Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. This Potter film comes in second place.
  • OVERALL
    4.5
    SUPERB
  • Story
  • Acting
  • Directing
  • Visuals
this portion of the review may offend to those who may like the film and/or read the book and liked the book.

hmm to narrow it down... this film is basically sh*t. i honestly don't know why these punk ass people in the business calling themselves directors, screenwriters and flappity flip. You can actually look back at certain scenes when hermoine looks like her p*ssy is going to explode and create miniturized c*m bubbles...ahah ha ha ha...and yet nothing happens. its just an excuse for a good movie. and im sorry to those i may offend, but lets all be a little more "agile" you might say? or mature...oh yes..thats the one. So i found out recently Dumbledore is a flaming homosexual? so theres probably multiple copies; bloopers of some background shots or harry doing who knows what with Dumbledore. And i must say at that scene near the beginning of the film when snape takes some sort of "oath" with Dracos Mommy, wow..absolutely cute. you actually wonder why this movie went from PG 13 as in Numbers 4 and 5 of the Harry Potter series, and half blood was given a PG? Parental guidance to watch a REALLY p*ssy ass kiss, a couple of tears from our lovely Ms. Granger, and Snape finally coming out of the closet for Voldemort.

~ Yours Truely, Velveeta (Co-Writer and sponsor of Velvet)

Well, to those who have read the upper portion of this review, I give that to the haters of the film. lol

Anyway, lets get to business.

"Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" is the sixth installment in the Potter series of books and the adaptation to the big screens. Directed by David Yates, who also directed the fifth film, "Order of the Phoenix", this Harry Potter really hit the spot this time around.

Lets start with the story. Matching up the book exactly or somewhat to an extent can be tricky. I think this one really matched up with the book the best, out of any Potter film made yet. It was spot on, had most of the characters done well and portayed perfectly, and the theme of the film mostly matched with the book.

Most who have seen the film so far have complained that for such a short book in the series, was made into one of the longest film, at about 153 minutes, this one comes third in length, behind "Goblet of Fire", and the longest, "Chamber of Secrets". The rest have said that this movie matched to the book the best, and I agree.

But, as some have seen quite clear, the film revolved around the main characters' love interests, rather then the main focus on the "Half Blood Prince". To its title being "Half Blood Prince" I saw barely any connections to the story top the title, and this is the first time for a Potter film.

The acting is the best of any Potter film in this one. Daniel Radcliffe does his 'magic' again as he portrays the "Chosen One" Harry Potter, along with the comic-relief Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and flailing lover and emotional, jealous, lusty best friend Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). Jim Broadbent really nailed, I mean Really nailed the portrayal of Horace Slughorn, and I think the best portrayal of any Potter film, as he is now my favorite character in the series. Alan Rickman did a wonderful job in the role of Severus Snape, giving him much more granted screen time and a much larger role, along with Tom Felton's Draco Malfoy, who in some way I thought seemed like the main character in this film, which is weird, because it really did feel like he was, instead of Potter or Dumbledore or Voldemort.

There is some disappointment I have realized, even after reading the book, that Ralph Fiennes' Voldemort was not in this film, and he was truely missed, even though Voldemort himself was not in the book, but Tom Riddle was. Tom Riddle too had an excellent role in this film, showing us three flashbacks he took part of in unraveling his vulnerability to Harry and Dumbledore. Now, the main plot of the sixth book was in Harry and Dumbledore finding Voldemort's vulnerability, but in the film, it did not at all revolve around the plot of the book, or it barely did. It, like I said before, revolved more around the teenage wizard and witches' love lives. (Ron and Lavender Brown's cute but short relationship, and Hermione's jealousy of it and Harry and Ginny's little smooch scene in the Room of Requirement) Lets put it this way, the stories were flip flopped from book to movie.

Now, the climatic ending of Dumbledore's death was NOT climatic at all. Some have said "anti-climatic" or "boring", yes its true, oh so true. It was not touching at all. I really think they should have re-done that scene, of any Potter film, that scene needs to be re-done and re-thought about. No emotion there at all, maybe a little, but mostly zippo.

