"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" Review

In “Harry Potter and Half-Blood Prince,” the sixth installment of the “Harry Potter” series, the characters in J.K. Rowling’s massive epic are finally given some room to breathe. Instead of trying to cram several elements into one film, director David Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves are able to pare things down to the absolute essential. Thus, instead of feeling bloated like Yates’s previous Potter venture, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” this film feels more developed.

The film – obviously a continuation of the previous five – sees Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) continue his relationship with Professor Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), develop feelings for his best friend’s sister, and learn more about the Dark Lord Voldemort’s past. That plot synopsis will either make sense to you, or it will not. If it does not, I suggest going to the beginning of the series and start your “Harry Potter” adventures there. It is important to note that this film does not stand on its own. If a newbie were to walk into this film, they would be terribly confused. This is a continuation of the previous five (as I mentioned above) and one really needs to see the previous installments before diving into this one. In fact, one of the best things about this film is how continuous it is with the rest of the “Potter” films. While the rest of the films feel like separate entities, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” feels much more connected to the other films in the series. Several elements from the previous film, such as the Marauder’s Map, the Room of Requirement, and the Invisibility Cloak, all return and create a wonderful continuity between this film and the ones that precede it.

The acting – as almost always in the “Potter” films – is top-notch. It seems as if the producers have managed to cast nearly every famous British thespian by now. It is a joy to watch such greats as Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter, Maggie Smith, and Julie Walters create such vivid characters in each film. While much of the adult cast is not given a whole lot to do, they still put in solid performances and never act like they are “above” the material. The newest addition to the all-star cast is Jim Broadbent, who plays Harry’s new potions teacher – Professor Horace Slughorn. Broadbent adds a level of nuance to the performance by expertly mixing the character’s broad comedy and tragic regret. And it’s all in his face. Broadbent is such an expressive actor that one can clearly see all the emotions that are running through his characters.

While the adult actors have always been great, the teenage actors have certainly evolved from there rather flat performances in earlier films. Although Dan Radcliffe – who really improved in film number five – is not given much to do in terms of emotion, he manages to give Harry a more proactive feel. But this film really belongs to Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, the two young actors who play Harry’s best friends Ron and Hermione. Grint, in particular, is able to really flex his comedic muscle in scenes involving his annoyingly clingy girlfriend Lavender Brown (Jessie Cave). Meanwhile, Emma Watson really gains more control over her characterization of Hermione. While Watson has been known to overact in past films, she strikes a much better balance in this film and is able to convey teenage heartbreak without it seeming childish or melodramatic. And that is a really hard task to accomplish. Also, Tom Felton adds some much need complexity and conflict to the character of Draco Malfoy. And Evanna Lynch still feels perfectly cast as the wonderfully eccentric Luna Lovegood.

As one can tell from reading my descriptions of the performances, this film involves a good amount of teenage romance. This element both adds and subtracts from the quality of the film. While the humor and angst conveyed through the romance sub plots are a nice relief from much of the darkness of the film, they sometimes feel a bit too fluffy – particularly in the film’s middle section. Being a Harry Potter devotee, I do not mind it because I think it deepens the characters, but I can definitely see how it could annoy some non-fans and it does cause the pace to lag in a few scenes. Also, the relationship between Harry Potter and Ron’s sister Ginny Weasley (played by Bonnie Wright) does not work at all. It feels forced, awkward and sometimes even creepy. Radcliffe has absolutely no chemistry with Wright, and Wright feels miscast. She does not really embody the spunkiness of the Ginny we see in the books.

Even though the pace is still a bit uneven, David Yates has definitely improved as a director. His scenes have more rhythm and pack more of a punch. Although he still ends some scenes rather abruptly, the scenes feel more complete and less rushed than his previous work in “Order of the Phoenix.” And the film looks beautiful. Director of Photography Bruno Delbonnel and Yates give the film an interesting visual look that makes it stand out from most recent blockbusters. It’s so pleasantly surprising to see a studio give this much artistic freedom to a film with such a high budget.

It is also great that the filmmakers took more artistic license when adapting from the source material. Many fans have complained that the film’s ending feels anticlimactic due to the excision of a big battle scene. While I can understand this disappointment, it does not bother me. To me, the ending of “Order of the Phoenix” – with all of its crazy wand effects – feels vapid and emotionless, while this most recent film’s ending feels more psychological and impactful.
In conclusion, the “Potter” films will never be masterpieces like Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy. The source material’s complexity, as well as several inconsistencies in direction and writing, prevents it from being so. Still, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” manages to capture the characters from the books and present them in an artful way. And that’s more than one can say for most Hollywood films.

