator 4, a dreadful, protracted mess which everyone I spoke to about it seemed to love.
I'm looking forward to Moon, even if the trailer makes it look like a mashup of 2001 and Solaris.
@dw_funk #63:
In that scene they recounted the crimes that Sirius was accused of but never mentioned why he was a suspect. Trust me- I've got the DVD, and nowhere in the film do they bother explaining why Sirius was even suspected of any crime.
(I can rationalize that I only have the DVD because my wife is a schoolteacher and thus I'm exposed to a lot of kid literature, but I still probably wouldn't have watched the movie more than once if I wasn't a nerd too.)
@telecustard #58:
Hey, I really enjoyed Waterworld, Ishtar and Howard the Duck! None of them were great films, but they were all entertaining in their own special ways.
This movie made me rage. Hard. This is certainly not the only movie I've been to that didn't meet expectations, but I at least stay quiet. HBP is bringing out the douche in me. This movie was so inconceivably pointless and sloppy against a 90% freshness rating that I feel like the world has gone mad.
#8 With all due reverence to the free-culture and anti-copyright movement - go buy a damn ticket.
@ #31:
Yeah, I'd say we do wear scarves that much.
my 7 year old and i saw it last night. he was dressed in his robes and gryffindor tie. he had been waiting for this movie for a year - even had the date marked on his calendar. july 15 was like christmas day for him.
that is the true magic of this film.
heavym.
Holy crap folks!
Am I the only person who goes to see movies to be entertained? I pay my $10 at the door, usually end up with overpriced exceptionally buttered popcorn, and leave the world behind for a while.
If I'm going to judge a movie, it's against the $10 mark. For example, Iron Man was meh, lame in a lot of ways, but really neat visuals. Probably not quite up to the 10 buck mark. On the other hand, Up! not only blew me away with Pixar's always above standard looks (in 3D no less), but the story actually brought tears to my eyes. Outstandingly past $10. So, based on those two, I'm well up in value.
I haven't seen HP6 yet, but I probably will. Am I going to rate it against 2001/Apocalypse Now/American Beauty? Nope. But I'm hoping to be entertained for a couple of hours. And from what I hear, I will be.
Its' entertainment.......
I just think it's funny that an opinion is in the minority, it is considered "tell it like it is".
Sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I have never read the books. I only consider myself a moderate fan of the films. I certainly did not think this latest installment was the hot mess this review claims it to be.
But, that's just my opinion.
Considering I wasn't able to yell at my girlfriend for making this terrible argument without her castrating me, I will instead rant it at those boingboing commenters that are making the same one:
What do you mean you can't blame a movie for having poor plotting, bad story, uneven pacing and weak characterization just because it's based on a book?!
"Nothing happened in that movie."
"Nothing happened in the book, so it's a good movie."
Say f**king what?!
Is Transformers a good movie because its source is equal parts pablum and marketing scheme?
God, there are so many more examples.
I've liked the Harry Potter films, precisely because Harry Potter represents a kind of hollow, somewhat creative escapism that I wouldn't invest the reader side of me in, but will invest the moviegoer side of me in.
Obviously, if the film deviated far from the book, Radcliffe would be burnt in effigy by the rabid throngs of Potter zealots. But does that mean critics are supposed to gush "Faithfully recreates the irrepairable flaws of the novel!"?
I'm kind of bewildered at the negativity here. I didn't even realize the movie was as long as it was. I thought it was really good. Additionally, the criticism about the villains having no motivation isn't correct. I think to assert that would require absolutely no knowledge of the previous 5 movies. It's QUITE CLEAR why the whole of the plot flows the way it does.
i saw this movie and though intrigued by its many slightly pleasing parts, what it came down to was a TERRIBLE ending.. I have never in all my years of movie going seen such an anti climatic and dreadful finish to anything! The ending did no stay true to the book, and for me made me leave the theater with a sour taste in my mouth. Although i am used to the( although repetitive) awesome movie ending scenes that there are in every single Potter movie i found the scene where dumbledore dies dreadful, and the only ray of light was Draco Malfoy He was by far the best actor in this movie, astonishing everyone in the theater, and truly stealing the stage. I am a avid Potter fan, and love the series but this was by far the worst movie in a chain of great ones
@DD528: I knew it! Oscar Wilde hasn't steered me wrong yet as a tour guide. (Everyone over there is named Earnest, right?)
Not enough grainy footage of rednecks lighting each other on fire for Mr. Metzger's taste, I suppose.
