Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince



Director David Yates has given us a surprisingly dramatic and interesting 6th installment of the franchise. I say surprisingly since the book was a rather dull exposition that seemed nothing more than a set up for book 7. Of course, the book did have a killer of an ending though.

Here, returning screenwriter Steven Kloves and director Yates (who directed the 5th film and is set to direct the final two) were able to take the exposition of the book and give us one of the funniest and moodiest films of the series. There isn't the frenzied action that climaxed the 5th film -- this film felt so much more quiet -- and yet, I found this film more emotionally fulfilling and entertaining.

First, let me say I have had a love-hate relationship with the Potter film franchise. The only film I feel is worthy of adoration is the third film -- Prisoner of Azkaban. That was a film with incredible heart, adventure, and mystery as we meet Harry's uncle, Harry rides a dragon, and monsters and patronuses litter the Hogwarth landscape. This film matches that film in quality even if it feels so different.

In this film, the darkness has set in -- the bright colors of before are gone -- and the serious mood that has now captured the Potter story is visually captured with an amazing opening shot through the streets of London. This is the dark before the dawn, and we know it will only go darker.

Yates also entertains us. The film is surprisingly funny and it wasn't until half-way through I actually tried to remember how many times I laughed in a Harry Potter film (the twins were always good for a laugh and I often laughed when reading the books). Harry's line about "after 6 years, I just go with it" had a self-awareness I hadn't seen in prior films. The filmmakers also never forgot that at its core, Harry Potter is about growing up. The romance subtext was sweet where we catch a first kiss and funny when we enjoy a girl's crush on Ron.

Jim Broadbent is amazing in this film. His plays Professor Slughorn in the slump of his shoulders and the fear in his eyes. You can feel the weight of his secret simply by looking at him. There is a sadness in Slughorn which seemed to match perfectly with where we are now in Potter's story.

And speaking of sad, my only real disappointment was in how Yates staged the ending. I don't want to spoil it (although who doesn't know by now?) but Harry's position in the film gave him a bit more power that he didn't have in the book. I think that was a mistake. The helplessness I felt at the end of the book was overwhelming. I was incredibly devastated.

Here, Yates gave us a few wands held in the air but it wasn't enough to fill me with the emotion I should have felt. I can surmise what will be the first image in the next film -- it was missing from this one -- and I'll have to wait to see if I'm right.

But I'll wait. I'm very curious how Yates will finish Potter's story.

I just saw this movie, and it is, in my eyes, somewhat of a disappointment. There was humor (Ron and his fan/smooch partner) and heart-wrenching scenes (Harry, Dumbledore, and the river), but the overall effect of the film did not have the impact that the book did.

I do not recall the story between Ron and Hermione that well from the book, but the film had enough of it that made me wonder if the movie should have been called Harry Potter and the Back-and-forth BS of Hermione and Ron. Yes, yes, this is a story about kids and their troubles at that age--while in this fantastic world of god-like powers and horrible uses of it. Still, the effect of seeing so much of it left me asking where was the half-blood prince's book in all of the story. Again, this was the effect of the film story, seeing it unfold.

There are some ways that the translation from book to film seem odd or off that are typical of like translations. Not all are bad, but some seem odd. The "quiet" of the film is awkward at times, such as the conversation between Ron and Harry about Ginny. The scene itself just seems to stand out as though it is missing something to tie it together. Yes, this book is "darker" than the others, but that should not be used as a reason to avoid looking at the awkwardness of the film (if there are any doubts about it).

The ending was weaker than the book and left me not the least bit sad. Seeing how actors portray characters from books is always interesting for the variation, and this film is no different. Yet I did expect more from the end as a whole. The last film with Black's death was far more dramatic in affecting people emotionally. This film's tragic scene creates more of a disconnect with the viewer, particularly when all wands are raised toward the sky--that looks like a collection of E.T.'s fingers are pointing toward home.

So the movie is O.K. Perhaps the difference in tone makes all the difference from the previous films. And there are, as stated above, good moments for the story. Still, I left the theater not really anticipating the next films, especially with the odd contrast of the end and the music in the credits.

Eh...the film's "spell over me" did not work this time.

Saw this Wednesday night, and just finished the review. Had a very difficult time writing this one, and you'll notice it's a lot wordier than usual. I think both are a reflection of how much I love the books. I have a million reactions to the movie, and condensing them into a coherent summary proved pretty difficult. Anyway, as always, here's an excerpt, with a link to the rest:

i was never interested in Harry Potter or Magic

but i think it has alot of good parts and awkward moments

i bet it is gonna win a award

great review, yoda. i think you nailed both the things that make the movie marvelous and the things that people will be dissapointed with, without giving anything away spoiler wise, and it never came across as attacks to the actual film. its still a good film for all to watch, and i don't see why fans alike can't enjoy it too, even if its not the perfect adaptation they all wanted, which was never going to happen...

Yoda, very nice review. I think we are in agreement.

One part I didn't touch on and you did was the mystery behind the "Half-Blood Prince." I couldn't agree more. That part of the story lacked the mystery of the book and the final payoff wasn't nearly as exciting. But once again, I think the ending was poorly handled. I found that curious since I felt the film was extremely interesting -- even with the lack of the excitement of the previous film/book -- up to that point.

What I did like, though, was the very final image of the sunlight, the autumn colors, and the three of them alone looking to the future. We also had the set up of the "RAB" which I hope sparked interest for those that don't know the books. That was nicely handled and if I'm right and a certain scene missing from the book opens the next film, I think that is a good decision on their part. (I guess we'll have to wait and see, though...)

I'm a tad curious about those that don't know the books. I wonder how confused they were.

And to those that did read the books -- did you notice the nice closeup on Dumbledore's wand?

