florianschild (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
florianschild) wrote2009-07-17 12:59 am
florianschild) wrote2009-07-17 12:59 am
Entry tags:
(no subject)
I was reading the reviews that others have written about Half-Blood Prince, and I found myself enjoying some of the great one-liners that summed up my own thoughts on the movie. I'll add my own commentary after the quotes, but honestly, these people really nailed down my issues with the movie and the things I liked. I guess that's why they're professional writers. ;)
Eric Melin, Scene Stealers:
“In Rowling’s rich fantasy world, the themes are embedded deep in the details, and “Half-Blood Prince” has none of them. It’s like a rough sketch that the filmmakers are hoping Potter fans will fill in with memories from the novel.”
“By the time the identity of the half-blood prince is revealed, its only significance is that it’s the title of the film.”
Melin articulated my biggest problem with the film: it's called "Half-Blood Prince", but the viewer is never actually shown/told what that really means. I mean, for the overall plot of the series as a whole, Snape's parentage isn't the most important thing. But it is the title of the fucking movie, guys. (And by guys I mean Steve Kloves.)
Scott Foundas, Village Voice:
“Perhaps it goes without saying that a photo of Slughorn's most famous former student is conspicuously missing from that gilded shrine, and the closer Harry gets to discovering why, the more he finds in his newest teacher a fellow tragic, tortured soul.”
When I first made this list I was trying to come up with a positive point from this review that I agreed with. In retrospect, this is pretty corny.
“That second hour always feels as if Kloves just remembered that he has to lay the groundwork for the subsequent movie. The individual installments become extensions on a lengthening fuse.”
Gotta love the Kloves bashing. But honestly, this is a good point. The movie, and half the audience, woke up and hour and a half in and realized 'Hey! We're not a romantic comedy... Oh yeah, that's right; we're meant to be a fantasy/mystery movie. Cool, we're getting right on that.' Fifteen minutes could have been moved around in the script to at least allow Snape more that one declarative, not-at-all-informative one-liner.
“When a waitress hits on Potter in a diner, I was hoping she’d say to Radcliffe, 'I saw what you did with that horse.’”
Ok, I just loved this image. ;)
Rob Humanik, Projection Booth:
“...the effects are less annoyingly "ooh-ahh-special" than I'd come to anticipate - instead, they're more texturally banal so as to ground the proceedings in a believable habitat in which magic is a simple fact of life (as opposed to box office pandering).”
This is something that I think they generally get right. They did an especially good job of in this movie. The magic is present throughout, in subtle ways that make it seem like a part of life, which is part of what makes the books so fantastic.
Sean Burns, Philadelphia Weekly:
“More than an hour is blown on the painfully obvious attraction between Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley and Emma Watson’s Hermione Granger, but even the payoff of their transparently Han Solo/Princess Leia relationship is cruelly negated by a convenient memory lapse.”
A very good point, Mr. Burns. I'm torn between thinking they should have just put in one more scene to firmly establish the Ron/Hermione canon-ness, OR maybe they could have just left some of the romantic bullshit out and told an actual story. That kind of stuff was fine when adapting books like Order of the Phoenix that don't really have an actual start-to-finish plot arc, but we need some closure here.
Eric Melin, Scene Stealers:
“In Rowling’s rich fantasy world, the themes are embedded deep in the details, and “Half-Blood Prince” has none of them. It’s like a rough sketch that the filmmakers are hoping Potter fans will fill in with memories from the novel.”
“By the time the identity of the half-blood prince is revealed, its only significance is that it’s the title of the film.”
Melin articulated my biggest problem with the film: it's called "Half-Blood Prince", but the viewer is never actually shown/told what that really means. I mean, for the overall plot of the series as a whole, Snape's parentage isn't the most important thing. But it is the title of the fucking movie, guys. (And by guys I mean Steve Kloves.)
Scott Foundas, Village Voice:
“Perhaps it goes without saying that a photo of Slughorn's most famous former student is conspicuously missing from that gilded shrine, and the closer Harry gets to discovering why, the more he finds in his newest teacher a fellow tragic, tortured soul.”
When I first made this list I was trying to come up with a positive point from this review that I agreed with. In retrospect, this is pretty corny.
“That second hour always feels as if Kloves just remembered that he has to lay the groundwork for the subsequent movie. The individual installments become extensions on a lengthening fuse.”
Gotta love the Kloves bashing. But honestly, this is a good point. The movie, and half the audience, woke up and hour and a half in and realized 'Hey! We're not a romantic comedy... Oh yeah, that's right; we're meant to be a fantasy/mystery movie. Cool, we're getting right on that.' Fifteen minutes could have been moved around in the script to at least allow Snape more that one declarative, not-at-all-informative one-liner.
“When a waitress hits on Potter in a diner, I was hoping she’d say to Radcliffe, 'I saw what you did with that horse.’”
Ok, I just loved this image. ;)
Rob Humanik, Projection Booth:
“...the effects are less annoyingly "ooh-ahh-special" than I'd come to anticipate - instead, they're more texturally banal so as to ground the proceedings in a believable habitat in which magic is a simple fact of life (as opposed to box office pandering).”
This is something that I think they generally get right. They did an especially good job of in this movie. The magic is present throughout, in subtle ways that make it seem like a part of life, which is part of what makes the books so fantastic.
Sean Burns, Philadelphia Weekly:
“More than an hour is blown on the painfully obvious attraction between Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley and Emma Watson’s Hermione Granger, but even the payoff of their transparently Han Solo/Princess Leia relationship is cruelly negated by a convenient memory lapse.”
A very good point, Mr. Burns. I'm torn between thinking they should have just put in one more scene to firmly establish the Ron/Hermione canon-ness, OR maybe they could have just left some of the romantic bullshit out and told an actual story. That kind of stuff was fine when adapting books like Order of the Phoenix that don't really have an actual start-to-finish plot arc, but we need some closure here.