First For Music News

The Projector - Movie reviews and rants -  Movie reviews and rants

By Luke Lewis

Posted on 08/07/09 at 11:32:47 am

Last night, by a strange guest-list quirk, I found myself at the world premiere of 'Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince' in Leicester Square, central London.

This meant I was able to walk down the red carpet – a bracing experience for a music journalist, given that it's roughly a billion times more glamorous and exciting than being access-all-areas at a Mumford & Sons gig.

Needless to say, I did the coolest thing possible in the circumstances, which was to wave a Flip camera round my head like a French exchange student gawping at Madame Tussauds:

Once we made our way inside, the excitement abated somewhat.

continued...

The movie industry is more outwardly corporate than the music biz. Hence, in addition to speeches from the director, producer and Daniel Radcliffe, we were also treated to a spiel from the president of the studio, who gave oily thanks to author JK Rowling for "allowing" Warner Bros to turn the Potter books into the "biggest movie franchise of all time" (subtext: cheers for making us all filthy rich).

The film itself? Well, it's a modern blockbuster, which of course means it's enormously long (over two-and-a-half hours), self-consciously 'dark', and is almost entirely free of any kind of plot - unless you count some waffle about Voldemort hiding bits of his soul in various trinkets.

By the same token, being a modern blockbuster, it's also crammed with retina-frazzling CGI set-pieces. The opening sequence, in particular, is staggering – a warp-speed Death Eater attack on London in which the Millennium Bridge is ripped apart by fireballs.

There are some fresh faces, too – Jim Broadbent puts in an enormously likeable performance as Professor Slughorn, a kindly father-figure plagued by horrifying memories and pained awareness of the destructive possibilities of magic.

But the key difference is that the characters have grown up, which means they're bored of making spells and potions, and now just want to get off with each other. Cue plenty of moon-faced longing, inarticulate passion, and lingering almost-kisses.

All of which makes the sixth Harry Potter film alarmingly similar to an episode of 'Skins'. Both teen franchises share the same two central preoccupations: sexual awakening, and the lure of nihilism.

There's certainly plenty of the former. A game of Quidditch early on is pure sexual pantomime, cheeky close-ups and camera angles making great play of the phallic suggestiveness inherent in gripping a broomstick between your thighs. The subtext? Ron Weasley banishes self-doubt and learns to be confident with his instrument. As it were.

There's also a lot of simulated drug-taking, in amongst the copious intake of Butter Beer. At one point Ron Weasley takes a powerful love potion and goes around hugging everyone, pie-eyed, until its effects wear off, at which points he plunges into an abyss of apathy and self-loathing. If that isn't a metaphor for the Ecstasy experience, I don't know what is.

It's possible to draw closer parallels. Each member of the Potter gang corresponds with a member of the Skins season three cast. Harry is Freddie – bland and inoffensive. Hermione is Effy – distant, inscrutable, and adored from afar. Ron is JJ – sensitive and nerdy. There's even a ditzy Pandora counterpart in Luna Lovegood.

The only thing missing is a plot twist in which Dumbledore necks his own weight in MDMA, visits a strip club and then gets duffed up by a bunch of scallies. But you can't have everything.

In conclusion, then: Harry Potter – it's 'Skins', with wizards.

99 comments

Add comment

 
 
