What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Henry B 50]

And as for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince... they turned a dark fantasy story into a romantic comedy.

I sort of felt the opposite way.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Samiraaa, our new poster, is dead on correct.

Yes, and I'm agreeing with her. Is that Selective Reading Syndrome playing you up again?

sorry not selective reading, I put the wrong name, I meant Hanman, not Samiraaa.

HBP is the best film of the series

[Samiraaa 0]

And as for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince... they turned a dark fantasy story into a romantic comedy.

I sort of felt the opposite way.

I wonder why.

[Henry B 50]

Excuse me?

[Samiraaa 0]

Well, I said ''they turned a dark fantasy story into a romantic comedy'' and you said you ''sort of felt the opposite way''. Why? Why do you feel that way?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

HBP had some extremely cringe worthy moments, but it was way better than the book.

Better than the book?! I have read some funny comments about the film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, but this beats them all. Could you please explain why you think that?

I didn't like the book. The first five are gold though.

[Neimoidian 14]

And as for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince... they turned a dark fantasy story into a romantic comedy.

I haven't seen that movie yet, but with GoF I actually found these "romantic comedy" moments the most enjoyable in the whole movie, given that neither the tournament, nor Voldemort's return excited me a bit.

[Henry B 50]

Well, I said ''they turned a dark fantasy story into a romantic comedy'' and you said you ''sort of felt the opposite way''. Why? Why do you feel that way?

I feel they turned a romantic comedy into a dark fantasy. In a way. Half-Blood Prince as a book felt like a very light read to me until the final chapters with Dumbledore. Harry always seemed to be in great spirits and all the love interest subplots were treated pretty comically. The movie, however, made a serious matter of them. There's nothing in the book like the scene where Hermione breaks down in front of Harry. Plus, there was all the added action and the destruction of the Burrow. Depressing stuff. Oh, and I suppose I imagined the book to have a soundtrack with a wide range of colors from buoyant and whimsical to apocalyptic, unlike Hooper's moody string pad approach which sucked the joy right out of scenes.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Excuse me?

- Alan, who has read the books but hasn't watched any of the non-JW scored films

[Marian Schedenig 8,240]

And as for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince... they turned a dark fantasy story into a romantic comedy.

I sort of felt the opposite way.

The book is both. The movie is both. It's the best movie in the series aside from POA.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

It is at least worth checking out. Which is something most movies from this genre aren't.

Karol

Comic book movies?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

That was the one about Richard Kraft, right? Just curious, how long was Danny Elfman's part in the film?

No, you confused it with Finding Kraftland

Whoops....

[Josh500 1,615]

Excuse me?

You sounded like Hermione Granger there for a moment, Henry.

[Samiraaa 0]

I haven't seen that movie yet, but with GoF I actually found these "romantic comedy" moments the most enjoyable in the whole movie, given that neither the tournament, nor Voldemort's return excited me a bit.

I found these moments very cringeworthy. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a good romantic comedy. I watch Harry Potter films for other reasons though. Maybe that's why I can't stand the last film (and that's putting it mildly).

I feel they turned a romantic comedy into a dark fantasy. In a way. Half-Blood Prince as a book felt like a very light read to me until the final chapters with Dumbledore. Harry always seemed to be in great spirits and all the love interest subplots were treated pretty comically. The movie, however, made a serious matter of them. There's nothing in the book like the scene where Hermione breaks down in front of Harry. Plus, there was all the added action and the destruction of the Burrow. Depressing stuff. Oh, and I suppose I imagined the book to have a soundtrack with a wide range of colors from buoyant and whimsical to apocalyptic, unlike Hooper's moody string pad approach which sucked the joy right out of scenes.

I always think of HBP as a dark story, so I have to disagree with you. Those love plots were present in the book, but the darker side (Voldy's past, the story of the horcruxes, Draco's assignment, stories of people disappearing, stories of people dying) had the upper hand. Those dark elements were spread throughout the whole book, so I don't get why HBP felt light to you. By the way... Yeah they added the destruction of the Burrow, but it didn't make a lot of sense. The Burrow can't be attacked for it's protected by the Minisitry of Magic. They should have picked the big fight at the Astronomy tower. Way more epic and this would have added a climax to the film. Now we have Bellatrix destroying parts of a deserted school. What's the point in that, really?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

I have yet to see the film, but I believe that was done to avoid repetition in the next two films.

