Posted on 07/20/2009 7:29:41 AM PDT by ccmovrwc
Battling the dark forces takes a back seat to romance and Quidditch
By Alonso Duralde Film critic msnbc.com contributor updated 4:25 p.m. ET, Tues., July 14, 2009
Call it the calm before the storm, but Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince goes out of its way to balance its own dark doings to say nothing of the dire events to come in the two upcoming movies based on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows with more character and atmosphere than weve seen in the last few movies.
If youve been missing Quidditch matches, love triangles, hanging out in the Gryffindor common room and general Hogwarts-iness, youll have a great time with this latest sequel.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
“Hubby and I thought the movie was excellent: the most powerful HP movie so far. There were some shortcuts taken, but they werent offensive to me in view of turning these massive books into a standard movie length.
And I agree that Michael Gambons Dumbledore finally became a real Dumbledore before the end...”
I also thought it was the best Harry Potter movie so far. It seemed to me that it took more liberties at deviating from the book than the other movies, but not in a bad way; in fact I liked it better than the book.
Regarding Dumbledore, Michael Gambon has not been nearly as good of a Dumbledore as Richard Harris...until this movie. I had always felt a little sorry for Michael Gambon having to follow up on the excellent Richard Harris, it wasn’t Gambon’s fault that Harris was so much better. In this movie, for the first time, I thought, wow, I really like this Dumbledore as much as the first one.
Quite a few people have compared Umbridge to Margaret Thatcher, but I haven't found a quote by the author. I find the comparison ridiculous, but it does make it easier to separate thinking people from idiots.
That's always nice.
Of course she can say what she wants about her characters, I just meant that it clouded my view of the characters when she made the comment. Jeez!
We really liked it too! There were some changes, and some things left out that I could nit-pick to death, but it's still an excellent movie. Ron was great and it was much funnier than I had thought it would be.
Yes, Allbright. That’s who the character reminded me of. Thanks.
She can say what she wants, but we're free to ignore her. She had her chance to say what she wanted in the books.
I think it was Orson Scott Card who called her a coward because if she really pictured Dumbledore as gay, why didn't she put in the books? Because she knew it would hurt sales.
You don’t think she should say anything about her books, after they are written?
Why is that cowardly? Seems like a sound business practice.
They’re just fictional characters. Double Jeez!!
Again, here's what I wrote: She can say what she wants, but we're free to ignore her. Where did I say she shouldn't say anything about her books? She can talk all she wants. Some things will be valuable, some won't.
Why is that cowardly? Seems like a sound business practice.
She was not running a business, she wrote books. She created a world and characters that she believes in and brought them to life for all of us to enjoy. I salute Rowling for that.
However, if she created a character and then betrayed who they are simply to make more money (if that was the reason), then she is a coward. As an author, she should have been true to the character and to the world she created.
I'm not convinced she thought of Dumbledore as gay when she wrote the books. It really doesn't matter. I can enjoy the books as they are and not worry about Rowling's after-the-fact amendments.
LOL!
it is the movie
with weird potions and zombies
and hormonal teens
You should also quote the part where you said she had her chance to speak in her books.
I bet she wrote the books to make money. To me, thats business. Its her product.
i think i saw that
up all night nursing baby
in the late 90s.
you are so clever!
a harry potter haiku;
what a fun surprise.
All I meant is that if she had something she wanted said, that was when she should have said it. She can continue to give her opinions but very few people will hear those opinions compared to the number who read her books.
How many interviews do we have with Charles Dickens giving his insights into the character of Fagan. Does anyone care?
I bet she wrote the books to make money. To me, thats business. Its her product.
My guess is that you're not an author of fiction. If you get a chance, you should talk to an author some time and find out how they feel about their work.
That’s a pretty old baby...
The poster “FIRMbss”
is an example to all
of cryptic writing
He’s 13 now. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.