Harry Potter's Gone to Pot!

I cannot disagree more with virtually everything in your review.

Yates brings out amazing nuanced performances, particularly from Dan Radcliffe and Tom Felton. Alan Rickman, Michael Gambon and Jim Broadbent only enhanced and spotlighted the increasing skill of the young actors.

Far from being the worst Potter film, this is possibly the best, although in my mind Yates's Order of the Phoenix ranks very highly as well.

Steve Kloves may be a gifted screenwriter of original works, but he does not get the character of Ron Weasley, one of the pivotal trio, at all. He emasculates him in favor of Super!Hermione every time. At least Yates prevents Ron from being nothing more than comic foil, a little.

Triple post, my bad.

Triple post. My bad.

The reviewer obviously didn't bother to pay attention to the actions on the screen, when he went to see "Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince". If said reviewer HAD been paying attention, he would have seen that Voldemort was not the one who destroyed the bridge, Ron wasn't nearly killed by a love potion, and at least know that the "broomstick competition" is actually a "sport" called Quidditch. Had the reviewer bothered to do any kind of background read-up on the franchise, he would also have known that Voldemort "returned from the grave" at the end of the fourth book/movie.

How on earth Mr. Reed's reviews get accepted here, I do not know. I wish I could have a job that only required me to write bad reviews of movies that I didn't even pay attention to.

These kids lack relevance because they've never heard of iPods, cell phones, or the internet? That's the whole point. They live in a world of their own, seperate from our modern world. After reading your review I'm forced to ask if you've even truly been paying attention for the past eight years. Not only have you missed the whole point, but you're rather fuzzy on the details of the story.

This review is extremely poor - not because it is negative (you are a critic after all) but because it appeared you were not paying attention to the film.

Voldemort does not appear in this film - only in past flashbacks. The black smoke you speak of are his cronies, the death eaters. And as another poster stated, he came back from the grave in an earlier film.

They don't pay attention to the dragon's blood because they don't have to - it's there as part of a staged attack - not a real one.

Ron's character did not nearly die from a love potion, but from the mead he drank. This is critical to the film as it illustrates an attempted murder referenced by Dumbledore late in the film.

Perhaps you should rewatch the film to get your facts straight.

Flying broomstick competitions? subplot about love potion? Lord Voldemort returned as black smoke to knock down a bridge?
is that what you thought this movie was about?
have you ever read the books, or seen any of the movies? you can't just start at the 6th movie and expect to understand anything. and I can tell you dont, from your confused and unsubstantiated erroneous review.

I COULD NOT DISAGREE WITH YOU MORE.
ALL THE HARRY POTTER MOVIES ARE AMAZING AND FEATURE THE BEST GANG OF ACTORS/ACTRESSES THAT HAVE EVER WALKED THIS EARTH.
THIS IS A TERRIBLE REVIEW AND I BASICALLY DISAGREE AND ARGUE AGAINST EVERYTHING SAID IN THE ABOVE.
STOP MAKING ON THE SNIDE REMARKS AND RUDE COMMENTS, HP HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING TO INSULT YOU.
HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE IS THE MOST AMAZING EVER, AT LEAST UNTIL DEATHLY HALLOWS PARTS 1 AND 2 COME OUT.
SO STOP YOUR NEGATIVE ATTITUDE AND LIVE A REAL LIFE CAUSE NO ONE COULD SURVIVE WITHOUT HARRY.

I was very disappointed with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. I think the directors and producers ruined the book. I was very upset when I walked out of the movie and felt like I should get my money back and the 3 hours of my life back. There were random scenes (when Bellatrix lit the Burrow on fire) and most of the main events in the book were left out. I feel like this movie focused way too much on the relationships of the students and lacks focus of who the half-blood prince really is and the lessons Harry has from Dumbledore. I feel like the movie left out critical events from the book and that the next movie isn't going to be good either because so many things that needed to be explained to completely understand the last book were rushed or not explained at adequately.Also I feel like if you didn't read the book you wouldn't understand the movie at all. Over I think this is one of the worst Harry Potter movies.

I was very disappointed with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. I think the directors and producers ruined the book. I was very upset when I walked out of the movie and felt like I should get my money back and the 3 hours of my life back. There were random scenes (when Bellatrix lit the Burrow on fire) and most of the main events in the book were left out. I feel like this movie focused way too much on the relationships of the students and lacks focus of who the half-blood prince really is and the lessons Harry has from Dumbledore. I feel like the movie left out critical events from the book and that the next movie isn't going to be good either because so many things that needed to be explained to completely understand the last book were rushed or not explained at adequately.Also I feel like if you didn't read the book you wouldn't understand the movie at all. Over I think this is one of the worst Harry Potter movies.