stfu loser! [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 13:19
bullshit review. stick to music, LOSER!
Red Rose [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 13:32
"and is almost entirely free of any kind of plot" And this review is entirely free of any kind of substance.
[Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 13:33
yeah i think you're better off reviewing music mate.
Leum [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 13:37
Haha, fair point; but is it any good?
Luke Lewis [Member] //July 8 2009 at 13:38
@Leum - yes, it's pretty good. Too long, but if you liked the other films i dare say you'll like this one even more
Ed [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 13:58
@Luke Lewis - this isnt really a review, the most opinion you've given about it is in your line long response to Leum.
Luke Lewis [Member] //July 8 2009 at 14:13
@Ed - I mentioned the 'staggering opening sequence' and Jim Broadbent's 'enormously likeable performance'. But the film is too long, and there's not that much of a plot. There, that's a review.
random [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 14:17
hahaha.. this made me laugh.. think your thinking abit too much about 'sex drugs and rocknroll'.. i mean... quiddich is just a sport right?? its like your analysing rugby guys as gays fighting over whose on top.. hahaha..
Toonarmy [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 14:44
That's just lazy journalism comparing it to skins (which is shit). Saying that's it's got no obvious plot? Did you watch any of the others or bother your arse reading the books? It's only part of the story you idiot
Luke Lewis [Member] //July 8 2009 at 14:47
Did I read the books? Of course I didn't. I'm 29.
em [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 14:58
oh fuck of this is nothig to do about skins you can't compare harry potter with skins skins is different and way too better!!!!
JPX [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 14:59
What the hell is "Skins"?
Luke Lewis [Member] //July 8 2009 at 15:03
Look, I don't really like 'Skins' either, i'm just drawing a tongue-in-cheek parallel, it's really not worth getting worked up about.
[Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 15:04
you didnt read the potter books, but clearly you watched skins. that isnt any better you know
Luke Lewis [Member] //July 8 2009 at 15:05
That is very true.
Gregor [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 15:06
Skins sucks anyway.... The HP books so much better than the film
Mad Kittus [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 15:22
Funniest thing I've read in NME in YEARS. Brilliant!
joe [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 15:23
everyone just chill out. skins is shit and so are the harry potter films. if you don't like this, go and read the guardian or something
[Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 15:25
"Did I read the books? Of course I didn't. I'm 29." Genius.
Tom [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 15:29
Wow, you guys are getting annoyed over nothing. He drew a parallel between a TV programme and a film - that IS allowed, you know. Maybe it wasn't the best, but most people know what Skins is and everyone's heard of Harry Potter; so two recognisable franchises with comparisons drawn. Calm the hell down.
Alan Woodhouse [Member] //July 8 2009 at 15:42
Jesus, Harry Potter fans are properly mental
me julie [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 16:25
big fan of hary potter... still skins and hp movies are crap
Brock C [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 16:25
So shall I go and watch it or not.........???
Luke Lewis [Member] //July 8 2009 at 16:40
Depends. If you liked the other ones, yes. Otherwise, no - it's basically more of the same, plus Jim Broadbent.
Danny [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 16:49
That was a good review I thought, very funny in fact. Didn't know how precious Harry Potter fans were.
a.l.f.i.e. [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 17:05
I get it, Luke! Series 3 of Skins was shite and so is the latest Harry Potter movie.
[Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 17:08
stop hating harry potter fans shouldn't have the right to hate anything
HP. [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 17:25
Hello. Awesome writing skillz. Luke Lewis for president of everything. I was at the premiere too, and I've seen the others. The film is brilliant. HP fans are well served and the performances, style, tension and darkness have all moved up a notch from previous films. The director has clearly got more used to the frequency of JK Rowling's universe and allowed the characters to take the fore. I actually don't think the comparison with Skins is unfair, particularly with regard to a focus on the short-termism of youth versus the undeniable passing into adulthood and all it brings. The movie is faithful to the book, but doesn't feel tied down by its origins. No mean feat, even if you ignore the vast budget and endless CGI.
Hello [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 17:34
That was a horrible review. All you did is tell us the obvious. "It's a modern blockbuster." "It's filled with CGs." No s***. And then, after you were done telling the obvious, you just kept going "It's like Skins. Yeah, it's pretty much an episode of Skins. The characters are similar to the Skins characters. It's Skins with wands. It explores sexual awakening ... like Skins!"
