Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

I was lucky enough to see a preview of Half-Blood Prince three days before opening day. I saw it a second time with my son who is not quite ten, but who is generally mature for his age and doesn't scare easily. The two viewings give me the unique advantage of both the adult and the child perspective on the movie.

I only recently started counting myself a true Harry Potter fan after my son introduced me to the movies a couple of years ago. I finished the last book only three weeks before seeing the movie adaptation of Half-Blood Prince the first time.

With all the book details very fresh in my mind, I had high expectations of the movie. And Yates, the production crew and the cast definitely delivered. The movie impresses on many levels from an artistic point of view. The stripped landscapes and washed out colors convey a constant feeling of dread and foreboding. The standard train trip to Hogwarts was particularly stark, seen against a landscape scorched by a hot summer sun and dotted with dark pools of water. The usual lush greenery and joyous train ride are nowhere to be seen.

Personally, I felt the pace was spot-on and that the movie elegantly made time for all key plot points. But only if you enjoy a plot line driven by character and emotion. For the younger lot, looking for frightening wizard duels and attacks by magical creatures, the first hour and a half of the movie drags on a bit. My son certainly became fidgety, and didn't appreciate the finesse and sophistication of the plot and cinematic approach.

Most of the threatening and darkening tone of the movie was also lost upon him, whereas I reveled in the finer details contributing to a general sense of ever-encroaching darkness. There are worse things in life to be afraid of than big hairy spiders. My son missed seeing those - I was a lot more intrigued by the ominous undercurrents made palpable by the indomitable trio of David Yates (director), Steve Kloves (screenplay) and Delbonnel (photography).

Some people feel that the romantic comedy aspects played too large a role in the movie, but I felt this aspect added some much-needed lightness and human drama to the movie. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) all find themselves dealing with the vagaries of young love - from dealing with unwanted advances to finding love in unexpected places. The romance was aimed perfectly at the young teen market, and I found myself cringing ruefully at some of Lavender Brown's love-obsessed stunts and smiling wistfully at the tenderness between Harry and Ginny. Haven't we all been there at some stage of our lives?

All in all, Harry Potter is growing up. And so is the market for these movies. If you've seen all the movies up to now or read all the books, and your are at an age to appreciate the adult themes and movie techniques, this movie should fall pitch-perfect on your ear. You are likely to leave the cinema filled with a heart-wrenching sadness for innocence lost.

Purist fans will most certainly complain bitterly about numerous sub-plots, events and characters that were cut from the movie and the odd scene that doesn't exist in the book. But Yates' truly gutsy adaptation really works and brings a depth and clarity to the main themes of the book that is quite extraordinary. He manages to capture the lingering lightness of that time before the serious business of adulthood sets in, alongside the relentless buildup to the final showdown between The Dark Lord and The Chosen One. And the lack of closure at the end of the movie is no accident, I believe. Just like the book, this movie leaves you aching to see how it all ends (never mind the fact that you already know).

I must also commend the acting. The young leads have all matured in pace with the maturing content of the books and their acting shows it. Rupert Grint shines brightly in the somewhat Shakespearean love comedy he finds himself in, and makes the most of his new-found sport hero popularity. Emma Watson hits the spot, portraying Hermione's emotional vulnerability with gentle confidence and softness.

As for Radcliffe, it's easy to miss the evolution he's undergone as Harry, since there are other actors ostensibly given more to do in this outing, like Tom Felton and Bonnie Wright, both of whom get the opportunity to take their characters to a new level. Tom Felton, especially, does a remarkable job. But Radcliffe's task of playing the steadfast and courageous, yet not flashy or arrogant hero, remains a difficult one. Especially on second viewing, it becomes clear how his understated and controlled performance speaks very much to the type of man Harry Potter is shaping up to be. A man who is left with a tremendous responsibility at the end of this movie and takes it up without flinching. The boy-wizard is no more.

Of the older guard, Alan Rickman's Snape was a consummate performance, ... obviously. And Michael Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore never felt more right than in this movie. Jim Broadbent's Slughorn is deliciously played with just the right mix of off-putting sycophancy and endearing pathos.

All in all - a triumph all around!