I was very disappointed with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. I think the directors and producers ruined the book. I was very upset when I walked out of the movie and felt like I should get my money back and the 3 hours of my life back. There were random scenes (when Bellatrix lit the Burrow on fire) and most of the main events in the book were left out. I feel like this movie focused way too much on the relationships of the students and lacks focus of who the half-blood prince really is and the lessons Harry has from Dumbledore. I feel like the movie left out critical events from the book and that the next movie isn't going to be good either because so many things that needed to be explained to completely understand the last book were rushed or not explained at adequately.Also I feel like if you didn't read the book you wouldn't understand the movie at all. Over I think this is one of the worst Harry Potter movies.

I was very disappointed with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. I think the directors and producers ruined the book. I was very upset when I walked out of the movie and felt like I should get my money back and the 3 hours of my life back. There were random scenes (when Bellatrix lit the Burrow on fire) and most of the main events in the book were left out. I feel like this movie focused way too much on the relationships of the students and lacks focus of who the half-blood prince really is and the lessons Harry has from Dumbledore. I feel like the movie left out critical events from the book and that the next movie isn't going to be good either because so many things that needed to be explained to completely understand the last book were rushed or not explained at adequately.Also I feel like if you didn't read the book you wouldn't understand the movie at all. Over I think this is one of the worst Harry Potter movies.

I was very disappointed with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. I think the directors and producers ruined the book. I was very upset when I walked out of the movie and felt like I should get my money back and the 3 hours of my life back. There were random scenes (when Bellatrix lit the Burrow on fire) and most of the main events in the book were left out. I feel like this movie focused way too much on the relationships of the students and lacks focus of who the half-blood prince really is and the lessons Harry has from Dumbledore. I feel like the movie left out critical events from the book and that the next movie isn't going to be good either because so many things that needed to be explained to completely understand the last book were rushed or not explained at adequately.Also I feel like if you didn't read the book you wouldn't understand the movie at all. Over I think this is one of the worst Harry Potter movies.

I was very disappointed with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. I think the directors and producers ruined the book. I was very upset when I walked out of the movie and felt like I should get my money back and the 3 hours of my life back. There were random scenes (when Bellatrix lit the Burrow on fire) and most of the main events in the book were left out. I feel like this movie focused way too much on the relationships of the students and lacks focus of who the half-blood prince really is and the lessons Harry has from Dumbledore. I feel like the movie left out critical events from the book and that the next movie isn't going to be good either because so many things that needed to be explained to completely understand the last book were rushed or not explained at adequately.Also I feel like if you didn't read the book you wouldn't understand the movie at all. Over I think this is one of the worst Harry Potter movies.

Being a huge fan of the series, I find some of your references offensive and arrogant (flying broomstick comp, uber-demon, etc.), however, I agree with the rest of what you said. "The 10-year-old in the next seat at the press screening told me it was her favorite of all the J. K. Rowling books, but at the end she did not applaud." That was exactly me. HBP is my favorite book aside from DH, and I was really disappointed in the film. In interviews, the cast kept saying, "Oh this one's much funnier! Whoo!" Yet, I found much of the "humor" quite trite and annoying. Off the top of my head, the only times I remember laughing were the whole 'Harry's here?' bit at the burrow and the Harry's Felix bit. Otherwise, ugh. And the astronomy tower-"Harry, go below and don't move or speak." Are you kidding me? Harry would NEVER stand still and let harm come to someone. And Dumbledore knew that, that's why he freezes him in the book. I'd been waiting for this movie for so. freaking. long. And now, I feel like it was all a waste.

...lolwut?

really?

You my friend..have no clue what you are talking about.

Being a huge fan of the series, I find some of your references offensive and arrogant (flying broomstick comp, uber-demon, etc.), however, I agree with the rest of what you said. "The 10-year-old in the next seat at the press screening told me it was her favorite of all the J. K. Rowling books, but at the end she did not applaud." That was exactly me. HBP is my favorite book aside from DH, and I was really disappointed in the film. In interviews, the cast kept saying, "Oh this one's much funnier! Whoo!" Yet, I found much of the "humor" quite trite and annoying. Off the top of my head, the only times I remember laughing were the whole 'Harry's here?' bit at the burrow and the Harry's Felix bit. Otherwise, ugh. And the astronomy tower-"Harry, go below and don't move or speak." Are you kidding me? Harry would NEVER stand still and let harm come to someone. And Dumbledore knew that, that's why he freezes him in the book. I'd been waiting for this movie for so. freaking. long. And now, I feel like it was all a waste.