Many thanks to both of you. Wanted to make note of a couple things real quick:

I agree with this for a very specific reason, and with a qualification...sorry people, lots of spoilers abound!



Yeah, I'm still surprised by that. More spoilers!



I completely agree with you about the ending. Really lovely. And I like that it takes a tragedy to get them to see the simple beauty all around them. At the end of this film, they finally have an idea of what they're fighting for, and how lucky they've been to have it. That, more than any other, is the moment they grow up.

Ah, beautifully said.

You make some very interesting points, Yoda.

I'm mostly just really curious as to where they're going to take it (in regards to the first spoiler text). I feel like they can kinda-sorta redeem the error, should they choose to go that route. Still doesn't seem necessary to do change things (it's not as if it were changed to cut down on running time or anything), though.

Makes me very curious about the whole thing. I wish we could get some kind of quick FAQ with Kloves or Yates on each DVD or something explaining the thought process. Usually when something like this bugs me, they have some kind of reasonable explanation.

I'm glad you made mention of Broadbent's performance. His eyes--yes, his sadness and shame and fear are all there. That was very well done.

And I agree completely about the tower scene. I'm sure there were good reasons for changing Harry's position there, but it really failed to live up to the same scene in the book.

I sure did! And the thing is, I read the books through twice and I am still confused about the wand succession, so I paid close attention to it in this movie. I know it's going to matter.

I know what 'missing scene' at the end you're referring to. I can only hope it is part of the opening to the next film.

One other thing I have to mention (ok--maybe I'll have ten other things)--I sure wish the score composer had felt he was up to the task of writing Fawkes' song into the score. I cried in the book just reading about the song, and really thought that i would love to hear it in the movie when it comes out. Very sad to miss it.

If you're still confused about the wand, have you ever seen this website?

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Do a search on the "elder wand." It explains everything in such a clear way. I did a bit of research on Snape before when I had gotten confused.

Yoda, I'd also like to know their thinking. I think your first spoiler text could have been put into this film and now that I really think about it, it could have added a complex layer to the film that the film really didn't have.

Although... question ahead...

My wife only recently convinced me to start reading the books. I'm still working on The Order of the Phoenix right now, so I can't compare the book to the movie. But, as far as the movies go, I will say I enjoyed this one the most of all so far.

It definitely had the most humor of any of the films so far. I loved the scenes when Harry had taken the Good Luck Potion and was walking around talking to Hagrid with that dumb, goofy look on his face. Too funny.

Besides the humor, this one covered the full range of emotions too. From laughing to being on the edge of tears, it was a rollercoaster ride.

Seeing as how I've not read the book yet, the ending was shocking to say the least. I did not expect that at all.

When the credits started rolling, I couldn't believe it. I had to check the time. It didn't feel like I had just sat through a 2 1/2 hour long film. It felt like it had just begun an hour ago.

That supports what I suspect, that enjoyment of the films goes way down if you've read the books first. I really liked the first five movies, and I hadn't read any of the books beforehand. Then after movie 5, I read all seven through twice. So the Half-Blood Prince is my first after-the-book new movie, and it really let me down.

But, after getting over my initial disappointments about things that were changed, left out, or not presented the way I imagined, the second viewing was really enjoyable.

My wife has read all the books several times over. She prepares herself before the movies knowing full well that there will be changes to the story, so she tries not to let that bother her enjoyment of the films. She agreed that this was the best movie of the bunch so far and she really did like it, even with the changes.

Therein lies a major portion of my disappointment with ALL the films from number 3 onward: The attempt to separate film from book.

Color me naive if you so desire but I believe that when one is endeavoring to bring a book to life THE STORY is the most important thing. The first two films, under the guidance of Chris Columbus, were precisely that: Books brought to life on the big screen.

I'm not silly enough to forget that there are limitations, albeit far fewer than before the advent of CGI at the level we've experienced it for the last decade. Nonetheless when the director of the third Potter installment said in an interview that he hoped to bring his "interpretation" of Potter to the screen my first thought was something we were always told in Language school:

"An accurate translation finds its own beauty."

If someone wants to render "their interpretation" of a book as part of a series they needn't direct a portion of a series, they need to go write their own bloody tale and leave off!

From there the books got longer and the movies got shorter, leaving out more and more of the subtleties, the nuances which so enriched the books. And it begs the question of Why? After all, LotR proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the American public and people the world over WILL sit through more than three hours of watching their favorite fantasies brought to life. Sales proved as well that extended director's cuts would be snapped up, providing nigh-limitless possibilities for franchising and marketing.

But no -- more and more is cast aside for the sake of quick production and doling out some semblance of recognition to whatever directorial name is attached to said franchise.

I'll agree with the poignancy of the scenes mentioned above, but without the backstory of the novel I found the film choppy and the relationships tenuous.

The performance of Slughorn was nothing short of superb; there's that, at least.

Since number 4 the ONLY reason I continue to see them is solely because I've seen them up to this point and am interested in how the characters have aged during the interim. After seeing Half-Blood Prince I'm actually happy this ordeal (and ORDEAL it has indeed become!) is nearly over.

books = epic win
movies= for the most part pretty decent
this movie = a letdown for me. the wand raising scene was very corny IMO. This better just be a lead-up to the final films.

__________________
Latest Review: The Ugly Truth

I would sligthly disagree. Most of the movies were a let down; only one or may be a couple of them were decent

__________________
Violated the site rules at MovieForums.com

No movie can "really" bring a book to screen, literally page by page the way you want it unless it's Sin City, 300 or anything by Frank Miller...or even Watchmen. Besides those (mainly), there are flaws in just about every adaptation made known to man. It's kinda funny when people come out of the theater complaining how the film didn't "follow the book" when it's obvious a movie can't fully do that.