Movie review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

by Alex Bentley

The film succeeds for the most part during its lighter moments, but too much focus on those scenes causes it to falter when things get heavy.

I have long said that critics who compare a movie to the book on which it is based are doing a disservice to the film, as the two are completely different forms of media that should be judged accordingly. Even the most detailed film will inevitably leave out or change portions of a book for cinematic/storytelling reasons.

But the Harry Potter series is unique in the pantheon of books adapted into films. Most adaptations have to deal with one, two, or at the most, three books (i.e. Lord of the Rings). Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the sixth book/movie in the series, and it's safe to say that 99.9% of the people who will line up to see it are ardent fans who know the characters and events inside and out.

All of this is to say that at this point, comparisons to the books are unavoidable as the films are made for the enjoyment of fans. Or relative enjoyment, since as the series hurtles toward its ending, the stories get darker and darker. In case you need a refresher, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) are back for their sixth year at Hogwarts. The presence of the dark lord Voldemort (an all-but absent Ralph Fiennes) is now acknowledged by all in the wizarding community, as his minions (aka Death Eaters) are wreaking havoc all around the country, even in the “real” world.

The main story of Half-Blood Prince is the quest by Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) to enlighten Harry on the history of Voldemort (or Tom Riddle as he was known as a child). He does this by showing Harry memories of various people's encounters with Riddle, including his own. One of the most important memories is that of Professor Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), who has returned to Hogwarts as Potions Master after an extended absence. Slughorn's memory, Dumbledore believes, contains the key to unlocking a crucial component of Voldemort's life.

There are, of course, multiple side stories happening concurrent to the main plot. What's interesting (okay, disappointing) about the film is how much attention is paid to relatively frivolous details at the expense of the pursuit by Dumbledore and Harry. In the book (and I'll try to keep that phrase to a minimum), there was a pervading sense of fear and gloom, casting a shadow on nearly everything else that happens. Director David Yates (who directed HP5 and will be directing the final two films) and writer Steve Kloves (who's done every HP adaptation), however, have chosen to make Half-Blood Prince a relatively sunny affair (the film is rated PG, whereas the last two were rated PG-13), with much attention lavished on the various romantic goings-on of the main trio.

To be clear, that's a significant part of the book and shouldn't be ignored. But, for instance, Ron's dalliance with classmate Lavender Brown (Jessie Cave), much to the surprised chagrin of Hermione, carries on too long in the grand scheme of things. Even at 2 ½ hours, there's only time for certain events, and devoting a big portion of that to Lavender mooning over Ron seems like a waste, given the multiple other important things going on.

You want examples of things given short shrift, you say? Okay, how about the title itself? The title comes from an inscription in Harry's used Potions book, which says that it was previously owned by the Half-Blood Prince. HBP had made numerous corrections to the book, corrections which Harry uses to great advantage in Potions class. In the book, Harry becomes emotionally attached to the writings of the HBP, almost to the point of ruin. The film hits the high points of this journey, but because they're interspersed in between much lighter stuff, the import of the arc is greatly diminished. By the time you get to the reveal of the HBP, it's almost a throwaway line, something put in solely to justify using the title.

But the most egregious error was losing focus of the tone of the book. This comes to a head at what should be the most emotional moment of the film, the death of an important character. In the book, this is a highly-charged scene that comes off as highly cinematic. But Yates and Kloves made the odd decision to change significant elements of the scene, changes which not only ruin the tone but alter the meaning of much that will follow.

The technical aspects of the film are all adequate, though there seems to have been a decrease in the amount of CGI used. This is especially noticeable when pictures and/or paintings are shown. In previous films, as in the books, all of the subjects are constantly moving, something that added a bit of whimsy to the background. But that element is rarely used in Half-Blood Prince, even after a Muggle character makes note of the quirk at the beginning of the film.

The acting is, frankly, what saves the film. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson have all grown into their own, and they make all of their scenes a delight to watch. Bonnie Wright is given an upgrade in screen time as Ginny, Ron's sister and Harry's possible love interest, and she makes the most of it, showing off a poise and calm under pressure one might not expect. Best of all is Broadbent, who runs through the gamut of facial expressions in depicting Professor Slughorn to give us humor, and then sells the drama in showing the struggle that his character goes through.

There will probably be a distinct line when it comes to opinions on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Those who remember the book well may find themselves disappointed by the choices made by the filmmakers, while those without such good memories will have no such qualms. The film succeeds for the most part during its lighter moments, but too much focus on those scenes causes it to falter when things get heavy.

• Staff
• Verified User
• Anonymous