First, electronic devices go haywire around magic. That's why they are absent from the films and books. Why would they need cellphones, ipods, or the internet anyway? They live in a complete other world where things are run by magic, not electricity. If I was a wizard, i sure as hell wouldn't care about not having an iPhone or browsing the internet.
The "uber-demon?" Now it just sounds like your making fun of the movie. You sound like you're probably just a biased reviewer that has a grudge against Harry Potter by using remarks like that. Destroying Voldemort is what the series is all about. He came back in the 4th book, kept himself a secret until the end of the 5th book, and now he's public and is killing people and trying to take over the wizard world. Voldemort doesn't "return from the grave to destroy the Millennium Bridge", and if you would have paid a speck of attention, you would have realized that the people that kidnapped Ollivander and destroyed the bridge were actually his followers. Voldemort is absent from the movie completely except in the pensieve(or flashback) scenes with Dumbledore.
And seriously, "the flying broomstick competition?" If by "flying broomstick competition" you mean Quidditch, The scenes of it are only there to show the significance of the Felix Felicis and Ron joining the quidditch team. It also shows Hermione's affection for Ron by using a charm on Cormac to keep him from getting Ron's position as Keeper.
And I do not recall Ron ever being almost killed by a love potion. If you mean that after Ron was CURED of the love potion, he drank some oak matured mead. If you would have paid a speck of attention, you would have noticed that Draco Malfoy had poisoned the mead, because Slughorn was supposed to give the mead to Dumbledore as a gift.
The deaths of the beloved characters? A giant spider named Aragog, that the kids you speak of most likely feared, died. The only other one that died is Dumbledore. In the next movie you will be happy Snape killed Dumbledore, i would say why but you obviously haven't read the books and I would rather not spoil it for you. And it's not like they made Dumbledore's death traumatic either, this movie was rated PG! They made it sad, thats it. If anyone cried when Dumbledore died, they probably knew it was coming anyway.
And the remarks about Daniel Radcliffe and his nude scenes in a play, cut the crap. Noone thinks your remarks are funny. I definitley don't, you can't even review a movie the right way.
Next time you review a movie, try watching it, AND paying attention.

double post.

haha is this guy serious? this review is laughable.

haha is this guy serious? this review is laughable.

Anyone who sees the movie and complains about the story and how dull it is, they are not looking at Harry Potter to be a series. This movie is somewhat of a prequel to the next two movies for Book 7. All important scenes from the book are portrayed perfectly well, and the missing parts (that appeared in the book) are completely forgiveable. Although I was confused at first, the scenes added to the movie such as Bellatrix lighting the Burrow on fire do not bother me at all. They did not take away from the story. In my opinion, this is a horrible review of the film that has clearly been written by someone who has no understand of the Harry Potter series or has yet to read the 7th book.
Moreover, if I hear another reviewer complain about how 'horny' the characters are, I may cry. You did not read the 6th book if you do not think this was a theme throughout it.

In essence, as previous comments say, you need to see the movie again and pay attention.

Anyone who sees the movie and complains about the story and how dull it is, they are not looking at Harry Potter to be a series. This movie is somewhat of a prequel to the next two movies for Book 7. All important scenes from the book are portrayed perfectly well, and the missing parts (that appeared in the book) are completely forgiveable. Although I was confused at first, the scenes added to the movie such as Bellatrix lighting the Burrow on fire do not bother me at all. They did not take away from the story. In my opinion, this is a horrible review of the film that has clearly been written by someone who has no understand of the Harry Potter series or has yet to read the 7th book.
Moreover, if I hear another reviewer complain about how 'horny' the characters are, I may cry. You did not read the 6th book if you do not think this was a theme throughout it.

