quote:

Originally posted by AT:

quote:

Originally posted by puxzkkx:
It wasn't the London bridge that collapsed in the book, is it? Did they exaggerate the novel's events for the screen?

It's to be the Millennium bridge in the movie (it certainly couldn't be the London bridge that was sold and transported to AZ years ago- the bridge you might be thinking of is the Tower Bridge) and no they didn't exaggerate what happens in the book they just bring it to life

By the By, books are almost always better than the movies made from them and the Harry Potter Books are no exception, they are certainly worth the read, especially the latter books (though can't say I like how Rowlings ended the series)

I thought that in HBP it was just an anonymous bridge in an anonymous town, not a landmark bridge.

In the book the bridge is anonymous but in the movie it becomes a major bridge, This is what the HR review I think has a problem with a major bridge destruction goes unremarked on while in the book its anonymous so who cares.

quote:

Originally posted by BTN:
In the book the bridge is anonymous but in the movie it becomes a major bridge, This is what the HR review I think has a problem with a major bridge destruction goes unremarked on while in the book its anonymous so who cares.

I think because the film is marketed worldwide it had to be a landmark bridge to say this is modern day England and as to no comment, it causes great distress in the muggle world in the book regardless of whether its a big landmark or not. Think if thats the major nitpick the hollywood reporter can come up with then its not too bad. Interests me that one of the English papers was a bit rougher on the film than any of the Americans so far. Be interesting to see what people are saying after today's premiere in London

You know, I really enjoy all the Harry Potter movies. I have not read a sentence of all the books, but I plan to one day once all the movies have been seen. I look forward to the latest movie this coming weekend.

I really hope this movie is really good getting some award buzz especially some acting nods for Alan Rickman.

Aren't the books actually set in the late 80s and early 90s? I'm pretty sure they are.

Also, British critics are always a lot harsher on their homegrown films and talents than overseas critics (esp. the wussy Americans) are.

quote:

Originally posted by puxzkkx:
Aren't the books actually set in the late 80s and early 90s? I'm pretty sure they are.

Also, British critics are always a lot harsher on their homegrown films and talents than overseas critics (esp. the wussy Americans) are.

The books seem to go out of their way to avoid topical references so the time period is kept purposefully vague. What makes you think they are set in the late 80s- especially as the first book was published in the late 90s?

quote:

Originally posted by puxzkkx:
Aren't the books actually set in the late 80s and early 90s? I'm pretty sure they are.

Also, British critics are always a lot harsher on their homegrown films and talents than overseas critics (esp. the wussy Americans) are.

I'm pretty sure that the first book is 1991 and the second 1992, third 1993 and so on...

quote:

Originally posted by pacinofan:

quote:

Originally posted by puxzkkx:
Aren't the books actually set in the late 80s and early 90s? I'm pretty sure they are.

Also, British critics are always a lot harsher on their homegrown films and talents than overseas critics (esp. the wussy Americans) are.

The books seem to go out of their way to avoid topical references so the time period is kept purposefully vague. What makes you think they are set in the late 80s- especially as the first book was published in the late 90s?

I can't speak for puxzkkx, but for me the main reason why the books are set in the late 80s is because in book two, JKR made the mistake of assiging a year to Sir Headless Nick's death, 1492, thus all the other events from the book are based on that year, so most of the events of the series take place during the early to mid 90s.

Of course, maybe she'll go back and revise that when she does the big revision of all the books that she wrote about on her site, so it will be a moot point later on.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mrs. Daryl Zero,

The time period is never mentioned in the books, but some hints are given in the final two books regarding current events, and the dates sort of match up. J.K. Rowling confirmed something about the early 90s being the setting in an interview outside of the books, I think the interview was with muggle.net, or she might have answered questions on her site.

This from The Hollywood Reporter.com:

'Harry Potter' tickets outpace 'Transformers'
Advance ticketing for sequel makes up 65% of daily sales
By Carl DiOrio

July 7, 2009, 03:32 PM ET

"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"

Advance sales of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" are outpacing those of "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" or the fifth Potter movie, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," at a similar point in their sales cycles.

Eight days before its July 15 opening, "Prince" accounted for 65% of daily ticket sales, online ticketer Fandango said Tuesday.

In a related promo, Fandango said a poll of more than 3,000 visitors to its Web site found that 85% of respondents had read all seven Potter books. "Prince" is the sixth Potter pic of a planned eight; Warners is splitting the seventh book into two movies.

" 'The Half-Blood Prince' is turning out to be one of our fastest-selling titles of the year," Fandango COO Rick Butler said.

Fandango began selling "Prince" tickets on June 17. Ticket purchasers get a free music download of the song "Friends and Love" from the film's soundtrack

An interesting piece from InContention.com:

Warm reviews for latest ‘Potter’
Posted by Guy Lodge · 9:58 am · July 6th, 2009

I must admit upfront that I don’t really get the Harry Potter franchise. I don’t dislike it — not having exposed myself enough to its components to justify such a response — but I’ve never felt remotely compelled to deepen my acquaintance with the material. I’ve tackled one of my J.K. Rowling’s novels, but the lumpen functionality of her prose didn’t tempt me further.