hfdyhdfh [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 17:36
hp books awesome. hp movies suck.
Arthur [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 18:08
I came here for a review and all I got was this lousy grandpa raving on about skins.
Ok [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 18:10
The Harry Potter books are aimed at all ages of audiences, the fact that you are 29 has nothing to do with not reading the books. This review shows you have a one track mind, relating every part of the film to either drugs, or sex. This film is showing them maturing and getting older. Would you rather they still have the little kids playing the role of Harry Potter, Hermione and Ron discovering all about how to defeat Voldemort, because to be honest, I don't think they'd quite understand. As Jk Rowlings writings matured, so has her characters. You ought not to compare them to anything other than previous Harry Potter films. Harry Potter and Skins are in two completely different genres, two completely different worlds. Stick to the music scene, as everyone else has said.
Luke Lewis [Member] //July 8 2009 at 18:18
"The Harry Potter books are aimed at all ages." No they're not, they're aimed at children. They're full of wizards and magical owls. That's a clue.
Daphne [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 19:04
That's brilliant. Not sure why everyone's pissed of about the connection, especially since the sixth book does have a lot to do with sexual awakening, but that's okay.
Ok [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 19:18
The fact that most ages read them aims it at kids does it? If you feel it's aimed at children, why bother even watching it? It's a fantasy, which is a genre that is quite popular, if you even paid attention to literature, you'd probably understand that. Stories of magic and monsters. This is the story of growing up, and coming of age. Just because they get a little hormonal, you automatically skip to the most drastic hormonal crazed programme. Skins. Congratulations on even making an innuendo out of something as innocent as Quidditch.
wtf [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 19:48
why are you all hating on luke lewis? i thought it was a fine review. it was funny, i liked it.
Tox [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 19:51
Stop reviewing Skins and tell us what the new HARRY POTTER film is about =]
dannii [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 19:59
don't be daft they are aimed at everyone i know ppl in their 40s who've read em. you said u hadn't read em so how do you know who they're aimed at. Isn't skins aimed at young ppl cos its got seventeen yr olds in it?
slk [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 20:11
I am 35, studied English and American literature at university and I love Harry Potter books!
Randy [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 20:16
Bloody hell, I'd like to see these people write a review, I think Luke Lewis has slightly more credibilty than EVERYONE else on this page. Just because you're read a few reviews of foreign films in The Guardian doesn't make you an expert. So go back to your sad lives and be jealous of someone who CAN review things.
Anna [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 22:06
All the stuff you've criticised in this is the stuff that's in the books. Would you care to remind me how successful they are?
Pete [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 22:17
Why are NME writers so obsessed with Skins? Why are NME writers in always in the late twenties to early forties? Finally given up the music dream? The only connection between Harry Potter and Skins is that they both contain teenagers. Please explain in further detail how a magical kid with glasses is similar to Freddie, how a model student square relates to Effy and how Ron Weasley has any relation to an Autistic boy? I find it hilarious how NME journalists think they're 'controversial' and 'opiniated' (see 'about NME' section, where it says they're responsible for The Smiths.) Especially Mark Beaumont. Anyway, back to slagging off Florence Welch, who you've put on a pedestal for the past few months. One more thing, kindly ask your editor to stop going on about how 'indie' you are. I know that this has shifted a lot of magazines in the 12-15 year old market, but it's getting slightly embarrassing. You were a good magazine once. x
Anna [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 22:18
Next time I would advise sending a reviewer who had read the books. That might make it more accurate and less shallow.
Dom [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 22:55
Your review made me LOL. And I'm a biiig Potter fan. Good work!
Luke Lewis [Member] //July 8 2009 at 22:58
@Anna - Shallow? You're the one reading children's books.
DanglyBrasco [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 22:59
Books are aimed at Teens, films are aimed at a family audience. Yeah, the comparisons are far fetched, but surely that was Lukes point? Was it not a joke? Indeed he appears to exclaim his surprise at being a film premiere in the first paragraph, maybe you should all read?? Hmmmm