In essence, as previous comments say, you need to see the movie again and pay attention.

this is the worst excuse for a professional review i've ever seen. You have obviously not read any of the books, and must have fallen asleep halfway through the movie and read someone else's review to know what happened. almost EVERYTHING you said in your review was false, or prejudiced by some pompous thought that you know what you are talking about. I realize that you are a critic, thats what you do, but seriously, no one can ever take someone who criticizes anything if they can't get MOST of their facts correct.
I personally thought that the movie could have been better, most movies we watch can be better than what they are. Its not like peter jackson directed this and made it a 5hour movie, that would be the only way i think it could have been better, other than that the director worked with what he had, including time and things needing to be cut out of the movie to save time.

it was a good movie, B at the worst, it explained to the watchers what it needed to, and it didn't skip on almost any main plots, other than the many uses of the pensive (i thought that was disappointing because i thought those scenes in the movie were VERY well made)

this is the worst excuse for a professional review i've ever seen. You have obviously not read any of the books, and must have fallen asleep halfway through the movie and read someone else's review to know what happened. almost EVERYTHING you said in your review was false, or prejudiced by some pompous thought that you know what you are talking about. I realize that you are a critic, thats what you do, but seriously, no one can ever take someone who criticizes anything if they can't get MOST of their facts correct.
I personally thought that the movie could have been better, most movies we watch can be better than what they are. Its not like peter jackson directed this and made it a 5hour movie, that would be the only way i think it could have been better, other than that the director worked with what he had, including time and things needing to be cut out of the movie to save time.

it was a good movie, B at the worst, it explained to the watchers what it needed to, and it didn't skip on almost any main plots, other than the many uses of the pensive (i thought that was disappointing because i thought those scenes in the movie were VERY well made)

this is the worst excuse for a professional review i've ever seen. You have obviously not read any of the books, and must have fallen asleep halfway through the movie and read someone else's review to know what happened. almost EVERYTHING you said in your review was false, or prejudiced by some pompous thought that you know what you are talking about. I realize that you are a critic, thats what you do, but seriously, no one can ever take someone who criticizes anything if they can't get MOST of their facts correct.
I personally thought that the movie could have been better, most movies we watch can be better than what they are. Its not like peter jackson directed this and made it a 5hour movie, that would be the only way i think it could have been better, other than that the director worked with what he had, including time and things needing to be cut out of the movie to save time.

it was a good movie, B at the worst, it explained to the watchers what it needed to, and it didn't skip on almost any main plots, other than the many uses of the pensive (i thought that was disappointing because i thought those scenes in the movie were VERY well made)

while you sound uneducated by callinga Quidditch tourney a 'broomstick competition', I pretty much 100% agree. THis was a waste of time and a lost plotline. I didn't enjoy it, and I loved the other five.

while you sound uneducated by callinga Quidditch tourney a 'broomstick competition', I pretty much 100% agree. THis was a waste of time and a lost plotline. I didn't enjoy it, and I loved the other five.

considering you, like many critics, are an unequivocally masterful representation of idiocy, i can almost forgive this review. it reeks of naivety, and would be testament to talents and a point of view more suited to the daily enquirer i laugh at as i pass through the checkout line at a grocery store. had you read the book and realized a director can take only so much creative license in a movie version, you would realize almost all of your major sticking points are essentially forced upon the director by the plot of the book. as to being the worst in the series, i take it you are one of those brain dead imbeciles who liked the first movies, none of which captured the most favorable aspects of a child's movie. at last the movie has surpassed the novel, and yet your own narrow minded view leaves it as a footnote in your journal of bad decisions.

I was very dissappointed in the movie...the story was changed too much from the book. If the Weasley's home was burned down where is the order supposed to take Harry after he turns 17? If Ginny hid the potions book, how is Harry supposed to find the horcrux it is sitting under? Why would Harry stay hidden while Dumbledore is being attacked instead of fighting (in the book he was stunned by Dumbledore so he could not fight). If Dumbledore did not show Harry the memory of Riddle stealing the Gold cup how will he figure out it is a horcrux. No funeral for Dumbledore? I thought the movie was horrible. Too much snogging not enough action.

