Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Considering Yates managed to get something out of the most superfluous part of the book that ends up not working because of that superfluousness (aka zero action), then I have nothing left to do than look forward to the adaptation of book seven which might at last aspire to toppling Cuarón’s offering from its position of best Harry Potter movie adaptation. (20/07/2009)

I enjoyed most of the sixth Potter (despite the guy in front of me who was farting throughout, I’m not kidding!), or rather that applies until the movie reached the end and I was literally disgusted by what the screenwriter was doing (from the point where Harry and D return to the Hogwarts). I haven’t see a more bungled finale in this series yet. Certainly Yates gets the maximum out of this, but that means that, differently to in the book, the characters behave illogically and everything seems a little slow. The finale in the book was as tense as a guitar string. Surprising, logical and maybe the best that Rowling wrote. Where is the big battle, where is the inevitability? Wasted words. It’s completely different right from the start. The story takes off a amazing speed and if it weren’t for the rather exaggerated love interest (they only included that to lighten the mood a little) I would be happy with it. I really liked Jim Broadbent’s Slughorn - he was just right for the part and more than satisfied my expectations. Otherwise, it’s a classic, but maybe Tom Felton and Alan Rickman were more striking than last time. In the end I’m giving it 4 stars, even though it was rather lame this time. P.S.: At home we have exactly the same water glasses as the ones that Harry, Hermi and Ron drink the butterbeer from at the Three Broomsticks. (31/07/2009)

It was fun, it makes it all the more messy. People who haven't read the book must be a bit confused (well, my immediate circle was). It's a shame the script buried it like that. If it had been more in the detective vein (remembering what Draco actually does) and flashed some of that romantic sparks here and there, it probably would have been better. I don't think Harry Potter is a one-act romantic comedy... Music – great as always; effects as well. It's just that a 153-minute movie shouldn't look like this, or let it look like this, but the people around you in the theater aren't supposed to be saying: "Is it finally over? Damn, not yet?! What time is it? Check your watch!" I kind of want to say RIP. Weakest installment of the series. Anyway, I'm curious to see what they're gonna serve up next. (16/07/2009)

Some things were extra (the opening digital destruction of London), some things were not enough (ironically, the mystery of the Half-blood Prince), but the film is still excellent and David Yates proves that his previous success was no accident. The story has once again pared the book down to the bare essentials. There are many characters, but the most interesting ones get the most space they deserve (apart from the central trio, they are probably Dumbledore, Snape, Malfoy and the Horace Slughorn), there is no lack of emotion or suspense (for those unfamiliar with the story, there are also a few surprises and even shocks), a nice romantic and friendly storyline and a few rewardingly funny scenes (brewing potions, Ron the Catcher...) to lighten and balance the necessary fatefulness. As a warm-up for the finale, The Half-Blood Prince is perfect. (10/09/2015)

Certainly the most cinematically accomplished and best made Harry Potter film (so far). I really like Yates’ approach to the material, and what he started in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is brought to near perfection here. The bridge demolition scene is absolutely stunning, and add 3D to the mix. :) The fact that the films don't work much with the books they’re based on has annoyed me a little (or maybe a little more), but Yates' Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince has great pacing (despite the rather long romantic storyline) and those slightly drawn-out two hours flew by unbelievably in the cinema. I don't understand the users who rate this flashy bit of cinema and acting 2 stars... A film is a film and a book is a book. 4.5 stars (11/08/2009)