Based on 149 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, as of 15 July 2009, the film has an overall approval rating from critics of 89% "Certified Fresh" rating on the film review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes, same as Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, being the two most critically acclaimed films in the series.[103] Among Rotten Tomatoes' Cream of the Crop, which consists of popular and notable critics from the top newspapers, websites, television, and radio programs, the film also holds an overall approval rating of 90%.[104] By comparison, Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 top reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 80, which represents Generally Favorable Reviews, based on 31 reviews.[105]
Nearly all of the early reviews for Half-Blood Prince have been very positive. Critics such as BBC News's Tim Masters have praised the film's cinematography and special effects, as well as the film's darker plotline.[106]
The first review of the film came three weeks before the official release. Paul Dergarabedian of Hollywood.com ranked the film with The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and called the film a "possible Oscar contender". He highly praised the performance of Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman and Daniel Radcliffe. He commented, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a tour-de-force that combines style and substance, special effects and heart and most importantly great performances from all of the actors young and not-so-young".[107] Another early review came from the UK tabloid The Sun, whose anonymous reviewer called the film "masterful" and "very emotional". The reviewer praised David Yates' directing and called Jim Broadbent's portrayal of Horace Slughorn "perfect".[108] Devin Faraci of Chud.com called the film not only the best Harry Potter film yet, but also one of the best films of the year.[109]
Andrew Pulver of The Guardian also wrote a positive review, and gave the movie 3 out of 5 stars rating.[110] Todd McCarthy of the trade magazine Variety said that the film is "dazzlingly well made" and "less fanciful than the previous entries". He praised Alan Rickman's performance and he described Helena Bonham Carter as "mesmerizing" and Jim Broadbent as "grand eccentric old professor".[111] The Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt noted that the film's first half is "jerky and explosive", but in the second half, the film finds better footing. He adds, "Composer Nicholas Hooper, cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel and designer Stuart Craig deliver a singularly muscular and vigorous chapter".[112] Screen Daily called the film "[s]tunningly shot by Bruno Delbonnel in metallic hues leavened by buttery tones and the thumping beats of Nicholas Hooper’s score bear little resemblance to the original and the overall effect is much less twee, much more grown-up".[113]
Chris Tilly of IGN UK commented on the length of the movie, saying "while on occasion it drags, the 153 run-time never feels too long, thanks in no small part to the astonishing visuals and (largely) marvellous performances," and goes on to say, "This is by far the best-looking of the Potter films thus far," commending the "beautiful" Quidditch match and the "stunning" finale.[114] However, Dave Golder of SFX Magazine found some aspects of the film to be a disappointment, largely due to the large amount of opportunities the director had sacrificed to devote "huge swathes of the film to subplots of Harry and his chums' teenage romances," but nevertheless found the film to be a large enjoyment, praising the performances of Jim Broadbent and Alan Rickman.[115]
影評都ok架