I have tickets to take my 6 year old grandson to the Imax on Saturday. Wish I didn't

My friend Rex Reed you are probably one of the few stereotypes of a critic in the world. You are extremely negative and don’t really put much effort into your reviews because you don’t like the subjects that you write about. Harry Potter is not about cell phones or the internet it’s about magic of entertainment something I don’t think you understand because you probably sit in a chair all day mumbling about how you hate everything in the world besides yourself.

this review was totally biased. how could you say there was no plot? you obviously have not read the books either... which of course as a movie critic why would you? it seems you'd do a little research though before you made your final analysis. if you had bothered to pick up the book you would know there is indeed a plot, although not one of jk's finest it is there and it does contribute to the story as a whole. and as for the hormonal teenage crap i totally agree with you there. the director took jk's subtle hints at sexuality among the teens and ran with it until it was a hormonal wad of pure unfiltered shite.

is the movie good? by itself no... its not one of the best out there... does it get the job done? yes. it sets everything up for the next installment which i am very sore about. and if they are breaking it up into two movies it better be DAMN good. which... undoubtly it won't be.

this review was totally biased. how could you say there was no plot? you obviously have not read the books either... which of course as a movie critic why would you? it seems you'd do a little research though before you made your final analysis. if you had bothered to pick up the book you would know there is indeed a plot, although not one of jk's finest it is there and it does contribute to the story as a whole. and as for the hormonal teenage crap i totally agree with you there. the director took jk's subtle hints at sexuality among the teens and ran with it until it was a hormonal wad of pure unfiltered shite.

is the movie good? by itself no... its not one of the best out there... does it get the job done? yes. it sets everything up for the next installment which i am very sore about. and if they are breaking it up into two movies it better be DAMN good. which... undoubtly it won't be.

this review was totally biased. how could you say there was no plot? you obviously have not read the books either... which of course as a movie critic why would you? it seems you'd do a little research though before you made your final analysis. if you had bothered to pick up the book you would know there is indeed a plot, although not one of jk's finest it is there and it does contribute to the story as a whole. and as for the hormonal teenage crap i totally agree with you there. the director took jk's subtle hints at sexuality among the teens and ran with it until it was a hormonal wad of pure unfiltered shite.

is the movie good? by itself no... its not one of the best out there... does it get the job done? yes. it sets everything up for the next installment which i am very sore about. and if they are breaking it up into two movies it better be DAMN good. which... undoubtly it won't be.

I don't have anything original to say that hasn't already been communicated thoroughly by the people above. However, I'm am so shocked at how pathetically inane this review is, I feel I need to reinforce the point: it is trash.

I beg your pardon, I know this is your job. I'm just truly offended by this review.

As others have noted, you do not understand the series. "In fact, this is the first Harry Potter movie I’ve ever seen that faded to black in deafening silence." What did you expect? A major character had just been killed. We should cheer for this? Someone else mentioned this is a prequel to the last two movies. You want to hear cheering? Come to the theater in July 2011. We'll be cheering the walls down when Voldemort is finally vanquished!

The scene with the love potion and then Ron getting poisoned could not have been cut, what are you on? For one, it revealed another attempt on Dumbledore's life, and two, in the hospital Ron called out Hermione's name in his delirium, revealing that he truly wanted to be with her and not Lavender. That was the first time he had every made his feelings known to her, even if it wasn't on purpose.
It's pretty obvious you wrote this just to get a rise out of people, considering how completely off-base you are with just about every statement you made, but I thought I'd let you know that seemingly irrelevant scene was actually rather crucial.

Yes you are probably the only person over 12 who thinks HP has outlived its shelf life. Movies 1, 2 and 3 enden on a high note with good triumphing over evil. But how can anybody possibly applaud while Harry is at the depths of despair, after losing the greatest of all his protectors? This is the darkest and saddest of the movies so far and i think its a damn good thing that nobody applauded after Dumbledore died.

You have clearly missed all the crucial points. Voldemort has not been 'vanquished countless times by the moppet warlocks at hogwarts' he cant be vanquished - did you even listen to the bit about horcruxes? Harry only put off his return in book 1 and 2. You just havent got a clue!

I was satisfied with this movie - it is the best by far. Everything of importance was in there. I was a bit dissapointed that house elves have been cut yet again and that there was an add on scene at the weasleys house - the whole point was that harry was safe there, the death eaters werent supposed to be able to get in (otherwise Voldemort would have been in there like a shot to kill Harry.) I couldnt help thinking that Bill, Fleur, Dobby and Kreacher were cut to make room for this silly scene but ah well it was still fantastic!

I thought the closeness between Harry and
Dumbledore was shown incredibly well in this movie. Dumbledore may not have frozen Harry at the end but I thought it was even more heart breaking to watch as Dumbledore told Harry to trust him and stay hidden no matter what happens. Harry still did not know what was going to happen - He thought Snape was there to save Dumbledore.