Eric [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 23:30
shame u didn't like it... a lot of people would have liked to be there. not sure how u managed to turn drinking a beer into drug-taking... i thought this was a pretty normal thing! unless a pint of beer to you is devastating!
Dave [Visitor] //July 8 2009 at 23:38
haha, this makes up for the article about politicts. Once you realize the obvious sarcasm its pure genious, and yer it is aimed at children. And of course those weird americans who pretend they're hobbits n that.
Melvin [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 00:13
This is fucking fantastic. Methinks a link to this review has been posted on some piss-freezingly creepy 'Pottermania!!'' type forum. Lock your bedroom door, Luke - see that shadow in the garden? That's a forty two year old man with a golden snitch tattoo across his back and he's not happy.
Paul [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 00:45
Wow. Luke sounds like a bit of a stooge.
James [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 01:36
Luke Lewis... You are the one reviewing children's films, and then making sexual inuendo out of them :) What a joker. Nice article mate Ponce.
Kirsten [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 02:14
Yiu should read the books first. There is a plot, a very big plot and this is just part of it. 29 and cant read HP? Thats BS, my dad is 52 and he reads Harry Potter. And you have to agree that it was way better then Twilight. BTW what's Skins??? :D
Val [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 02:53
Luke, I've read all the books. Im 19 now, and I've read them numerous times. I sometimes like to skip the first 2, and start at the third. Now, here is the truth: The first two potter books (and films) ARE aimed for kids. Events occur one after another, and little is left for the imagination. The first two books could be mistaken to have been written by the creator of Goosebumps. HOWEVER, as the books (AND films) progressed, they certainly weren't aimed for kids anymore. Id like to see a chapter in the last novel which DOESNT have a character dieing (and in some cases, VERY bloody). The movies are also not for kids anymore, really, all ages can and do love them. They have such a great storyline that keeps people intrigued. Goblet of Fire was throwing out clues ALL over the place that "Moody" was up to something. ALL over the place. But it wasnt until the very end is it when we were poked in the head with 'EVERYTHING GOOD THAT HAPPENED WAS BECAUSE OF MOODY, TO EVENTUALLY TRAP HARRY POTTER'. It was right in our faces the whole time, and the non-readers never had a clue. The movie ended fantastically, the whole film was. Just like the third and fifth, both GREAT films (loyal and well-deserved). Films 1 and 2 WERE good, but... Columbus just didnt have the spark to make them masterpieces like the following three. What he did was stick EXACTLY to J.K. Rowlings first 2 novels. In all ways. Thus, they ended off to be childrens films, which adults off course could enjoy, but they were definitely aimed at children. My point being: Please dont make assumptions that the Potter books are for children. The last 5 are deffinately not, and I would bet $1000 that children lost interest in number 7 because the plot was (amazingly) long, and tied to about 20 other subplots (all crucial). That being said, this is my question to you. Did you like Harry Potter and the Half-Blood prince?
Jonie [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 02:56
And yet, the books and film have been more successful than you are.
James [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 05:12
Luke is obviously right, it's just another summer blockbuster. And likely not an amazing one (it's no Dark Knight after all). And, yes, the Harry Potter books are for children...until you hit book 5. Book 7 is ridiculously good and more adult than you can anticipate Luke. Can't blame Luke though, he won't get into the first one, he's too old; and it first came out when he was like 17, give him a break. Harry Potter fans, be comforted with the fact that you are not in the shoes of Transformers fans this summer.
Ryan [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 05:15
Wow you fucking suck at reviews don't you. Not to be harsh or anything. Stick to music or maybe just not be a critic at all. And Harry Potter movies do not suck check the reviews for the last 5 they have been consistently great. So HAHA you guys lose.
Ryan [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 05:17
Also your saying these are children books. Yea there also children books that is one of the best selling books in the world and have all been great so again, Go Fuck yourself!
mindtheobvious [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 07:07
@Anna: do you really think that success is any indicator for quality? Well, if this is your point, would you mind to remind me what else was/is successfull. American Idol, Big Brother and Hitler. Don't see too much quality in this. @Luke: great review, I really like how a bunch of nerds feels threaten in their most vulnerable core: their fond memories of a little wizzard. (By the way, I do like the books, they are nice and entertaining, please don't try to cast a "you don't like harry, so your opinion is inferior to mine who I wear underwear with his ward on it.)