As for the films, I’ve sat through two of them — and yes, one of them was Alfonso Cuaron’s expertly crafted but still personality-deficient effort — and found them both painless yet unengaging watches. I understand that they please millions of viewers, and I commend them for that. But for fear of breeding actual resentment, I think it’s better that I no longer watch them. The Potter films and I have reached an entente cordiale, if you will, and it works for both of us.

All of which is to say that the more enthusiastic reviews emerging for the sixth (!) installment, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” (am I the only one who always has to look the full titles up?), don’t really move me one way or the other. It would appear that director David Yates and writer Steve Kloves (are we ever getting another “Wonder Boys” from him?) have maintained their general success in streamlining the unwieldy novels with equal attention paid to character and craftsmanship, which is a significant achievement this far into a franchise. But I remain thoroughly untempted to get in line.

Among the film’s champions,Variety’s Todd McCarthy is generally swept up by the proceedings:

Dazzlingly well made and perhaps deliberately less fanciful than the previous entries, this one is played in a mode closer to palpable life-or-death drama than any of the others and is quite effective as such … Director David Yates, after a prosaic series debut on the prior film, displays noticeably increased confidence here, injecting more real-world grit into what began eight years ago as purest child’s fantasy.

It’s hard to imagine watching “Half-Blood Prince” as a “Potter” virgin without a clue as to what’s come before, but it’s a formidable entry with a heft and cinematic texture compromised only by a certain lack of dramatic modulation … Among the always outstanding production values and top-drawer visual effects, special note should be made of series newcomer Bruno Delbonnel’s exceptionally atmospheric cinematography and Nicholas Hooper’s emotionally churning score, which contains only the slightest trace of John Williams’ original themes.

Kirk Honeycutt’s Hollywood Reporter isn’t quite as keen, citing numerous structural problems, but finally echoing McCarthy’s praise of the technical contributions that make for “a singularly muscular and vigorous chapter.” The Guardian deems it “ungainly (but) solidly constructed” business as usual, while Screen International’s Fionnuala Halligan declares the film a narrative step back and a technical step forward:

While individual sequences are undoubtedly the most exciting of this summer’s blockbuster season – a dizzying opening, for example, shot from an aerial perspective in which Death Eaters rain their havoc down on London, collapsing the Millennium Bridge – Prince never quite connects the dots into a ripping ride, playing out instead in a series of gentle interludes. Fans will adore it, needless to say; Prince is as well-made as any of the Harry Potter films, if not technically superior.

Stunningly shot by Bruno Delbonnel in metallic hues leavened by buttery tones – his unique vision even brings a fresh perspective to the inevitable Quidditch scenes – this Harry is certainly a technical wizard of a film … The thumping beats of Nicholas Hooper’s score bear little resemblance to the original and the overall effect is much less twee, much more grown-up.

Of course there will be (and already have been) certain excitable folks who ignore these notices and build major Oscar hopes upon the film’s stronger reviews and inevitable box-office glory, as if an extra five nominees in the Best Picture category suddenly overrides their longstanding resistance to children’s films, fantasy and franchise entries, however kindly received. (I can already tell that the media’s search for a blockbuster redeemer for last year’s “The Dark Knight” snub is going to be one of the award’s seasons more tedious narratives.)

With a scant 6 nominations between the previous 5 films, we probably shouldn’t count on a notably improved Oscar performance for “Half-Blood Prince,” but Stuart Craig’s production design (twice nominated before) and the visual effects team (only once) are obviously solid contenders, though I doubt the score has much of shot with the music branch without John Williams’ twice-nominated name attached.

The most intriguing possibility to chalk up, however, is a Best Cinematography nod. Though the franchise has always had distinguished DPs on board (most recently Slawomir Idziak), they’ve never had an especially distinctive visual palette or texture. However, Bruno Delbonnel (twice Oscar-checked for his collaborations with Jean-Pierre Jeunet) is an idiosyncratic stylist and the critics are clearly picking up on his work. Can the franchise finally break through in this category?

Go Blue, I hope you have a great time reading the books when you get around to it.

I think the time period of the books is dated internally. The second book takes place 500 years after 1492. Ergo, it is in 1992. The books span the time from 1991-1998. I am sticking with that until JKR decides to say otherwise.

I am interested in seeing how this film is structured. The book doesn't really seem to lend itself to film very easily. The main plot of the book is Harry basically eavesdropping on Dumbledore's memories. It is a lot of sitting around staring at the past.

The B plot is the really dynamic one. However, I think the movies have done a *really* poor job at characterization of Snape and Malfoy. (Draco Malfoy, that is. The films have done pretty well by Lucius Malfoy.) They have both been used almost entirely as comic relief in the movies. These two characters need a lot of depth to pull off the plot in "Half Blood Prince". So far, the movies have made both of them near cartoon bullies and villains. I think this movie has a lot of work to do to add enough depth to these two characters in order to emotionally justify the climax scene of this story.

The climax scene of this story is maybe my favorite scene in the entire series. The complexity of motives and emotion from Dumbledore, Snape and Malfoy is amazing. Part of the great shock value of the scene comes from the audience's understanding of the complexity of relationships of these characters. An understanding which Harry doesn't have. In the books, this scene has an incredible dual layer effect where the audience understands the complex ramifications of what just happened, while Harry sees it as something else entirely.

I fear that with the lack of development of Snape, in particular, this scene is going to be robbed of that dual layer effect. All the film will portray is Harry's perception of events.

So, how was that for an attempt to discuss this scene without spoilers? LOL.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: LadyHathor25,

Never read the books. However, having seen all the films, I have to say that the latest one, Phoenix whatever, was my favorite. David Yates, I think, is the first director to construct a HP film that didn't require me to read the book. Not only that, but I liked the dark tones he added to it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dr. McPhearson,

The Minster of Magic meets with a new prime minister in one of the books (the fifth? the sixth?). That seems to me a pretty easy reference to Tony Blair, which would put that meeting in 1997.

MysteriousRent that is in the first chapter of the sixth book, because it is as Fudge is removed from that position.

quote:

Originally posted by movieman6:
MysteriousRent that is in the first chapter of the sixth book, because it is as Fudge is removed from that position.

That's right. Is it a new prime minister or the new Minister of Magic then? Now I don't remember. Either, I assumed it to be Tony Blair.

A couple more reviews
Boxoffice.com

San Francisco Chronicle

Roger Ebert has a review and I think he may be getting tired of the Harry Potter movies.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com...VIEWS/907129996/1001

A positive review from David Edelstein in NEW YORK MAGAZINE...

Now that we know how the saga ends (with a ho and a hum), Harry Potter feels so…2008. Kids who started reading J.K. Rowling prepubertally (“He and Cho Chang snog? No way!”) have since moved on to Mormon sexual-repression parables involving vampires, while Little Harry got naked on Broadway and blinded six horses with a metal spike. Undaunted, Warner announced it would prolong its franchise by splitting the underplotted final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, into two movies. (If they split the second part of that and keep splitting, the series could go on to infinity.) As tag teams of agents and executives labor to convince Dame J.K. that the world desperately needs prequels (Young Dumbledore and the Temple of Doom!), here comes movie No. 6, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Do we give a damn?

I didn’t, until the film started—and it was splendid! No, it’s not a larky kid-pic. We’re firmly in the realm of English horror, as one set of sallow Brits battles another even sallower. Our villains are racist murderers; our heroes embody tolerance, discipline, and a British public-school education, heavy on Latin—which, when chanted properly behind a wand, can mean the difference between goosing and defenestrating someone. As the aged Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) hears the chimes at midnight, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Ron’s newly sprouted kid sister, Ginny (Bonnie Wright), struggle to keep their desires (and vindictive hexes) in check while their objects of affection snog other people. If Voldemort (present in this movie only in spirit) were a true evil genius, he’d have abandoned the horcrux nonsense and used their own hormones against them.

Screenwriter Steve Kloves—who adapted earlier Potter tomes with excessive reverence—sat out part five and is in fighting form, cutting a droll path through Rowling’s verbiage. Apart from the fact that no one who hasn’t seen parts one through five will have a clue what’s going on, this barely feels like a sequel. Director David Yates creates Orson Welles–ish multiple levels of action, and when the camera sails around Hogwarts’ turrets, it’s as if the CGI is an extension of the wizards’ magic.

Illustrious British actors pop in and out, intoning their few lines and collecting the paychecks that underwrite their stage work (and country houses). As Professor Snape, either a double or triple agent, Alan Rickman hits new levels of hauteur, breaking up sentences with long, disdainful beats: I counted five seconds between two words, and I’m guessing Dame Maggie Smith bit her tongue to keep from howling. Jim Broadbent shows up as the new professor, Slughorn, and he makes the man at once dotty and haunted, the dottiness keeping his guilt at bay.

Our three protagonists are taller, more polished, more charismatic—after all, they’re movie stars now. But Emma Watson’s Hermione has turned out disappointingly. It’s not Watson’s fault she grew up so pretty, so poised, with such luscious tresses. But someone ought to have reminded the filmmakers that in this boy-centric universe, Hermione is the nerdy-wonky cutie with whom all girls, hot and not, could identify. Now she’s just another cover girl. I found myself wishing for more of the washed-out blonde Evanna Lynch and her glassy singsong as the space case Luna Lovegood, the last female reminder that Harry Potter began as a universe of misfits.