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - A footnote: Funny thing about Harry Potter reviews. If you peruse enough of them, you'll notice that "lack of nit-picks" is a substitute for praise. Everyone comes from different points of view when they go in to see these films. Some people read the books, some haven't. Everyone has their favorites, or hates the films in general. I have never experienced the films without having read the books first so I cannot comment on how hard it is to follow any of them. For some they are too long, for some not enough. I have enjoyed all of the films to varying degrees all for different reasons. David Yates continues from where he left Order of the Phoenix, arguably the weakest of the seven books but one of the stronger films.

In the sixth Harry Potter, Harry works with Dumbledore to unlock a key secret about Voldemort. To do this, Harry has to get close to Professor Slughorn (played with aplomb by Jim Broadbent). What interested me most about the way this is played out are the quiet similarities presented between Harry and Tom Riddle. Dumbledore actively wants Harry to act more like Tom in an attempt to defeat him. This enhances the idea posited back in the 2nd film and book. The sub-plots surrounding this are delightful. Quidditch has never been done so well. The Slug Party is also delightful. Harry's fancying Ginny and Ron's troubles between Lavender and Hermione round out the film. A small downside of this is there is less room for some of the best talent in the UK, many of whom merely supply the garnish on a good meal.

Michael Gambon is wonderful in this turn as the greatest wizard Dumbledore. He just needed the screen time to shine. I hope this nails the lid on the doubters. Alan Rickman plays Snape to perfection, much as it would have been fun to see him momentarily lose his cool. Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane have wonderful cameos. I seem to be the only person that appreciates Daniel Radcliffe post-Equus. I think the young man has really come into his own. Rupert Grint has also become a fine comedic actor. Tom Felton slowly freaks the hell out as a young man given an impossible task. My favorite little scene stealer is Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood.

The film plays fast and loose with the source material, and, unlike with Prisoner of Azkaban, the results are not disappointing. On the contrary, this might be, next to Goblet of Fire, my favorite of the films. Part of the reason this time is the film's atmosphere is so appropriate, the characters so well acted and written, that it makes us yearn for more of everything that IS in the film, not lament what was cast aside. I can forgive plot simplification as film is a different medium. I would not have made all the choices Yates has, but he nails the beginning and end of the film, includes many touching character moments, and the movie on the whole is FUNNY damnit! True Potter fans should see that Yates has broken the letter to preserve the spirit of Harry Potter.

One note from the Potter die-hard within the competent film critic: it is disappointing to miss out on one crucial flashback that would have given Ralph Fiennes a terribly awesome scene to do with Michael Gambon. As for the rest. Potter-ites, Yates has this well in hand. Put aside the canon-charts, and enjoy watching small variations on a story you know and love. I know, given the choice, I prefer a story that pops to life over one nailed down to a strict regiment of plot points and exposition. A-

I have always been a big fan of Harry Potter, both the books and the films. Half-Blood Prince is my favorite of the first 6 books, and now I can say that the film is as well. First off, the film does cut a lot of things out. It cuts some of the Horcruxes that are talked about, and some of the memories of Tom Riddle, but even without them, this is an incredibly powerful film. The opening sequence I loved and I was glad that the writers would include such a scene. It shows the danger of the world that everyone lives in now that Voldemort is back. David Yates is back directing the 6th film after the fantastic Order of the Phoenix, which I thought he created a much more moodier and grittier Harry Potter adaptation. In Half-Blood Prince, Yates directs with much larger confidence and maturity, one that is shown much throughout the film. This Potter film is the first to actually make me smile and laugh along with it. It has a lot of whimsical, light and genuinely funny moments, which I thought were brilliant and stayed true to the book. When the film requires it to, it gets darker and more menacing, which I also thought was balanced very nicely with the tone of the book. I like judging the Harry Poter films more as films, not always as adaptations. There will always be some people who are disappointed, but I am grateful for the things that were in the film, that they were well-made and stayed true to what I imagined while reading the book. This film succeeds in that. Steve Kloves is a very talented writer, to cut all those things out of the book but for it to stay with that same tone that J.K. Rowling marks on them.