Benj [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 10:13
sounds just as vile as every other HP film.
Alan Woodhouse [Member] //July 9 2009 at 11:17
I'm 37, and if any of my mates caught me reading a Harry Potter book I think they'd think it was VERY strange. Why are all the older Potterheads getting so hot under the collar? I'd suggest it's because deep down they know their obsessiveness is very, very sad indeed....
Matt [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 11:19
Haha - best review I've read in a long, long, LONG time!! Can't believe how many NME fans love Harry Potter and how precious they are about it!! Either they are kids, which is fair enough or they should grow up, maybe just a tad and stop taking things so seriously!
Tiago [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 11:43
I love NME, and I think you are great in music, but you clearly are no good in cinema... This isn't nearly a reaview of the film, it's you expressing your opinion... You haven't pay any attention to the movie, and don't forget, this is the 6th os 7, so in order to understant it, you need to know the others... This was my favourite book, so I expect the movie to be great... Greatings from Portugal xD
freakycaleb on xbl [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 12:58
wow u realy r a fag how did U see ths who people realy r stupid 2 have hired a peace of s**t like u.
Luke Lewis [Member] //July 9 2009 at 12:59
Eh?
Melvin [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 14:48
I suppose 'XBL' must be some variety of IQ-destroying drug.
Saskia [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 17:00
I'm one of the vast majority of people who has never seen Skins - therefore the vast majority of your review was totally irrelevant. Is there a reason why your review was so targeted towards such a very narrow selection of the population? I presume Skins is popular amongst NME readers and Harry Potter is less so, did that inform your approach? *************** I'm an HP fan who doesn't particuarly like the films, or the way WB/the filmmakers have consistently cut out vast chunks of the plot whilst forgetting to include material that will ensure that the film still maintains a coherent structure and tells the story. Therefore I actively seek out the reviews that I've heard are more critical. If the reviewers aren't sucking up to Warner Brothers, I might get a genuine idea of what the film is actually like. *************** Sadly your approach means that your review is of little use to a non NME reader - but maybe you don't care about them? Ill-advised in the age of the internet, when anyone might happen across your interview and if impressed, choose to read more of your journalism or that at the NME. *************** Next time, you might choose to discuss pacing, acting, specific plot holes (if they don't reveal too much) clarity etc. What did you think of the ending, which was massively changed from the book? **************** Also, constantly harping on about how it's a children's book, means little coming from someone who talked about sexual awakening etc to such an extent in both the review and your responses to some comments. How can it be a kiddie thing if it has so many parallels to this teen sex programme? (Unless Skins has young children in it as well?) If it does have those parallels, perhaps more of your core audience than you suspect will enjoy Harry Potter after all. *************** I'm in an apparent minority in that I don't demand that you love the film unconditionally - I sincerely doubt I will. However, if you're reviewing a film that's so well known perhaps a bit of research will help you write a more intelligent critique? I'm not talking reading the books or watching the other films, but 20 minutes online could sort that out - even Wikipedia is quite reliable in this case.
[Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 17:13
[Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 17:13
Melvin [Visitor] //July 9 2009 at 17:35
"How can it be a kiddie thing if it has so many parallels to this teen sex programme?" This blog may well be your greatest yet Luke, if only for eliciting a response of such batshit insane earnestness as Saskia's. Much love.
Gem [Visitor] //July 10 2009 at 01:05
Ok first of course it ok that Luke doesn’t like the film, not everyone can be a HP fan. Secondly I may be wrong about this but as you (Luke) are working for a music magazine I’m assuming that this is a subject which you excel in. Therefore my question is shouldn’t you be reviewing the films sound track rather than the film its self? I’m going to get very Harry Potter fanatic (which I am) on you know and just correct you on some things. Firstly the books do come in both children’s form and adults form (although this is just a cover change) and are therefore aimed at variety of ages. Also there are no drugs in Harry Potter but I can understand where you’re coming from when comparing potions to drugs. Lastly Butter beer is not alcoholic as Rowling has them drinking it from age 13.
JBET [Visitor] //July 10 2009 at 02:12
What kind of a review is this! No content, just more NME rubbish!
HelloJackToad [Visitor] //July 10 2009 at 11:49
Emma Watson has a moustache. Luke Lewis is envious.
Maus [Visitor] //July 13 2009 at 04:52