The sad fact is, on opening day, you can't trust any opinions.
Hundreds of reviewers will be watching this movie and the only ones we'll hear from are those with extreme opinions -- especially unexpected ones, like this one.
On opening day, who's going to stand in line for hours to try and get into the show? Total fans. While they can be the hardest to please, they'll happily eat up a formula time and time again, which is the exact opposite of what most reviewers like to see.
All in all, you'll have to wait until people with tastes similar to your own -- perhaps friends and family -- see this show in order to gauge how interesting it will be to you. Anyone else's opinion is meaningless.
Richard Metzgers wrong.
Just saw it. This review was dead on. I was adequately warned.
It's odd that the same script writer has done all the films, but they seem so hit and miss in terms of telling a cohesive story in the time constraints. I found the choices of what to include (and how it was included -- entire scenes devoted to things that could have been better in the dialogue, and vice versa) and the entirely invented portions extremely strange and counterproductive. Also, although many people will go in knowing the plot of the book extremely well, the pacing and the idea of what is a mystery and what isn't to the audience and the main characters is destroyed -- so the taut throughline, the reson we keep turning the pages of the book is gone. Finally, editor we don't need 30 second closeups of every angsty teenage face to end each scene and conversation.
But see it anyway. You know you will.
Woopants @#70 FTW!
My feeling is that one part of a series should be able to stand on its own (as book or a movie) as an individual piece while providing a direct link between the other parts just before and just after it in the series (and a well-thought out series will reach well beyond the adjacent parts of the series). Similarly, a (mainstream) movie adaptation of a book (or vice versa) should be able to stand on its own without requiring the viewers (or readers) to have read (or seen) the book (or movie) so that they can follow along.
I can't really comment on the first bit since I stopped reading the book series early on--y'all can jump in on that if you have your thoughts. However, regarding my second point above, there were several seemingly significant moments in the movie where we (another adult, one tween, and I) were left scratching our heads because the plot appeared disjointed or at least skimmed over important details that were perhaps too subtle for us to catch (really...Malfoy seemed like a robot in the film except for the moments where he seemed conflicted, and it wasn't clear what the heck was going on with any of that...except that he didn't like HP, but that doesn't fully explain his larger mission). My guess is that those commenting that they really enjoyed the film had read the book and were thus privy to details that the rest of us were not.
I also agree that the movie moved along extraordinarily slowly (those with the extra details from the book may have been able to fill in the blanks more and as a result may have been able to enjoy the slow bits as exciting suspense or whatever). It could have been trimmed from 2 1/2 hours to just around 2 and would probably have worked much better for those unhappy with it.
I did like how it was darker than other HP films, the effects were very good and the action scenes were well done overall. Also, the tween in our viewing party seemed to perk up during the scenes with romantic tension and all the "snoggin", so that was good.
Pet-peeve alert...comments that say "why should I care what X believes" or "I'll decide for myself", etc. don't add anything to the conversation, at least without qualification. Metzger has as much right as anyone to express his feelings on a film, so you can choose to read what he has to say or move on. If you disagree with him or how he expresses himself, feel free to argue your point (e.g. 'Metzger misses the point when he says...', 'his review does not speak to me since his tastes obviously don't mesh with mine' (alternately, "Not enough grainy footage of rednecks lighting each other on fire for Mr. Metzger's taste, I suppose" - #85 above), or even 'he is hysterically ranting, so he loses credibility (and the swears don't help)').
p.s. I like the full expression: "Excuses are like assholes; everyone's got one and they all stink."
Can we discuss how horrible the books are? Stinko.
Just watched the movie yesterday, and I totally agree with this review. Initially I loved the movies, the first one is what got me into reading the books (and I loved every one of them). Gradually the movies got worse and worse, and the last one actually doesn't feel like a movie at all, it's more a random cut-n-paste of scenes. Terrible pacing! I like the whole magic-context, the acting is good, but they really failed to bring the magic of the book onto the big screen.
Not enough Alan Rickman in the movie.
What we did get was glorious, though.
I have looked forward to Half-Blood Prince for months! Even though I have loved the books and the previous movies, I'd have to agree with the review. I knew something was OFF. If it is the pacing then I hope they fix that before the next two. Draco and Snape were good, but I have serious doubts about the rest. It felt like a 4 hour movie and this is coming from someone who loves Harry, the books and has watched Phoenix at least 20 times. Sad