Quidditch! yes! finally... some quidditch in the new Potter film, none at all in 4 or 5 or 3.. kind of. In Goblet of Fire you just the very beginning of the Quidditch World Cup, no action or play. Order of the Phoenix: Zero quidditch. Dumb. Prisoner of Azkaban: A little bit. More of a Harry and Dementor chase scene, and 1 and 2 had plenty of introductory quidditch which was good. Half Blood Prince's quidditch was awesome. We finally get to see some real player action and battle between teams, Gryffindor kills Slytherin! Way to go Ron! But no Harry chasing snitchy... sad. But good quidditch for this Potter film, the best in my opinion.

Sectumsempra! to this film, not the best, as Prisoner of Azkaban in my opinion still ranks as number 1 in the Potter series. This film was just long, recessed, progressive and romantic. Exactly like the book, yes, some missing scenes or "flashbacks", but over all, a great Potter film.

(This was done by Velvet)

Do you like this review?

Comments (8)

  1. Velvet

    oh it wasn't me who wrote that first paragraph there lol just a heads up, it was my friend. thanks for all the comments

    3 years agoby @velvetvirusFlag

  2. The First Avenger: JohnnyBlaze

    hmmm intresting review, gotta say though i was a bit put off by your opening paragraph, (while not as bad as some comments by people on this site it was pretty graphic) opening aside i thought this was well written. I actualy had no idea Fienes was Voldemort! an i know what you mean about being dissapointed as i was a bit dissapointed that 1 of my fav actors Gary Oldman didint get more screen time in the series. I thought the acting was the best so far also as these young kids are starting to come into there own. even delving into a bit of comedy that was a nice touch. good review darlin jus take it easy on the profanity k? hahahaha ;)

    3 years agoby @johnnyblazetb82Flag

  3. Niteowl

    I didn't really like this one.

    3 years agoby @niteowlFlag

  4. PhxtonyMex

    great review, I wish i had the patience to write a long review for a movie that wasnt that great, it was good but not great.

    Thanks for reading and comenting on my review.

    3 years agoby @phxtonymexFlag

  5. Red Camera Man

    I'm still going to see this movie.

    3 years agoby @redcameramanFlag

  6. Velvet

    oh yes i see what your at now Buff, thanks. I would say its exactly like the book more than its different with missing scenes. As I watched the movie and progressed I started to notice that perhaps David Yates actually pulled out seperate scene from the book and put them in chronological order in the film. I read the book twice and really noticed that he did specifically place these scenes well. There were about four or so chapters he skipped or completely left out. Thats it. In every other Potter film the director left out about 10 or 12 chapterr or moments, (well except Azkaban). So yes, I would def say this was exactly like the book. Thanks for the comment!

    Thanks, rlt9009. have you written a review on this yet? I would love to read it.

    3 years agoby @velvetvirusFlag

  7. Rlt9009

    Nice review.

    3 years agoby @rlt9009Flag

  8. MovieBuff

    Hold on velvet.... you contradict yourself. In the very last paragraph you say "Exactly like the book, yes, some missing scenes or "flashbacks", but over all, a great Potter film"... BUT... in your biggest paragraph (not the 1st B.S. one, but the one in the middle) you say "Now, the main plot of the sixth book was in Harry and Dumbledore finding Voldemort's vulnerability, but in the film, it did not at all revolve around the plot of the book, or it barely did".

    Um.... so which is it? It is it "exactly like the book"? Or.. "it did not at all revolve around the plot of the book"? You can't pick both haha.

    Actually, I think its an ok movie... but not all that. Not like quite a few reviewers claim. I think the visuals were again amazing, the acting was great, but the story was weak simply because like you said... they reversed the plots. And I blame that on the screenwriter and the director. They made the film PG for god's sake. Why? For the little kiddos... TO MAKE MORE MONEY. It wasn't true to the book... or the films. This was supposed to be darker than the previous three films and they make a PG movie? Ugh.

    I can understand PG ratings for the first two films as the kids are young and really the films are not dark at all. And even though Azkaban was PG... they should've made it a little darker and PG-13 rating.... but its ok. The last two films were PG-13 so why go back to PG? For the MONEY!

    Good review except for the contradiction I mentioned. By the way... Azkaban is my favorite Potter film so far too. :)

    3 years agoby @moviebuff123Flag