Luke Lewis, honestly this was the most pathetic attempt at a review I have ever seen, and you are the saddest, most miserable excuse for a journalist (dare I even associate that noun with you?) I have stumbled across. Jesus. First, you boldy state this film has "no plot", and then in response the the righteously angry comments posted in response to this pure bullshit you have spewed onto this webpage to claim to have never read the books "because you're 29". Now, I'm no Harvard-gruaduated lawyer, but it's not BLOODY DIFFICULT to make a case against your argument, which frankly has no substance, no depth and no point, just like this godforsaken attempt at a film review. Stick to reviewing music, and modern electronic music please, becuase that crap is the only tripe you seem capable of covering with equal-measured skill (or lack thereof)
Charlie [Visitor] //July 14 2009 at 11:52
possibly the worst review iv'e ever read. Why does NME always have to go on about skins? Its shit.
JESS [Visitor] //July 14 2009 at 13:24
THe biggest pile of crap review ever! Maybe you should stick to music reviews and stop ruining a show and movie series with screwed up, imaginary parallels!!!!!
dfg [Visitor] //July 14 2009 at 13:42
How can you make Quidditch sexual?
Luke Lewis [Member] //July 14 2009 at 14:09
By keeping my mind in the gutter at all times.
shelbyterror [Visitor] //July 15 2009 at 05:24
honestly sid could be ron..... if rupert grint were to wear a beanie and glasses they'd be twins.
Harry Twater [Visitor] //July 15 2009 at 07:48
the movie f'in sucked
Michael Todd [Visitor] //July 15 2009 at 10:01
This movie was an incredible disappointment for me and my 10 friends that went. Warner Brothers should be hung for putting this garbage out. The movie is a complete puff piece. It was like watching a G rated version of the movie through cliff notes of the book. They left out Dumbledore's funeral and far far worse removed any of the psychological mind bending that was going on throughout the story. It was more of a comedy then anything. Then to top it off Snape not only was a wimp because they dumbed down his character, they removed Much of Tom Riddles story, like the fact he had already murdered before even attending school at Hogwarts (as it was inferred when remembering the cave scene as described when he visited it as child), or any of the other deeply rooted evil things his character is. The movie lacked any real substance comparable with the book. It was an incredible let down. Also, who in heck was thinking "hmmmmm we wont release the movie for another 9 months and we probably dont need to review it or compare it with the book, nawwww we'll just fleece the public for all there worth and turn out a crap job thats made for the people who are to lazy to read the books for themselves." This movie was supposed to be DARK!!!!!!! This was the book that taught you to despise and hate Snape, but instead it was "ohh he's really kind of a nice guy isnt he?" when you are not supposed to find that out until the 3rd or 4th to last chapter of the last book. This movie should have made you hate and fear Voldemort even more to because you finally understood how Voldemort came to be. This movie done right should have been rated R and gone for another 15-20 minutes. If I were Warner Brothers id be no less than ashamed. They took one of the greatest original book series in decades and ruined it as far as im concerned. Its a puff piece with no soul. Any art that was there is now lost. All I want to know is did anyone in this film or even better did David Yates or anyone at Warner brothers read the freaking book??!??!??!?!? Get the director back from "The Prisoner of Azkaban", he understood how to make you feel like Hogwarts was real and made you feel like you were there and made it all DARK!!! Just as the book was. What I saw tonight wasn't "The Half Blood Prince", it was a completly weak and incomplete interpretation by a horrible director that made it into piece of crap, utter complete crap!!!
carol [Visitor] //July 15 2009 at 16:34
saw the movie kept thinking we waited 9 months for this ? comparing 9 months of pregnancy this movie should have been aborted. again movies are NOT books.
Rich [Visitor] //July 15 2009 at 20:50
Just finished watching the movie with my gf who's a huge HP franchise fan - what a let down for the both of us. I've never read the books so I can't comment on how true the movies are to them (although I overheard an audio book about Dumbledore's last moments prior and know the movie does not follow) but I can comment about its merits as a movie. As a movie it was horrible; Anyone who disagrees likes bad movies! It lacked focus and a naturally flowing plotline not to mention good dialog. Halfway through I was yawning and 20 mins from the end my body ached to get up and do something other than sit and watch. Sure my gf cried when Dumbledore said his goodbyes but to me the rushed choppiness of the scene lacked any power that conveyed the importance of the departure of a major character and ergo plot redirection. Overall, too many unnecessary scenes were added and necessary scenes should've been trimmed. And since they obviously took license to make changes from the books, then it would've been wise to modifiy some timelines so that events which otherwise wouldn't coincide do for the sake of moving things along in an exciting way. I believe had the director been able to begin the horcrux adventure in the middle of the movie, the movie would've moved faster (more exicting) and given more screen time to the scenes that directly relate to the plot of defeating Valdemort. (the movies prolly wouldn't have been so long either) So here I sit, disappointed. I had hoped this movie was going to be the best to date but instead I'm compelled to say it's the worst. Let's hope the next one is able to find a more exciting pace and completeness of plot.