The absence of the fight scene at the end is forgiveable as the quidditch trouts, Ron's poisoning etc. make the movie 10 times better for all the real Harry Potter fans even if some idiotic critic can't stay awake long enough to grasp the story and the importance of these scenes.

Way to phone it in Reed! Perhaps after decades of reviewing films you've just had enough. Your opinion about the Potter franchise pretty much sums up the current state of your career, "outlived its shelf life." 60 million on opening day?

This review is right in criticizing the film but, as many other commenters have already pointed out, it criticizes all the wrong things. I too am left wondering if Mr. Reed actually even watched the film. Then again, while it's rather inexcusable for a professional critic to get this much information wrong about a movie, perhaps it does prove the larger point that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was structured poorly and left out a lot of pertinent information in favor of many relatively useless scenes. I understand that as the books get longer and longer it's increasingly difficult to condense their events into roughly 150 minutes of screen time, but I find that I'm increasingly baffled by at the choices made--some scenes completely unnecessary to the plot always make it through, while it seems that with each film, more and more pertinent information is glazed over or chopped out all together. While this installment was enjoyable as an avid fan of the series (I read this particular book no less than five times), and I felt the cast did a wonderful job with what they were given, I was sorely disappointed that this film chose to focus primarily on romantic entanglements instead of digging in to the meat of the story.

The whole point of the 6th book was to explore Tom Riddle's (Voldemort's) past, to give readers an understanding of where he came from and to build up and set the stage for the search for the horcruxes in the next book. I felt that this was so rushed over and ill-explained in the film that by the time the end came it felt like that major death that occurs in the film was almost an afterthought instead of something meaningful that's been built up to throughout the course of the film. What was probably the second most important event of the entire series felt tacked on and considerably less important than a bunch of teenagers snogging their way through Hogwarts--not the way it was in the book and not the way it should've been in the film.

Leaving aside for the moment that this movie review was spot on, I'd like to remind the critics of this review that what was being reviewed here was not the series as a whole, nor the book that had only a passing resemblance to this farce of a movie.
Yes, you can point out that unless you've read the book on which this movie was based you'd be missing the point, in fact whole sections (sometimes crucial sections) of the plot. And yes, you can likewise point out that this was intended to be a setup for the culminating events in the final installment of the 7 (8) part series; however, the problem with this movie, unlike the novel itself, is that there is no way that it could ever be thought to stand on its own.
The plot is plodding for the most part and entirely incomprehensible without first having read the novel--and having read the novel, the screenwriter does the storyline no justice by adding in random pyrotechnics without any justification (think the Burrow), mismanaged "broomstick competitions" (and no, it wasn't a match, just a chance for random mugging by the films less engaging stars) and by mangling the elements of the original story so badly that they fail to make sense in terms of the greater plot.
I walked out of the theater greatly saddened by the wasted opportunity (and wasted talent: hopefully the dull acting and the stunted dialogue was a matter of bad writing, a la George Lucas) that I had seen presented, and I was not the only one to feel so. The crowd was silent at the end, then there were a few uncertain applause, mostly, I'm sure, from those still trying to decipher what they had just seen, trying to reconcile it with the memory and love they had for a genuinely engaging and wonderfully told book.

To everybody who doesn't think Harry Potter Half blood prince is one of the worst movies ever made, I feel very sorry for you. There is not a hint of intelligence in this movie; there was not even a plot. The purpose of the whole half blood prince part of the story was to put a spice to the title in order to encourage a sense of curiosity. If you think the half blood prince was the story, you are wrong, if you think the teenage romances/kissing is the story/the high-light of the movie, you are sick and you need to get some help. The main objective of this lame movie was to introduce the horcrux (voldemort soul is stored to 7 different objects) now please think about, why???? hint $$$$$$$ The movie, even the book did not deliver for what it's trying to give, I can not even take it for what it's worth.
The problem with most top critics nowadays, they don't review the movie base on what it's trying to deliver/give, and this is the reason why this movie is getting good reviews. Top critics are in their own little world far from reality (They are with Harry in Hogwarts); you have to review a movie as a whole, not like an inspection with check marks.

