The Harry Potter movies — six down, two to go — occupy a strange place in my moviegoing experience. I anticipate them wildly and strive to see them on opening day whenever possible, yet I generally forget them rather quickly afterward. They run together as a blend of potions, broomsticks and Every Flavor Beans.
I feel, in a way, as if they aren’t “real” movies. They are dramatizations of books I’ve loved, a way to bring life to visions swirling in my head since reading J.K. Rowling’s tale. But I can’t imagine watching these films having not read the books (unlike, say, The Godfather or The Bourne Identity). They are very expensive companion pieces.
Now that sounds like a criticism but I don’t really mean it that way. As companion pieces, I find them quite wonderful. Each director, starting with Chris Columbus and ending with David Yates (with chapters assigned to Alfonso Cuarón and Mike Newell in between), has realized Rowling’s wild scenarios splendidly, portraying everything from the Dementors to Weasleys’ Wizard Wheezes with a gusto equal to my own imaginings.
And the films have introduced their own special bit of magic, which is the ability to watch the growth of the three central actors from pre-teens to young men and women. In a way, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have traded in their childhoods to give viewers a chance to witness a true coming-of-age on screen. It’s a rare, bittersweet opportunity.
All three do a fine job in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, a film that (like its written word counterpart) mostly sets up the action in the final chapter. Indeed, acting is never an issue in the Harry Potter movies, which boast casts more often found on a Shakespearean stage than in a family film. Consider this list of thespians: Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson, Imelda Staunton, Kenneth Branagh, Alan Rickman, Jim Broadbent, Helena Bonham Carter, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Brendan Gleeson, Miranda Richardson and Ralph Fiennes.
In fact, one criticism I have of these films is that they tend to under utilize all that great talent. In the interest of packing in all the plot points and giving enough screen time to the central characters, most of these supporting roles are woefully small. It’s an editor’s nightmare, I’m sure, to have to leave all that great scenery chewing on the cutting room floor.
Half-Blood Prince is mainly a showcase for Radcliffe’s Potter and Michael Gambon’s Dumbledore, along with some juicy material for Jim Broadbent’s Professor Slughorn. The actor I feel is served least in the film is Alan Rickman, whose Severus Snape is among my favorite characters in the series. Rickman never gets enough screen time in these films and his relative absence in this one is particularly bothersome because (spoiler alert!) he is the title character (no, not Harry Potter, the other title character). I really wish that storyline had been more fleshed out.
But the area where the Potter films in general, and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince specifically, shine is in capturing the whimsy and drama of teenage life. The film spends almost equal time covering the dramatic plot developments and the romantic turmoil of snog-happy Hogwarts students. And for my money, it’s the latter that really makes an impression.
I find it hard to evaluate and rank these movies on an individual basis… in my mind, they are all segments of a 7-piece puzzle that’s unfolding before our eyes. Alfonso Cuaron’s Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban remains the film that sticks with me the most, probably because he’s the one world-class filmmaker who’s tackled a Potter film and because that’s the book I remember most fondly. But I’ve enjoyed every one of them, just as I’ve enjoyed every one of the books.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is no exception. It’s a joy to watch. And I’m a little sad, just as I was after reading the film’s source material, that I have only one story left to savor.
Meet Me In Montauk 
Only the most unyielding literalist Potter fans will not enjoy this film as it has it all: exquisite cinematography, a brilliant soundtrack, imaginative direction, and the best acting from both veterans and young guns we’ve seen so far in the series. All are put to brilliant use as Dumbledore and Harry conspire to discover Lord Voldermort’s secrets whilst simultaneously straining every sinew to contain outbreaks of rampant hormones and potion-taking at Hogwarts.
Some of the sets are breathtaking, in particular Weasley Wizard Wheezes. The film is hilarious throughout, Rupert Grint excelling with superb support from Jessie Cave, Freddie Stroma (as Cormac McClaggen) and Evanna Lynch. Bonnie Wright and Tom Felton are allowed to step out of their two-dimensional characters, Wright delivering sensuousness and strength and Felton giving an outstanding all-round performance. Daniel Radcliffe continues to carry the weight of both the part and the franchise with effortless ease, and Emma Watson is once again a delight as the emotionally embattled focus of the superb trio, who have now added a facility for comedy to their formidable acting skills.
The veterans pull out all the stops, Michael Gambon is exceptional, becoming a truly charismatic and compelling presence by the end of the film, and of course, perfectly pitched performances from the likes of Bonham Carter (terrifyingly seductive), Jim Broadbent (funny and pathos-filled), and Alan Rickman (unreadably malevolent). And, despite being on the screen for what seemed an instant, both David Thewlis and Helen McCrory successfully convey their respective characters’ desperation and edginess.
The film never lags because when you are not being gripped by visceral Quidditch or battle scenes you are laughing your head off at the comedy which ranges from broad and physical to witty and acute.
The film is all the more satisfying because there is a very strong sense of place, and the characters are three-dimensional, and utterly recognisable. And, it is truly multi-dimensional, part romcom, detective story, rites-of-passage teen adventure, magical, scary-horror, political, and, above all, about love and friendship. All Rowling’s stories are multi-layered but this is the first film to really capture the complexity and fun of the series.
You cannot wish for more from a film than it both stays in the mind, and, the first urge you have is to want to see it all over again. Half Blood Prince delivers on both counts, and more.
As an avid Harry Potter fan who has read the books multiple times and of course seen the movies repeatedly, I was extremely excited to see this movie at the midnight showing. Half-Blood Prince is my favorite book and other than 7, the darkest book in the series.
