 "Photo:")
 "Photo:")
"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" hits theaters tonight at midnight. I know what everyone will say. "It's changed," "the book was better," "they left out my favorite part!" Get over it. We all know by now how film adaptations will always change the book a bit, and maybe in ways we don't want it to.
However, considering the size of "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" and that a mass audience does not wish to see a four hour movie - even if hardcore fans do - the studio has a budget to work with.
Thankfully, director David Yates seems to have learned something from "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." He had a relatively smaller book to work with this time and it seems to suit his style. This style still includes the panning shots to places around the castle, making it seem like scenes are occurring at the same time, something even a book cannot do.
Unfortunately, it isn't the style of J.K. Rowling, who writes the bulk of each book in third person limited perspective, the perspective of Harry, and so the reader can't see anything that Harry doesn't. This is what makes the viewer think the movie doesn't suit the book, even though actually it does.
"Half-Blood Prince" gets off to a sluggish start that makes one feel like they are watching tar dry on a hot summer day. Michael Gambon's lines as Dumbledore feel forced when in conversation with Harry at first, and it seems they tried to add too many Dumbledore one-liners. A conversation between Ron, Hermione and Harry also feels awkward considering they are supposed to have known each other for six years now. The beginning has to be slow, though, because it has to set up certain plot elements that become important later in the movie.
Once they get back to Hogwarts, the story starts moving a little quicker, with focus on many fan favorite pieces of the Harry Potter universe, like love stories and quidditch. The Harry and Voldemort plot in "Half-Blood Prince" is taken out of the forefront, and so the focus in the movie shifts to Ron and Hermione and the development of characters, like Malfoy in a villainous role.
On the other hand, the casting and developing of Professor Slughorn, played by Jim Broadbent, was hardly adequate. Broadbent portrays Slughorn more as a bumbling fool than a great connector of the well-to-do crowd. This makes scenes in which Slughorn has his parties clumsy and awkward.
The private lessons Harry has with Dumbledore where they examine the memories of Tom Riddle, a.k.a. Voldemort, are well done. It is too bad there were not as many as in the book because the understanding of Voldemort's past was at the heart of the novel.
As mentioned earlier, love is another element, and it is a plot line with many thorns that prick the characters over and over. The scenes are well done, except for Ginny and Harry's. The viewer knows Harry's feelings, but it feels odd that Ginny just so happens to feel the same. By the way, Bonnie Wright has never looked more beautiful. Overall, the love plots are a good, humorous backdrop to the dark times the characters live in.
As in the book, the climax and ending are short but heartfelt and sure to tug at emotions.
All in all, "Half-Blood Prince" is a better adaptation than the previous Harry Potter films and is sure to delight fanatics and almost all movie-goers. The mix of all the different plot elements flows well and gives insight to characters that have not been developed in previous films. Also, the visual effects, including the collapsing of a bridge, are awesome.
Be the first to comment on this article!