To everybody who doesn't think Harry Potter Half blood prince is one of the worst movies ever made, I feel very sorry for you. There is not a hint of intelligence in this movie; there was not even a plot. The purpose of the whole half blood prince part of the story was to put a spice to the title in order to encourage a sense of curiosity. If you think the half blood prince was the story, you are wrong, if you think the teenage romances/kissing is the story/the high-light of the movie, you are sick and you need to get some help. The main objective of this lame movie was to introduce the horcrux (voldemort soul is stored to 7 different objects) now please think about, why???? hint $$$$$$$ The movie, even the book did not deliver for what it's trying to give, I can not even take it for what it's worth.
The problem with most top critics nowadays, they don't review the movie base on what it's trying to deliver/give, and this is the reason why this movie is getting good reviews. Top critics are in their own little world far from reality (They are with Harry in Hogwarts); you have to review a movie as a whole, not like an inspection with check marks.

To everybody who doesn't think Harry Potter Half blood prince is one of the worst movies ever made, I feel very sorry for you. There is not a hint of intelligence in this movie; there was not even a plot. The purpose of the whole half blood prince part of the story was to put a spice to the title in order to encourage a sense of curiosity. If you think the half blood prince was the story, you are wrong, if you think the teenage romances/kissing is the story/the high-light of the movie, you are sick and you need to get some help. The main objective of this lame movie was to introduce the horcrux (voldemort soul is stored to 7 different objects) now please think about, why???? hint $$$$$$$ The movie, even the book did not deliver for what it's trying to give, I can not even take it for what it's worth.
The problem with most top critics nowadays, they don't review the movie base on what it's trying to deliver/give, and this is the reason why this movie is getting good reviews. Top critics are in their own little world far from reality (They are with Harry in Hogwarts); you have to review a movie as a whole, not like an inspection with check marks.

Rex,

Your critique of Harry Potter VI is void. I can understand your disappointment with the movie, but your defense is weak. The movies provide entertainment, but for readers it's more than that. It's obvious that you did not read the books. (The black smoke was not Voldemort, rather they were his Death Eaters.) Now with fans of all ages, the books originally captured a generation of kids that at the time could relate with Harry and his friends. This generation has grown to understand the limitations of the moving image and therefore, readers don't really expect to see every intricacy Rowling wove.

How many series of books have been turned into huge blockbusters at such a short time after their publications? How can you expect every important character to have x number of lines? We'd be in the theater for 12 hours! I do feel bad for those who are confused because there are several important points that are tossed aside. That's why I feel the readers have the best of both worlds. The movies satisfy our visual imagination of what could lurking in the shadows, but the books allow a deeper understanding of Harry Potter and his world.

I am satisfied with the Half-Blood Prince. I thought it was made really well. The visual effects were great and the movie dark enough for kids to still enjoy (the book revealed much darker events). I've been reading HP since seventh grade and now that I'm 21, I'm glad that the movies also matured. I love that there wasn't so much focus on new magic meaning that all the possibilities have been established, magic is just part of their world. Now it's just enjoyable to see how the directors manifest the grave spells. The acting definitely got better between Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson, they've just grown into the parts and it's great to see them grow with me.

I guess...as Malcolm Gladwell would say, I was just born at the right time to enjoy both the movies and the books, without resentment and confusion. :P

Rex,

Your critique of Harry Potter VI is void. I can understand your disappointment with the movie, but your defense is weak. The movies provide entertainment, but for readers it's more than that. It's obvious that you did not read the books. (The black smoke was not Voldemort, rather they were his Death Eaters.) Now with fans of all ages, the books originally captured a generation of kids that at the time could relate with Harry and his friends. This generation has grown to understand the limitations of the moving image and therefore, readers don't really expect to see every intricacy Rowling wove.

How many series of books have been turned into huge blockbusters at such a short time after their publications? How can you expect every important character to have x number of lines? We'd be in the theater for 12 hours! I do feel bad for those who are confused because there are several important points that are tossed aside. That's why I feel the readers have the best of both worlds. The movies satisfy our visual imagination of what could lurking in the shadows, but the books allow a deeper understanding of Harry Potter and his world.

I am satisfied with the Half-Blood Prince. I thought it was made really well. The visual effects were great and the movie dark enough for kids to still enjoy (the book revealed much darker events). I've been reading HP since seventh grade and now that I'm 21, I'm glad that the movies also matured. I love that there wasn't so much focus on new magic meaning that all the possibilities have been established, magic is just part of their world. Now it's just enjoyable to see how the directors manifest the grave spells. The acting definitely got better between Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson, they've just grown into the parts and it's great to see them grow with me.