[Visitor] //July 16 2009 at 10:23
Amazing how every review from the NME is the same, whether it be movies or music. Come in with preconceived notions, compare whatever you're reviewing to something that is vaguely similar (though all together very different), and exit stage left after not paying attention at all. And hell, I barely liked the movie.
Aya [Visitor] //July 16 2009 at 13:54
Agreed! The film compared to the book was a complete dissapointement! Set aside the HP euphoria set by the other HP adaptions, this latest adition was lacking in every department! The acting standards have fallen not to forget that the important lines, scenes and characters were also cut from the film and replaced by raging hormones! I left with a fallen heart, i had set my hopes high only for them to come crashing down..Will the Deathly hollows exceed greater in substance? HOPEFULLy!....=(
[Visitor] //July 16 2009 at 20:37
the film was a complete waste of money..hated it, more like a foolish love story with zero charecterization..the review MUCH better
Lize. [Visitor] //July 19 2009 at 05:08
hahaha, this made me laugh. The movie is totally shit compared to the others but meh...I still love Harry Potter. and, Im totally in love with Skins too.
Sara [Visitor] //July 20 2009 at 22:23
I watched Half-blood prince today and was very very dissapointed. Danial Radcliff can't act as well as bonny wright. I didnt like the film at all it was like a long boring trailer. This was the worst potter film.
Nic [Visitor] //July 21 2009 at 00:48
I agree the move was not that great, although the book was fab. Your never too old to read HP, i'm 33. Everyone entitled to their own opinion.
Visitor [Visitor] //July 21 2009 at 16:23
The NME should stick to arselicking the latest skinny jeans indie bands and spouting pre sixth form politics.
randomer [Visitor] //July 22 2009 at 09:23
The movie was ok but they added in pointless bits like the weaslys house beig set on fire and sum1 asking harry out in a cafe that wernt in the book. they also forgot an important fight scene at the end of the book and apparatin lessons. one of the few good bits were when harry took the lucky potion. and the weird thing was that lavender was always in the harry potter books from the stsart and she only just appeared in the 6th film!! from disappointed :(
Sam [Visitor] //July 23 2009 at 00:22
To sum it up, this Film had me and my mates cringing "Take my hand Harry" some of the worst acting I've seen since High school musical. But on the other hand Alan Rickman, Rupert Grint and the actor who played Draco Malfoy saved it for us. PS, did anyone else notice that the "Inferi" had an uncanny resemblance to Gollum? That whole cave segment seemed like a re-enactment of the "Mines of Moria"
[Visitor] //July 23 2009 at 16:06
ah....but that would never happen...dumbledoor is gay dontcha know....
visitor [Visitor] //July 24 2009 at 00:11
I completely agree, the film is really stupid, and i'm saying this as a potter fan who read all the books, I was terribly disappointed when watching the movie, a really lame adaptation i would say,,,,
[Visitor] //July 26 2009 at 16:06
this is a awful review... its like the film dull and uninspiring
[Visitor] //July 29 2009 at 19:34
I thought this was a fair review. Though for me Harry Potter himself summed up the film with one of his lines at the very end, when he is standing on the balcony with Hermione: "It was a complete waste of time" .....yup I thought....
James [Visitor] //July 30 2009 at 09:46
I have to say that this Potter episode was the worst film I have ever witnessed. It was torture from start to finish. To echo the words of my 14 year old daughter at the end of the viewing "Booooring". God help the film industry if that's all they can produce and JK Rowling must be hiding away cringing at what has been produced. I am returning to DVD rental as the financial ache won't be so bad either if a film is as crappy as this one; doubt it though!!
Huw [Visitor] //August 14 2009 at 12:46
I feel sorry for Luke Lewis. Its only a joke. C'mon if you're looking for a good film review look at a film magazine review.
June [Visitor] //August 18 2009 at 14:49
wow , so many british people really do love harry potter I agree with Huw, you want a serious review get it from a film magazine review.
Redtop Studios [Visitor] //September 11 2009 at 11:01
Very entertaining review, good work Luke clearly some HP fanatics don't have a sense of humor and take their wizard hero too seriously. So to them I say; Get a life and put down the broomstick unless your doing some cleaning.

Leave a comment:

 
 

Note: HTML tags are not allowed
 

<< Previous post: There's More To 'Public Enemies' Than Johnny Depp - Although He Is Damn Fucking Cool

Next post: The War On Truth - The Worst Ever Factual Inaccuracies In Movies >>

Free weekly music news, videos and MP3s in your inbox: