Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Aug. 15th, 2009 12:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
quaggy
So my youngest brother and I went to see Harry Potter this past weekend. (You know, that makes him sound about 9 rather than 22.) We’ve seen all the movies together so far. It’s going to be a little difficult with the last one seeing as they split the damn thing into two parts. It’s tough enough trying to find the time to see one movie when you’re in separate cities, let alone TWO!
As for the movie itself, I really enjoyed it. Possibly more than the book. Not that it was better, per say, just easier to get into. That said, the movie did have its flaws and I suspect it wouldn’t be nearly as good for people who hadn’t read the books.
They made some weird adaptation choices. I’m not sure what the point of the was of the running the marshes and setting the Burrow ablaze. It didn’t have anything to do with the plot and it wasn’t in the book. On the other side of things, Snape being the Half-Blood Prince felt like it was just thrown in at the last minute just to explain the title. They would have been better off to spending more time explaining that one, rather than creating pointless action scene.
Speaking of book to movie changes, I didn’t mind that it was Luna who found Harry on the train and not Tonks. Luna needed to be in the film at least twice as much as she actually was. I really adore her.
Not sure if I like that Tonks and Lupin’s romance was presented as already established in movie. (Which had to be confusing if you didn’t read the books, because the relationship would have come out of nowhere.) I guess, they cut it for time (along with the related Bill/Fleur subplot… though I assume we’re going to have the wedding in Movie 7 anyway), but it’s a shame because I liked how those two got together better than any of the other relationship in the series, with the possible exception of Fred and Angelina.
As for the Trio, those three have really come into their own as actors. I seen a couple of people say that Rupert Grint is the best of the three. That’s not entirely true. He’s the best comedic actor, hands down. But then, we’ve known this since The Chamber of Secrets. There is overacting like the poor girl who played Lavender (there’s a performance that could end your career before it even begins) and then there’s little Rupert Grint freaking out over spiders. He owned it and made it believable even at a young age. This movie gave him so much to work with. He was a joy to watch. He’s not as steady with the more serious stuff, but that matters very little. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rupert Grint has a nice long career hamming it up.
In contrast, over the top acting just doesn’t seem to be Daniel Radcliffe’s style. While, he didn’t slaughter the luck potion scene (I can’t be bothered to look up the proper spelling), it was awkward, especially compared to Ron’s shenanigans. Daniel was visibly more comfortable when the scene shifted into the heavier stuff. It’s not that he can’t do comedy. He’s actually very good a delivering a one-liner, which he been demonstrating ever since the third film (which, by the way, remains my favorite in spite of its flaws). It’s probably why he works well with Emma Watson. She best at conveying her character’s feeling with a look, another more understated from of acting. The two of them have great chemistry together. Someday, I hope some producer is smart enough to cast the two of them in a romantic comedy. They play well off each other. I was always something of a Harry/Hermione shipper and watching the two of them on screen together, so close and such GOOD friends both makes me happy and a little sad for my poor sunken ship. If I weren’t so tired I’d probably go off on some shipper rant, so be glad I’m about to fall asleep. Besides, if you’ve ever heard me talk about how much I like “best friend” ships, you already know what I’m going to say. ;-)
As for the movie itself, I really enjoyed it. Possibly more than the book. Not that it was better, per say, just easier to get into. That said, the movie did have its flaws and I suspect it wouldn’t be nearly as good for people who hadn’t read the books.
They made some weird adaptation choices. I’m not sure what the point of the was of the running the marshes and setting the Burrow ablaze. It didn’t have anything to do with the plot and it wasn’t in the book. On the other side of things, Snape being the Half-Blood Prince felt like it was just thrown in at the last minute just to explain the title. They would have been better off to spending more time explaining that one, rather than creating pointless action scene.
Speaking of book to movie changes, I didn’t mind that it was Luna who found Harry on the train and not Tonks. Luna needed to be in the film at least twice as much as she actually was. I really adore her.
Not sure if I like that Tonks and Lupin’s romance was presented as already established in movie. (Which had to be confusing if you didn’t read the books, because the relationship would have come out of nowhere.) I guess, they cut it for time (along with the related Bill/Fleur subplot… though I assume we’re going to have the wedding in Movie 7 anyway), but it’s a shame because I liked how those two got together better than any of the other relationship in the series, with the possible exception of Fred and Angelina.
As for the Trio, those three have really come into their own as actors. I seen a couple of people say that Rupert Grint is the best of the three. That’s not entirely true. He’s the best comedic actor, hands down. But then, we’ve known this since The Chamber of Secrets. There is overacting like the poor girl who played Lavender (there’s a performance that could end your career before it even begins) and then there’s little Rupert Grint freaking out over spiders. He owned it and made it believable even at a young age. This movie gave him so much to work with. He was a joy to watch. He’s not as steady with the more serious stuff, but that matters very little. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rupert Grint has a nice long career hamming it up.
In contrast, over the top acting just doesn’t seem to be Daniel Radcliffe’s style. While, he didn’t slaughter the luck potion scene (I can’t be bothered to look up the proper spelling), it was awkward, especially compared to Ron’s shenanigans. Daniel was visibly more comfortable when the scene shifted into the heavier stuff. It’s not that he can’t do comedy. He’s actually very good a delivering a one-liner, which he been demonstrating ever since the third film (which, by the way, remains my favorite in spite of its flaws). It’s probably why he works well with Emma Watson. She best at conveying her character’s feeling with a look, another more understated from of acting. The two of them have great chemistry together. Someday, I hope some producer is smart enough to cast the two of them in a romantic comedy. They play well off each other. I was always something of a Harry/Hermione shipper and watching the two of them on screen together, so close and such GOOD friends both makes me happy and a little sad for my poor sunken ship. If I weren’t so tired I’d probably go off on some shipper rant, so be glad I’m about to fall asleep. Besides, if you’ve ever heard me talk about how much I like “best friend” ships, you already know what I’m going to say. ;-)