I guess...as Malcolm Gladwell would say, I was just born at the right time to enjoy both the movies and the books, without resentment and confusion. :P

Rex,

Your critique of Harry Potter VI is void. I can understand your disappointment with the movie, but your defense is weak. The movies provide entertainment, but for readers it's more than that. It's obvious that you did not read the books. (The black smoke was not Voldemort, rather they were his Death Eaters.) Now with fans of all ages, the books originally captured a generation of kids that at the time could relate with Harry and his friends. This generation has grown to understand the limitations of the moving image and therefore, readers don't really expect to see every intricacy Rowling wove.

How many series of books have been turned into huge blockbusters at such a short time after their publications? How can you expect every important character to have x number of lines? We'd be in the theater for 12 hours! I do feel bad for those who are confused because there are several important points that are tossed aside. That's why I feel the readers have the best of both worlds. The movies satisfy our visual imagination of what could lurking in the shadows, but the books allow a deeper understanding of Harry Potter and his world.

I am satisfied with the Half-Blood Prince. I thought it was made really well. The visual effects were great and the movie dark enough for kids to still enjoy (the book revealed much darker events). I've been reading HP since seventh grade and now that I'm 21, I'm glad that the movies also matured. I love that there wasn't so much focus on new magic meaning that all the possibilities have been established, magic is just part of their world. Now it's just enjoyable to see how the directors manifest the grave spells. The acting definitely got better between Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson, they've just grown into the parts and it's great to see them grow with me.

I guess...as Malcolm Gladwell would say, I was just born at the right time to enjoy both the movies and the books, without resentment and confusion. :P

Rex,

Your critique of Harry Potter VI is void. I can understand your disappointment with the movie, but your defense is weak. The movies provide entertainment, but for readers it's more than that. It's obvious that you did not read the books. (The black smoke was not Voldemort, rather they were his Death Eaters.) Now with fans of all ages, the books originally captured a generation of kids that at the time could relate with Harry and his friends. This generation has grown to understand the limitations of the moving image and therefore, readers don't really expect to see every intricacy Rowling wove.

How many series of books have been turned into huge blockbusters at such a short time after their publications? How can you expect every important character to have x number of lines? We'd be in the theater for 12 hours! I do feel bad for those who are confused because there are several important points that are tossed aside. That's why I feel the readers have the best of both worlds. The movies satisfy our visual imagination of what could lurking in the shadows, but the books allow a deeper understanding of Harry Potter and his world.

I am satisfied with the Half-Blood Prince. I thought it was made really well. The visual effects were great and the movie dark enough for kids to still enjoy (the book revealed much darker events). I've been reading HP since seventh grade and now that I'm 21, I'm glad that the movies also matured. I love that there wasn't so much focus on new magic meaning that all the possibilities have been established, magic is just part of their world. Now it's just enjoyable to see how the directors manifest the grave spells. The acting definitely got better between Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson, they've just grown into the parts and it's great to see them grow with me.

I guess...as Malcolm Gladwell would say, I was just born at the right time to enjoy both the movies and the books, without resentment and confusion. :P

Rex,

Your critique of Harry Potter VI is void. I can understand your disappointment with the movie, but your defense is weak. The movies provide entertainment, but for readers it's more than that. It's obvious that you did not read the books. (The black smoke was not Voldemort, rather they were his Death Eaters.) Now with fans of all ages, the books originally captured a generation of kids that at the time could relate with Harry and his friends. This generation has grown to understand the limitations of the moving image and therefore, readers don't really expect to see every intricacy Rowling wove.

How many series of books have been turned into huge blockbusters at such a short time after their publications? How can you expect every important character to have x number of lines? We'd be in the theater for 12 hours! I do feel bad for those who are confused because there are several important points that are tossed aside. That's why I feel the readers have the best of both worlds. The movies satisfy our visual imagination of what could lurking in the shadows, but the books allow a deeper understanding of Harry Potter and his world.

I am satisfied with the Half-Blood Prince. I thought it was made really well. The visual effects were great and the movie dark enough for kids to still enjoy (the book revealed much darker events). I've been reading HP since seventh grade and now that I'm 21, I'm glad that the movies also matured. I love that there wasn't so much focus on new magic meaning that all the possibilities have been established, magic is just part of their world. Now it's just enjoyable to see how the directors manifest the grave spells. The acting definitely got better between Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson, they've just grown into the parts and it's great to see them grow with me.

I guess...as Malcolm Gladwell would say, I was just born at the right time to enjoy both the movies and the books, without resentment and confusion. :P