Maybe it’s best to let the movie be about Harry Potter and not about a political agenda.

Seriously, I thought the film was brilliantly directed, far better than GoF or the first two, anyway.

I agree that both Dumbledore and his beard are ridiculous.

Unfortunately, we all have scenes that we think were important for inclusion, but the director made the choices he made, and I think they were good ones. Even Mr. Weasley’s hat. I’m not as convinced that a trip to St. Mungo’s was vital to the plot for film purposes. If they were going to add scenes they cut, that one would probably be way down on my list.

I thought it was pretty ham-handed directing. The Nazi newspaper theme got old after the first few times, and I got very tired of trying to read the twisting headlines. I think perhaps that resonates better with the British audience than Americans. There were opportunities to tie into modern day terrorism (and Bush fascism) that would have been more effective and subtle.

I thought the scene with Umbridge and McGonagal on the stairs was embarassing. Reminded me of high school direction, with all the changing of heights on the stairs. We get it already.

It seemed to me that key things were left out of the movie as well. Perhaps JKR was too busy writing the final book to review it carefully? Isn’t the finding of the locket at Grimmald Place in this book? The tapestry must be important because it was rammed down our throats – we spent as much time looking at it as at anything else in the movie! Must have been Regulus burned out of the big hole they focused on at the end of the scene.

And WHAT is in Dumbledore’s beard? That bugged me the whole movie. Looked like something a teenage girl would wear in her ponytail. Costumes were very good in this one though, especially Petunia’s dress at the beginning.

I agree about Luna and Tonks. Neither was how I pictured. However, both will make it work. I do agree about Dumbledore – I have no idea how that actor will pull off HP6, where “presence” is so much more important. Other than the office scene, he was essentially just a placeholder in this movie.

I thought it was rather important that the Weasley children go to St. Mungo’s. It’s the moment they cross over from innocence to being active participants in the war. I’m sad it never happened. The paper crown thing with the father (Weasley is the King or no…) was stupid…and again, ham-handed directing. It detracted from the seriousness of the attack.

And what about Grawp? When did he get all nice and kind and ring the little bell at Hermione? It was just too contracted – we needed another scene where he was more out of control to understand how Hagrid had been brutalized.

I blame a lot of this on a poor script, but I certainly hope this director learns a little subtlety before the next movie. I agree with whoever posted that the Pan’s Labarynth director is the way to go.

P.S. Most kids don’t use tongue on their first kiss. Looked like he was chewing her lip off.

In the Hog’s Head, is the barkeeper also played by Gambon? He showed up too briefly for me to be sure, but as Albus’s brother is the owner…and is said to look a lot like Albus, I wondered.
Robin

But this doesn’t necessarily affect your conclusions. If you take “gift” as antipode to “theft”, Harry may welcome death as a gift, as something desirable, when “death has no more fear for him”, as you said.

I do think it would be interesting to see what the movies would have been like had they waited till the last book was done. But when they started filming them, Rowling had been turning out a book a year and they probably expected her to keep that pace. And then they would have had all the books for the last two movies.

I did see it again on Friday afternoon, and liked it even better when I was wide awake. It didn’t seem as fast as it did on first viewing; I’m not sure why. There were so many times that Yates conveyed something crucial about a character or an event with a word or a glance or a wink, and I loved that.

I just wish that the directors would figure out that as much as they all hate exposition, they have to do Dumbledore’s bit at the end of the movie, to really convey the point of the books. And none of them seem willing to go there. Of course, it takes a good actor to do that, and they are handicapped with that, but they must be some way to do it.

Harry did more talking that Dumbledore in their meeting at the end, and I think that was a good choice. It was interesting that throughout the movie Harry was more introspective than angry and shouting. And I think that’s probably a good thing–a yelling Harry in the book was sometimes hard to “listen to”, but a yelling Harry on screen might have felt way overdone.

I’m listening to Stephen Fry reading Half-Blood Prince right now. I like the way he reads Dumbledore–can we put a wig and a long white beard on him for the 6th movie?

Pat

Anyway, very excellent review…

Tom Riddle is to be pitied for many things. Lack of friendship and love in his life and his lack of ability to love. But even more so for his (resulting) fear of death. But we shouldn’t forget that he is still actively evil. I think the time for pity will be when his power to hurt others has been taken from him.

My other thought is that Harry’s internal journey spans the course of seven books. The end of that journey, I think, will be his realization that death has no more fear for him (because of the love which fills his life.) That realization will lead to a “flight into death” in order to save himself and the world from Voldemort. Which will make him the antithesis of the man whose name means “flight from death”.

Unless Goldenberg and Yates have deeply pondered the meaning of Harry’s journey, they can not know that this is where he’s going. I think they’re half the way there – they know it’s love which gives him the power against Voldemort. But they haven’t connected the final dots. Which, if you think about it, is not a bad thing. We don’t want them giving the whole show away when there are two movies left to make.

Also, unlike Peter Jackson who was given all the the LOTR trilogy, they were not given the whole seven book saga. They didn’t even know what the seventh piece looked like. They had to make a movie which stands alone.

I actually think they did pretty well with the piece they were entrusted with.

What is interesting now is that filming on HPB will start in the fall. DH will come out in a few days. Much like Travis reviewing everything that’s he’s prepared for Prophecy 2007 in light of the revelations of book 7, Steve Kloves will be feverishly reading, reading, to make sure that what he’s written for HBP fits what is to come.

Here is a word of advice to Mr. BArron and Mr. Heyman: film HBP and DH in one go, like Jackson did with LOTR. That way the script will have continuity, the actors won’t get too old for their roles, and the two movies will reflect the fact that the two books are two parts of one whole.

Mia, I also agree there’s much to be celebrated in the movie. It’s just that one of the main narrative hooks established in book 5, the Prophecy and Harry’s decisions about the Ministry, are easy to miss in the film version.

I wonder how they’re going to reinforce them for the 6th film. This might also be the film equivalent of the dilemma at the end of book 6: it’s clearly only part of a whole. I think it’s possible OotP can be redeemed by what might happen in HBP, especially because I think book 6 is better written and it’s plot lends itself a little better to the sensibilities Yates evidenced in this film.