[Neimoidian 14]

I haven't seen that movie yet, but with GoF I actually found these "romantic comedy" moments the most enjoyable in the whole movie, given that neither the tournament, nor Voldemort's return excited me a bit.

I found these moments very cringeworthy. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a good romantic comedy. I watch Harry Potter films for other reasons though. Maybe that's why I can't stand the last film (and that's putting it mildly).

Maybe. As I mentioned elsewhere, my view on the story is based solely on what I see in the theatre. Besides, I have a very bad taste regarding romantic comedies and I usually laugh at the goofiest scenes. Not to mention, I almost saw myself in them

[John Crichton 4]

Samira, you have to understand one thing about our friend Drax: he'll never forgive JK Rowling for not pairing Harry and Hermione together.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I think they should have ended up together.

[Wojo 2,453]

Samira, you have to understand one thing about our friend Drax: he'll never forgive JK Rowling for not pairing Harry and Hermione together.

But that would mean Ginny and Ron would hook up. That's legal in like 4% of the US, but probably not Britain.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Oh yeah, well I think Harry should have died!

[Samiraaa 0]

Samira, you have to understand one thing about our friend Drax: he'll never forgive JK Rowling for not pairing Harry and Hermione together.

God, please no. Ron and Hermione were meant to be since the very first day they met. I really don't get those Harry/Hermione shippers...

[Neimoidian 14]

Please, boys and girls, don't spoil until we finally get spoiler-galore tracklist on JW's two new album covers.

[Morlock 11]

Saw Potter. Narrative-wise, it's a rather bold movie. I only wish that that boldness was organic, and not made necessary by the length of the book. I was rather uninvolved during the first half of this film. But it gained steam in the second half, and by the end of it, I was really enjoying it. They even managed to make me like the cave scene. There's a lot in it to like, but the way its narrative unfolds is infuriating- it feels so insanely rushed, that I rarely got a chance to take in individual scenes. Was it just the projection in my theater, or did the whole film feel like it was shot through a healthy amount of gauze filters?

My favorite things were the penultimate scene, and the way Malfoy's task was depicted. I loved the way he was popping up in the film, and it paid off in the end. I'm not that familiar with the book (read it twice, but couldn't remember a huge amount of the individual chapters), but I was still taken aback by how much of what I was seeing on screen didn't even ring a bell.

Certainly a film that deserves a second viewing, especially because after a sleepless night. Even my vague grasp of it put it squarely behind 3 and 5 in the series, and far ahead of the other three. What a weird and interesting film-series.

Oh, the score seemed fine for most of it, although some of the more whimsical scenes were scored with quite abnoxious comedy cues that really cheapened them. Emma Watson needs all the help she can get, and Hooper killed a lot of her material.

[Ollie 1,067]

Watched In Harm's Way.

[Marian Schedenig 8,240]

I have yet to see the film, but I believe that was done to avoid repetition in the next two films.

Probably. And I think it worked really well, although it came as a surprise. But it makes the film feel quite balanced and consistent, something I couldn't say for the previous two.

Saw Potter. Narrative-wise, it's a rather bold movie. I only wish that that boldness was organic, and not made necessary by the length of the book. I was rather uninvolved during the first half of this film. But it gained steam in the second half, and by the end of it, I was really enjoying it. They even managed to make me like the cave scene. There's a lot in it to like, but the way its narrative unfolds is infuriating- it feels so insanely rushed, that I rarely got a chance to take in individual scenes.

I thought it was the least rushed of all the films so far. I really felt like it took its time. By the intermission (as usual they just cut it off in the middle for a 20 minute break) my only fear was that it would degrade into a special effects chaos during the second half, like OOTP did. Gladly, I ended up liking the second half just as much (or perhaps more) than the first.

Come to think of it, it's one of only three Potter films so far which I didn't have serious complaints about afterwards.

[Morlock 11]

I think it took its time with a bunch of the scenes, but got in and out of them so quickly, that an overall sense of the piece was missing. Some scenes were better and some were worse, but I felt like they needed more mortar in between. It's one critical scene after the other...I didn't feel like it breathed enough.

I did like a bunch of the effects- the fire in the cave and underwater was really beautiful, as was the final moment of the climactic sequence at Hogwarts. I also really liked the very opening of the film, the brief scene of the death-eaters wreaking havoc.

[Jay 37,476]

Bruno

Terrible. I loved Borat, but this movied was just terrible. There were funny parts in the trailer, and maybe 2 or 3 additional funny parts in the actual film........... but the rest of the movie is stupid, unfunny, garbage. Hated it.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Best Potter film in a while. Everything through the zombie cave was extremely well done, a good adaptation of the book. Covered all the important stuff, even found time for details other adapters might have neglected. They really drop the ball after the zombie cave, though. Why cut out the awesome magic battle between Death Eaters and student/faculty of Hogwarts? Such a cool scene. Alas.

The score was rubbish

[Henry B 50]

Best Potter film in a while. Everything through the zombie cave was extremely well done, a good adaptation of the book. Covered all the important stuff, even found time for details other adapters might have neglected. They really drop the ball after the zombie cave, though. Why cut out the awesome magic battle between Death Eaters and student/faculty of Hogwarts? Such a cool scene. Alas.

Apparently it would have made the battle at Hogwarts in the final movie redundant. I'm fine with that. The score kind of trashes the whole sequence though. That stereotypical danger/unrest chord on Dumbledore's death, ugh!

[Jay 37,476]

I felt like they tried to do a whole LOTR thing with the slo-mo of him falling, etc

I don't get why they didn't have Dumbledore stupify Harry like in the book, either. It was much better that he was literally unable to help Dumbledore fight off Snape and the Death Eaters instead of just pacing back and forth below as in the movie

--

Also, how in the world did this film get a PG rating? It was way more violent than the last film, which was a PG13. I don't get it.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Samira, you have to understand one thing about our friend Drax: he'll never forgive JK Rowling for not pairing Harry and Hermione together.

God, please no. Ron and Hermione were meant to be since the very first day they met. I really don't get those Harry/Hermione shippers...

Ron/Hermione are wonderful for poison quill letters.

[A24 4,363]

Yes Man: Very charming and likeable. I absolutely loved Jim Carrey's boss (the Michael Caine type). The Harry Potter and 300 parties were hilarious!

Slumdog Millionaire: Hmm. I prefer 28 Days Later. The shot of the girl (at the train station) looking up to Jamal is beautiful though.

Alex

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Back to the Future part III

Great fun and a worthy closing to the trilogy. It was only this time though that I noticed how silly the train sequence is really. They sure take a long time to cover those three miles at a speed constantly accelerating to about 90 MPH....

Still, good times will be had when watching this film.

Part II and III of the trilogy also appear to be the only back-to-back shot sequels I know of to not suffer from massive EPICNESS GALORE. Both films earn bonus points just for that.

[crocodile 8,048]

I need to rewatch Part II. Barely remember it.

Yes Man: Very charming and likeable. I absolutely loved Jim Carrey's boss (the Michael Caine type). The Harry Potter and 300 parties were hilarious!

Slumdog Millionaire: Hmm. I prefer 28 Days Later. The shot of the girl (at the train station) looking up to Jamal is beautiful though.

Alex

Slumdog is not bad, but, the best things about this film happen in the first half, I think. After that it looses steam.

Why did you compare it to 28 Days Later?

Karol

[A24 4,363]

Yes Man: Very charming and likeable. I absolutely loved Jim Carrey's boss (the Michael Caine type). The Harry Potter and 300 parties were hilarious!

Slumdog Millionaire: Hmm. I prefer 28 Days Later. The shot of the girl (at the train station) looking up to Jamal is beautiful though.

Slumdog is not bad, but, the best things about this film happen in the first half, I think. After that it looses steam.

Why did you compare it to 28 Days Later?

Karol

It's not bad at all but I'm not won over by it either. I couldn't rid myself of the thought that it was all Oscar bait.

I compare all Danny Boyle's movies to 28 Days Later because it seems that this is his only movie that I truly, truly like. I don't know, maybe it's because it's his most silent movie.

