Tuesday, July 28, 2009

REVIEW: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009): Dir. David Yates. Written by: Steve Kloves. Based on the novel by: J.K. Rowling. Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Sir Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, Helena Bonham Carter. Rated PG (scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality). Running time: 153 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

"No time for dancing, or lovey dovey. I ain't got time for that now."

So sings David Byrne of “Life During Wartime.” Screenwriter Steve Kloves and director David Yates however find considerable room for lovey dovey in the The Half-Blood Prince, an often lighthearted adaptation of J.K. Rowling’s sixth novel. The war between the Dark Lord and his resistors is just kicking into gear, but try telling that to the burgeoning hormones of a bunch of sixteen-year-olds.

The film opens darkly with the naysayers of the last film conceding that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named has indeed returned and, along with his entourage, the Death Eaters, is wreaking havoc on both the wizarding and Muggle world. Life continues though and Harry, Ron and Hermione (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, respectively) return to Hogwarts to find an increase in security and a decrease in smiles. Meanwhile Dumbledore (Sir Michael Gambon) has been taking mysterious leaves of absence and Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) may or may not be serving the Dark Lord. There’s also a new professor inclined towards favoritism, Horace Slughorn, played with great humor by Jim Broadbent. As with most of the supporting roles in the Potter series, Broadbent’s performance is one of the film’s strengths, adding several laughs and bringing to life the easily excitable Potions teacher with something to hide. But all mysteries aside, the biggest changes going on in the lives of our heroes are the internal ones, and the romantic subplots often upstage the main storyline, remaining true to the snogfest of the book.

Like each of the Potter films after the first two, The Half-Blood Prince features heavy editing of its source material. The politics of the wizarding world, which were prominent in the last film, are gone, and many characters’ roles have been reduced or removed entirely (most regrettably, the begrudging house elf Kreacher who I understand is to return again in the next installment). All but two of the Voldemort flashbacks, which made up the dominant thread in the novel, have been cut and the climactic ending has been altered to include less action. There is however a new scene involving a thrilling chase through tall grass that punches up the film’s midsection.

Despite these deviations, The Half-Blood Prince is an improvement on Order of the Phoenix, which excised so many storylines from Rowling’s sprawling novel it felt far removed from the magic of the beloved castle. Each Potter film thus far has struggled, to varying degrees of success, to capture onscreen what makes the books so enjoyable, but always lacks Rowling’s sense of limitless invention. They remain, as blockbusters must, plot-oriented, and while they retain the overall outline of the books, they cut Rowling’s doodles in the margins, her embellishments that bring this fictional world to life.

This remains an entertaining film however, and remains true to the tone of the sixth novel, balancing the darkness of an impending war with adolescent angst. More so than other films of the series, The Half-Blood Prince strives to recreate at least some of Rowling’s magic on the page with visual flourishes and some truly funny moments. This ain’t no party, and this ain’t no disco, but we’ve got time to fool around a little before the two-part Deathly Hallows sobers things up.

- Steve Avigliano, 7/28/09

2 comments:

  1. These movies would be great if they were each 9 hours long or something like that and used the books as scripts. Every time i see a potter movie I'm dissapointed by it, the only reason I watch them is because of Emma Watson.

    ReplyDelete
  2. hm...well what i like about the first Potter film is just how determined it was in recreating most of Rowling's magic. i don't think any other film in the series (including the 6th) captures the charms and quirks of the Potter Universe in the way Sorcerer's Stone does.

    the 6th puts in an honest effort and is generally successful in this regard(Slughorn was great), but when it does so at the expense of the Potter mythology, i can't help but feel like the crux (pun intended) of the story has been forgotten about. the movie shamelessly disregards the stories of Snape/Malfoy which could have easily been the central storyline alongside a heavier emphasis on He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named's back story and the search for the horcruxes. we may not have had as many laughs, but i'm sure we would have had a much more provocative product. please. save the snogging for Twilight.

    ReplyDelete