That being said, I was so disgusted with this movie. Yates & company literally turned it into Harry Potter comedy hour. I’m not sure how anyone thought this movie was amazingly dark when the theater was cracking up laughing the entire time at trite jokes. The only thing that should have been funny in this entire movie was Lavender & Won Won’s obsession w/ each other.
The movie emphasized the unrequited love/snogging/Ron & Lavender romance over the major plot line which was learning about Tom Riddle’s background. With the exception of Dumbledore’s first meeting w/ Tom & Tom asking about how to make Horcruxes, all of the background was left out. That’s essentially three quarters of the book omitted.
What was the point of not having Tonks find Harry on the train? How can you have Tonks call Remus sweetie and not explain all the drama between them and how they got together? How can you leave out Madam Rosmerta’s involvement? What was the point of the burning of the Burrow scene? The ending was horrific. It was completely different than the book. So now Dumbledore is the only one who can apparate on Hogwarts grounds? Malfoy spends all this time working on this cabinet only to have the Death Eaters walk through, Bellatrix (who is not present in the book) encourage him to kill Dumbledore, Snape kills Dumbledore, and they kindly saunter off the grounds in no hurry. No battle… no fear of being caught…nothing. What was the point of the cabinet in the movie? It was completely anti-climatic and they didn’t even have the funeral scene which is a must-have. The worst part ever was the very end…Harry and Hermione are talking about Dumbledore’s death and going searching for horcruxes and she randomly chimes in that Ron is OK w/ Ginny and Harry. WHAT?! It was so awkward.
And can someone please tell me how they are going to explain Dobby and Kreacher in the Deathly Hallows movies when they have essentially been omitted from the subsequent movies after being introduced? I honestly would like a do-over. They really need to re-shoot this movie and try again because it was bad. For the real fan, it leaves you cold and empty, with no tears for Dumbledore because you are so confused, and wondering why Yates and Co. cared about Lavender being funny more than the back story of Tom Riddle.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Maddie and I often are asked to fill in all sorts of before and after blanks for Dana, who hasn’t read the books. I’m sure he’ll comment for himself as to whether they are satisfying film experiences without having the books to fill in the details. I, too, most missed Snape’s extra presence, though Rickman, as always, conveys so much with the little screen time he has. Also, poor Neville! And one scene with Fred and George?! There was a reason why Rowling’s books kept getting bigger. She had so many characters’ stories to tell. Also, my timeline is getting all confused, but wasn’t this the book that revealed Snape’s mistreatment by James? I was certain that was a memory Harry saw in this book, but then I entered the theater thinking we were going to see Dumbledore’s army, despite it having been featured in the last film. So clearly I don’t know much 🙂 That said, I enjoyed the movie very much, especially, as you say, the teen angst stuff. Watching Hermione wrestle (momentarily) with throwing a charm curse to help Ron out during Quidditch auditions was just delightful.
As one of the few souls on this planet who has not read the books, but has seen each movie, I can say that I find them to be satisfying, though fleeting experiences. I don’t feel confused during the films, and any plot points that may slip past me have more to do with my failing to remember what occurred in the previous films. Obviously, I can’t really miss what I don’t know, but I don’t feel as though I am missing anything while watching the movie.
I am sure that, like most books adapted for the screen, those who read the books have feelings of heightened excitement and identification in seeing these characters and plot lines depicted in the movies, but also have feelings of frustration when things are left out, changed, rearranged, or reduced in significance. Still, I can’t agree with Clay’s opinion that these films are merely companion pieces. I believe they stand on their own, and stand up well. I suspect that this latest installment, would not be sitting at an 84% tomato rating if it didn’t work well independent of the book, as I doubt 84% of the movie critics have read every book in the series. Then again, you never know….
Frankly, I’m just shocked that this rates below, of all things, Bruno! I admit that I haven’t seen either film (yet). I wanted to wait for this weekend to see HP so I wouldn’t have to get there so early in order to not end up in the front row of the theater…
Bruno, on the other hand, will never see my $10. We saw Borat on DVD and it was one of the worst things I’ve ever seen. While I find Sasha Baron Cohen to be very funny (as Ali G he was pretty brilliant), and I understand what he’s trying to do, I just can’t watch this stuff.
To see you rate that kind of film above something as artistically and visually superior as any Harry Potter film (and I believe I can say that with certainty even without having seen this installment yet) was a real surprise…. I guess I’ll have to wonder what I’m really missing…
They’re the same movie, really 🙂
Excellent. Now I don’t have to wonder. Seriously, I think Borat is one of maybe 5 or 6 movies (of over 1300 I’ve rated) that have received only 1 star from me on Netflix. I save that for stuff I truly cannot stomach. To contextualize, it is in the company of Forces of Nature and Gigli (coincidentally, or not, both starring Ben Affleck… hmmm.. never noticed that before – but I digress).
Anyway, thanks for ending the suspense. I can rest easy now. 🙂
Actually, I meant Harry Potter and Bruno (poorly executed joke)!
But yeah, if you didn’t like Borat you definitely wouldn’t like Bruno. I thought Borat was hilarious, however. Believe it or not, I was introduced to Sacha Baron Cohen’s work by my parents, who are big fans!
Not to digress even further, but I’m curious what it was about Borat that caused you to hate it so, Kerrie. Was it the way he turns the joke on people or the offensive nature of his comedy in general? Or something else entirely?