Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

*NOTE: i'm going to assume you all know the spoiled-forever twist at the end from here on out. Ye have been warned!*

As the movie abruptly ended, a lone voice rang out in the audience: "what the hell was that?" I had to check to be sure it wasn't my own voice, because that's very much what i was thinking. So, what was wrong with this movie? Oh, where to begin.

First of all, you know the byline to the movie? It should (and with the book, does) have something to do with the actual plot. While i don't want to spoil anything here (no matter how "obvious"), suffice it to say the "half blood prince" of the book is far more important than he is in the movie. It's so forgotten in the movie that when the reveal finally does come around the audience has long since forgotten or cared about it.

Secondly, plot: In the book, Harry and Dumbledore spend copious amounts of time delving into the memories of Voldemort and the people he'd met, which helps to build the story of how Voldemort rose to power - all of which was done while no one suspected the worst. There's also quite a bit of friction that's developed between the main characters as Harry becomes more and more convinced that Snape is evil, while Dumbledore (and others) are unwaveringly convinced of Snape's "goodness".

The cumulative effect is that when Snape does kill Dumbledore, Harry is vindicated for his steadfast belief while others are quick to be convinced they were duped. The killing itself even has a feel of surprise in it - though this was infamously ruined almost immediately by asshole fans and the internet (and i shall never forgive them for it!).

So, what do we get in the movie? Well, none of the above, that's for sure. Instead we're treated to stupid teen-love stories that, while accurate to the book, seem to establish nothing beyond what the viewers already know to be the end result. It's not that i don't like love stories, i just don't like trite ones. Especially when they occupy the whole damned film to the exclusion of the main plot! If you've read any of these other reviews on my site here, you'll know that this is far from an uncommon occurrence in today's hollywood.

Snape killing Dumbledore still happens, but it's much more expected than even a spoiler could make it and it has much less impact. Even if you didn't know what was going to happen, there's no way the movie would ever convince you it was shocking or unexpected since the entire subtext between Harry and Dumbledore is gone.

Next up: pacing - the movie has none. I'm serious. Steve Kloves and David Yates (screen play writer and director respectively) have absolutely no concept of flow, it seems. Scenes are just thrown together with almost no blending, so much so it feels like watching an unedited version of a movie. Yes, the cinematography is brilliant at times, but the shear feeling of disjointedness between the scenes just ruins the effects.

What's truly odd is that the movie plays the script like it doesn't have enough time, yet it clearly should. Most of the teen-love can be lost without much of the spirit following suit. There's also a superfluous scene added in (that i swear never appeared in the book) where Death Eaters attack the Weasley home. This scene serves zero purpose, establishes nothing and serves only to show the actors who would otherwise be no-shows for the plot.

Speaking of actors who have no point in the plot, you know Nymphadora Tonks? If you're a reader of the books, you do. But chances are if you only watched the movies you have no idea who i'm talking about. That's because in 2 movies of having her as a character, she's yet to be named, aside from a throw-away line: "don't call me Nymphadora!" It's almost become a game to me: i want to see if they'll go the entire run of movies without revealing her name once.

Anyways, there's so many things i could go on to say are wrong with this film, particularly as it stands as an adaptation from the book. It's a poor stand alone piece and i doubt even those fans who've only seen the movies will find much of value here. What David Yates and Steve Kloves did to the plot is unforgivable. It seems like the only relevance this movie will have in the long run is as a painfully long 2.5 hour set up for the last 2 movies (yes 2... from one book).

So, what do i give a movie that has no plot, poor pacing and an unnecessary by-line in the title? One and a half youthful indiscretions out of 3: D-.

Oh, one more thing: as of this writing (July 16th, 2009), rotten tomatoes review is 87%. Are you for fucking real!?

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Aka, Harry Potter 5.

This time i'm reviewing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the movie. Now, it's not actually a movie i'd recently seen, but instead a movie i'd recently REseen. As a fan of the books, i've so far made it a point to see each film as they came out in theatres. Recently, however, my parents had rented Harry Potter 5 for my nephew to watch while he was over for the holidays and so i decided to sit in and see it again for myself. But i digress. Let's get on with the review, shall we?

As it is an adaptation from a book, it's impossible to discuss it without comparing it to the book. I'll try to be as fair as possible, though, as any movie adaptation, no matter how well done, is typically worse than the book it was based off. That being said, this movie is no different.

Since the movie is adapted from a 600 plus page book, the plot barrels forward like a freight train on steroids; subtlety and nuance be damned. The result of this is many characters who had failed to appear in the film they were supposed to are dumped in now without any introduction and for no other purpose than contrived plot devices:

"It's a good thing that witch who lives across the street from the Dursley's shows up when she does, otherwise Harry and Dudley would've been in real trouble. Of course, it would've been even MORE convenient if she had appeared 3 films earlier when she was actually supposed to."

Now, something directors often do when they have to emphasize a subtle point is have characters outwardly vocalize their thoughts because they can't internally soliloquize. To a degree this is necessary. However, sometimes a director has to trust that his or her audience isn't composed entirely of morons and that they WILL pick up on the strongly hinted at occurances without the need of an on screen character pointing it out for them. Apparently, the director/writers of Harry Potter don't know when this is appropriate and when it's not. As a result, throughout the movie, Hermoine serves the role of outward soliloquizer, pointing out all the giant pink elephants in the room as we go because apparently you have to be a genius to get this stuff.

"What's going on?" Ron mutters upon hearing the ministry-appointed, Professor Umbridge cut off the Hogwarts' headmaster and insert her own ministry-approved spiel.
"The ministry's interfering at Hogwarts!" Hermoine declares.
Ron and Harry look dumbfound.

Phew, it's a good thing she straightened that out for me. I NEVER would've figured it out. Or maybe it was for the onscreen characters only. Harry and Ron can be quite thick sometimes.

Another thing people do in book adaptations is change some elements of the story. Again, sometimes this is necessary. Unless the movie were 8 hours long, it'd be incredibly hard to be truly faithful to the book. So, to a degree, story changes are a necessary evil. Yet, for some reason, directors take this liberty to an insane level and often end up changing story elements into completely different story elements for no obvious reason. I remember Fred and George Weasley rebelling and using some kind of magical garden spell on the school. Why was this changed to fireworks in the movie? Did it add anything? Did it save time? As far as i can tell, the only reason it was done is because fireworks "go boom" and plants do not. At any rate, story-wise it felt like something was taken away from me.

Another thing they did was have Percy Weasley make a non-speaking appearance near the middle of the film. I guess this was to remind the audience he's not dead (despite having an important role in the first movie and none since). But it still makes me wonder. After all, if you're not going to introduce the growing rift in the Weasley family or have them even mention his name, why have Percy show up at all? This, ironically, would be the perfect point to have characters outwardly soliloquize their feelings on the topic. But we, as the audience, are left with it as an "easter egg" and nothing more. I suspect we'll see more of Percy in the coming movies, but if we do, it'll be awkwardly explained how he and his father had had a falling out.

All in all, the movie wasn't too bad. I think upon my second time through i found it more entertaining than before. Of course, my blood alcohol level was also significantly higher (it WAS the holidays). Either way, if you're a fan of the books, you'll probably want to see it, regardless; if you're not, you won't. So i guess this review was a total waste of time (like my others aren't?). Ah well, we all make mistakes. Let's just hope our mistakes don't all get turned into movies.