Comments on: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince [2009] review

By: Jason Collin

Jason Collin — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:02:18 +0000

Excellent point. I had forgotten about the writer’s strike. It’s really a shame then. They should remake the movie!

By: Dantesmother

Dantesmother — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:21:30 +0000

It is possible if not probable that the SAG and WGA stikes during the production of Half-Blood caused a good portion of our disappointment. Each Union has a membership and chapters that circle the globe, many writers and actors won’t cross a line, and many are hyphenates as writers-producers-actors. What we got in Half-Blood was a glossy, set dominated production with minimal cast and limited dialogue and therefore a greater loss of J.K. Rowling’s storyline. Personally, I find that situation to be a clear demonstration of the value of the hard work writers do and our need for house elves to take up the slack.

By: Jason Collin

Jason Collin — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:57:15 +0000

Paul you point out a lot of other significant omissions that I totally forgot about. The minister of magic being replaced is significant and that was a great line by Harry “Dumbledore’s man through and through” that adds to the emotional impact of D’s death at the end.

Yeah, Snape not punishing Harry for something? Totally inconsistent.

And I did think something was off about Dumbledore and knowledge of the horcruxes. It seemed that Dumbledore wasn’t even sure Voldemort used any, while in the book if I recall he needed Slughorn’s memory only to know the exact number to look for.

Let’s hope Yates hears such complaints and remedies them for the two final movies.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:13:36 +0000

I think your review is dead-on for those of us who have read the books, Jason. I came out pretty disappointed and the more I think about it, the more the movie’s faults stick out in my mind.

Another couple examples:

As you say, there had to be omissions…he couldn’t have kept everything from the book. But I was disappointed that there wasn’t even a mention of the new Minister of Magic. I thought the exchange in which Harry admits to Scrimgeour that he is “Dumbledore’s man through and through” was important for setting the tone of the 6th and 7th books, and is important for exploring Harry’s relationship with Dumbledore, especially when future facts come to light.

The secumsempra scene was completely botched, especially when Snape runs in to heal Malfoy and just lets Harry go. Would any teacher just let a student go after they used dark magic on another student? And this is Harry and Snape we’re talking about, making that scene even less believable.

Perhaps I’m being nitpicky, but in the scene in which Katie Bell is cursed – Hagrid just struts over and carries her off, without seeming surprised or anything. There was no time in the movie to have Harry run and get him, fine – but they could have at least had Hagrid run over with some sense of urgency.

Aside from the battle at the end, I thought the most glaring omission was the fact that Dumbledore seemed to know much less about the Horcruxes than his literary counterpart. In the book, Dumbledore tells Harry what the other Horcruxes are likely to be. In the movie, he tells Harry that they could be almost anything, leaving Potter pretty clueless at the end of the movie. I was surprised at this, since they included the scene where young Tom Riddle steals things from other kids, but in the movie Dumbledore didn’t point out the significance of this behavior. It’s frustrating to think that they will probably allay this problem by having Hermione figuring out what they are.