What helps this film are the performances to a great extent. The adult cast as always is great. Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman, and Helena Bonham Carter all deliver high-worthy performances. They should all be considered for Oscar consideration come the end of the year. The young cast is brilliant. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson have all grown very comfortably into their characters, and they know their strengths and weaknesses. Bonnie Wright also becomes more important in just the right time, since she is also very good as Ginny. Evanna Lynch is fantastic again like in the last film. The young kids playing Tom Riddle are spot-on. But the biggest surprise for me had to be Tom Felton. His character is more important here than in the other films, but Felton really was masterful. He portrays everything about Draco Malfoy that was intended by Rowling: his fear, his anger, his remorse. Malfoy is in a very dark place, and Felton goes up and beyond what I would have expected from him. The strongest of the young cast.

The other aspects of what make this film brilliant are the technical aspects of course. The cinematography must be what is most amazing. It is so well-done, captures every shot right and with powerful meaning behind it. The different color textures and lighting really are beautiful. Also, Some truly amazing shots in this film. Like always, the set designs are wonderful. The visual effects are strong, but not to a point that they detract from the film. If the Academy does not recognize at least the technical side, then what can they recognize?

Overall, I simply loved Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Yes, the ending was shorter here than in the book, but I thought it still worked well, and certainly not anti-climactic. The death was very well done, and I thought was handled better than in Order of the Phoenix (while still a great film, lacked the emotion for Sirius dying). The ending was perfect, left me feeling sad and happy at the same time, and cannot wait for Deathly Hallows! The best Potter film yet.

Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince sets a couple of milestones in the film series. Harry and sidekicks Hermione and Ron are coming a bit late into puberty which is understandable considering all the adventures they've had. But they're now starting to see what the opposite sex is all about.

Helping them along is an old colleague that Dumbledore has brought back to the Hogwarts one Professor Slughorn, a new character into the Potter saga played by Jim Broadbent. Slughorn (how I do love J.K. Rowling's use of Dickensian names in the Harry Potter series) is a master of potions and of course when you talk potions, it's love potions that are most in demand. But they do have only a short term effectiveness and at least one of the trio gets overdosed on it. And the cure almost kills as well.

The Half Blood Prince also provides us with some insight into the life of the younger Lord Voldemort back when he was a Hogwarts student named Tom Riddle. Broadbent and he bonded back in the day and that's why Dumbledore wants him back.

The Half Blood Prince keeps up the high standard of film making that the Harry Potter series is known for. It even got a nomination for Cinematography from the Academy. Broadbent is a nice addition to the Hogwarts stock company even if only for the two remaining films in the series.

No sense telling you to see it, you probably have and enjoyed same.

Let me say this. Half Blood Prince as a movie alone was very good. It stands it's ground as a film better than any of the others of the series. But only as a film. And only because there are so many parts to a film. This installment obviously stepped everything up a notch: the cinematography, the special effects, the darker score, the improved acting, etc... But the key element which was boosted this franchise into world-class fame, is the story. And in this one, it's just not there. As a fan of the books and having had no SERIOUS gripes with any of the other films, I must say i HATED the screenplay for this one. Everything that made the book amazing was ripped from the film, and instead replaced by annoying large quantities of romantic subplot. Yes, there is romance in the sixth book but not shoved down your throat. JK Rowling masterfully crafted a novel that was perfectly balanced. The romance was there although it didn't detract from the main plot and at times was intertwined with the larger goings-on at hogwarts. In the movie the romance takes up most of the screen time. Not to mention the ending of the film was brutally butchered.

So much time could have been detracted from the silly romances to focus on more important things which were completely ommitted or deliberately changed. The ending is extremely anti-climactic and once it's over it'll leave you in your seat thinking "it's over?"

My final gripe with this movie is that it really should have been PG-13. If you've read the novel then you know the subject matter is MUCH darker and the story would have been done greater justice with just a higher rating(and a better screenwriter, yes i'm looking at you Steve Kloves).

Overall as a movie i'd give it an 8 out of 10.

But as a HARRY POTTER movie it gets 4 out of 10. And that's pushing it.

Well heres to 2010 to see how they screw up the finale. Oh wait, they already did. I didn't know there were 8 years at hogwarts...