B+ [More of a B in terms of quality, but I really enjoyed it as a Potter fan, so I gave it a boost.]


Thanks for reading! Leave your opinion in the comments below.

Ranking the Harry Potter Films

Now that there are six of them, ranking the Potter films has become all the rage. So, I've decided to take a crack at it. From Best to Worst.



1. "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban." This film beautifully directed by the enormously gifted Alfonso Cuaron (see "Children of Men") is by far the most human and visually engaging of all the Potter films. Instead of settling for the sap of the earlier films, Cuaron and his team put the focus on the characters. The relationship between Professor Lupin (David Thewlis) and Harry is very well rendered. It's a shame that David Thewlis has been given so little to do in later films, as he is easily the best of Harry's on screen mentors. On a different note, the time turner sequence is my all-time favorite sequence in any Potter film.



2. "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." I'll keep this short since I will be writing my review later this week. I think that this is the film that best captured the characters from the books. David Yates is really growing on me as a director.



3. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." David Yates's Potter debut is good, but not great. Imelda Staunton - who plays control freak Dolores Umbridge - really raises this film up a notch. Her rise to power is scary, and pink. I feel like the pace lags a bit in this film mainly due to how many scenes were crammed in. Yates unfortunately gives the film very little room to breathe. Thankfully, the young actors show vast improvement in this version, particularly Dan Radcliffe's Harry. The acting in this film defenitely makes up for the lackluster finale. I would have preferred a psychological duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore, not a second-rate fireworks show. Overall, this film works due to Yates splendid work with the actors. The political undertones are also a nice touch.



4. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." Director Chris Colombus manages to capture the magic of introducing Jo Rowling's deeply imaginative world. The beautiful thing about "Sorcerer's Stone" - both the book and the film - is that it is seen through the eyes of a child. We feel the same childish delight that Harry feels as we see Diagon Alley, Platform 9 and 3/4, and Hogwarts for the first time. Unfortunately, the film is almost a bit too cheery at times. Colombus's love for sap is evident here, but rarely enters gag-inducing territory. The computer effects in this film are also noticably bad. And don't get me started on the scene where Harry, Ron and Hermione all scream at the same time like they popped out of one of Colombus's previous films "Home Alone."



5. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire." This film - directed by Mike Newell ("Four Weddings and a Funeral") is the worst adaptation for the books. Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) is all wrong. What's with the screaming and man-handling Harry? Ick. Also, the characters go nowhere in this film. Harry is as blank as ever. Hermione is useless except for a few quick facts before the tasks. Ron is the only one that develops, but after awhile, he just returns to comic relief. That being said, the film's action set-pieces are the most memorable of all the films. The dragon scene is breathtaking, as is the underwater task. The third task, the maze, is changed, and for the better in my opinion. I love the creepy atmosphere of the maze attacking the contestants. Voldemort's return to power is also pretty neat, but in the end, this movie feels pretty limp in terms of character development - which is obviously one of Rowling's strengths as a writer. Kudos to Miranda Richardson for her all to brief appearance as gossip journalist Rita Skeeter.



6. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets." Coincidentally, this is also my least favorite of the books. And since Chris Colombus and screenwriter Steve Kloves slavisly adhere to the book, I didn't like the movie too much either. If you are going to adapt this book, the only feasible way would be to make it like a puplpy horror flick, but instead Colombus films it in his light, sentimental tones that annoy me so. While that angle works for the first film's sense of wonder and discovery, it feels stale in this one. Also, I don't think Ron does anything but eat and act scared of spiders in this movie. Literally, that's it. And don't get me started on the final scene - which is by far the stupidest and most gag-inducing scene in Potter film history. "There's no Hogwarts without you Hagrid!" Who writes this stuff? Apparently, Steve Kloves did not. It was all Colombus's doing. Ugh! I hate that scene. Everything does not need to be tied up in a pretty little sentimental bow, Colombus. Okay? RANT OVER. All my qualms aside, I do think Kenneth Branagh is absolutely smashing as the phony celeb wizard Gilderoy Lockhart. Dobby's pretty awesome too, and I like the basilik scene.



In conclusion, I think the Potter films have many strengths, but obviously some work much better than others. Expect my review of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" later this week.



Feel free to leave comments. You don't have to be a registered member of Blogger. Just use Anonymous or "Name/Url" in which the Url is optional. I am eager to see how others would rank the Potter series.