Alex

[crocodile 8,048]

Can't agree or disagree on 28 Days. I haven't seen it.

Karol

[A24 4,363]

Can't agree or disagree on 28 Days. I haven't seen it.

Karol

If you see it, make sure that you see 28 Days Later and not 28 Weeks Later. The former is great filmmaking, the latter is a turkey.

Valkyrie: Didn't really care for this one. Everything felt rather 'common'. It would've made a decent TV movie, I guess.

Alex

[crocodile 8,048]

Historical facts aside, the film is well made.

Karol

[A24 4,363]

Historic facts aside, the film is well made.

Well made but a bit tame, no?

[crocodile 8,048]

Historic facts aside, the film is well made.

Well made but a bit tame, no?

They wanted to make entertaining historical thriller for a christmas release. Which is what the film largely succeeds at. Sure it makes the main character a little bit too heroic, but I try not to debate the facts too much. I believe that film based on true stories are always dishonest in their recreation. It's just what happens when you dramatize what essentially doesn't have a dramatic arc.

Karol

[Neimoidian 14]

Historic facts aside, the film is well made.

Well made but a bit tame, no?

They wanted to make entertaining historical thriller for a christmas release. Which is what the film succeeds at. Sure it makes the main character a little bit too heroic, but I try not to debate the facts too much. I believe that film based on true stories are always dishonest in their recreation. It's just what happens when you dramatize what essentially doesn't have a dramatic arc.

Karol

Funny thing about movies based on true stories is that some of the most cringeworthy moments did really happen. In case of Valkyrie that were, for example, Stauffenberg's last words - something that most of the audience probably considered a Hollywood clishe.

[crocodile 8,048]

Yes, facts always look silly and cheap on film. That's because everything that is filmed is a fiction. Strange but true.

Karol

[Neimoidian 14]

Yes, facts always look silly and cheap on film. That's because everything that is filmed is a fiction. Strange but true.

Karol

Not really. What usually differentiates good director from bad one is the ability to make such a scene not look cheap.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I haven't seen VALKYRIE, but it always looked like those Sunday matinee war films, like WHERE EAGLES DARE, that sort of thing. Which is why I want to see it.

[Neimoidian 14]

I haven't seen VALKYRIE, but it always looked like those Sunday matinee war films, like WHERE EAGLES DARE, that sort of thing. Which is why I want to see it.

The problem is that Valkyrie is not as good as these vintage movies.

[A24 4,363]

Yes, facts always look silly and cheap on film. That's because everything that is filmed is a fiction. Strange but true.

Karol

I think films like Das Leben Der Anderen (also based on facts) succeed very well though.

Alex

[crocodile 8,048]

What I tried to say was that pure fiction always works better as a story.

Karol

[A24 4,363]

What about Schindler's List? It's better than X-Men 3 and yet it's based on true facts.

[crocodile 8,048]

No, you don't understand. When you make a film you always thematic make a point of some kind. In fiction it works, but you construct the entire world around your idea. When you apply this to the events that actually did happen you cheapen them. Because true world is rudderless. That's why dramatized fiction is more honest and true than dramatized hisotrical account. Even when you make a documentary you edit it, and so you judge and make a point. Otherwise it wouldn't have been watchable at all.

I'm not saying that historical films are bad by definiton. But you often hear that certain people accuse them of being inaccurate. Which is a pointless remark, because they never could have been accurate.

Karol

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I haven't seen VALKYRIE, but it always looked like those Sunday matinee war films, like WHERE EAGLES DARE, that sort of thing. Which is why I want to see it.

The problem is that Valkyrie is not as good as these vintage movies.

Really? I wasn't holding them up as a symbol of quality, just entertaining nonsense.

[Neimoidian 14]

I haven't seen VALKYRIE, but it always looked like those Sunday matinee war films, like WHERE EAGLES DARE, that sort of thing. Which is why I want to see it.

The problem is that Valkyrie is not as good as these vintage movies.

Really? I wasn't holding them up as a symbol of quality, just entertaining nonsense.

Valkyrie is neither nonsense, nor really entertaining (it has couple good scenes though). But it's my opinion.