Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), is yet to begin his sixth year at Hogwarts School, and things are already looking bleak and apocalyptic. The dreaded Voldemort his wraith-like Death Eaters, continue to wreak havoc on the wizard world, but rather brazenly, also attacking the world of Muggles. Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), visiting Harry before school starts, asks the young wizard to accompany him to the home of Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), a former Hogwarts professor who many years ago, taught Tom Riddle (Frank Dillane), a troubled young wizard later to become the nefarious Voldemort. Slughorn holds the key to one of Riddle’s secrets, and with it, Voldemort’s weakness. Since Slughorn has a rapport and fondness for young wizards (no, he’s not a perv) Dumbledore wants Harry to convince Slughorn to return to Hogwarts as master of potions. Once there Harry re-joins his friends Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) as they stumble upon something conspiratorial between certain parties who shall remain nameless. Harry also is in possession of a mysterious text apparently belonging to someone known as ‘The Half-Blood Prince’, someone whose identity is indeed a mystery throughout the film. The young wizards also have to contend with their respective raging hormones, as Harry is beginning to have longings for Ron’s sister Ginny (Bonnie Wright), and both Hermione and Ron try to distract themselves from the obvious (to everyone except them) attraction between them, by allowing annoying admirers to pursue them, leading to a few light romantic comedy moments. Helena Bonham-Carter is back as troublesome Bellatrix Lestrange, protective of her Aryan nephew Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), who is always lurking about. The perpetually disdainful Prof. Snape (Alan Rickman) seems to be on the wrong side of things too, frequently in the company of those who would do harm to young Harry. Evanna Lynch once again plays the oddball Luna Lovegood.

This 2009 David Yates (“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” etc.) adaptation of the JK Rowling novel is the sixth cinematic instalment of the young wizard series, and whilst better than “The Goblet of Fire”, is not quite up to the standard of the previous “Order of the Phoenix”, nor the first two (and best) entries. It’s still OK and funnier than I was expecting, but a couple of major flaws really do get in the way.

You might call it “The Goblet of Fire” done right, as it takes a more character-based approach (but more interesting this time), balancing action and character, whilst not forgetting about plot, unlike “The Goblet of Fire”, which should’ve been retitled “Harry Potter and the Search for Plot”. I won’t say the film gets the balance 100% right (it doesn’t), but certainly more so than “The Goblet of Fire” and the story is more interesting this time. For starters, unlike “The Goblet of Fire” (sorry, but I really do need to make the comparison), the plot doesn’t take a backseat to fancy window dressing. It’s not just dances and pseudo-FIFA tournaments here, we’re setting things up for the final instalments. And although Ralph Fiennes never appears on-screen, Voldermort is very much indeed alluded to throughout the film, to the point where the film is more concerned with him than was the case in “The Goblet of Fire”. In that film he was merely tacked-on at the finale. I really loved all the flashback/memory stuff with Tom Riddle/Voldermort, it was for me, the most fascinating part of the film. Even the personal relationships/teen romance portions of the film were well-done and entertaining this time, whereas they bored me to tears in “The Goblet of Fire”.

The film certainly starts well-enough, with a gloomy, dark and destructive opener featuring a cameo from the smoke monster from “Lost”. In all seriousness, whilst I’m not keen on scenes set outside of the ‘magical’ world in this series, it’s still interesting and extremely weird stuff. I do take issue with Dumbledore appearing in these scenes, though, having him appear outside of Hogwarts tends to take me out of fantasy mode, it just seems odd. Far and away the highlight of the film is Jim Broadbent, whose entrance is hilarious. I was worried that he was going to go the way of every other new (adult) addition to the series (i.e. Become the new professor of the Dark Arts, which at this stage, really ought to be retitled Professor of Not-so Surprise Villainy), but Rowling has something different in mind for him here. The always slightly batty Broadbent seems born for this series, and steals his every scene. Bonham-Carter and especially the late Alan Rickman are also spot-on here, with the latter finally getting his due focus. Rickman, with his halted delivery and disdainful demeanour reminds me of the late, great Henry Daniell here. Bonham-Carter admittedly gets short shrift (as was the case previously), but when called on, she does her thing wonderfully, weirdly well. Some of the other smaller players delighted me too, with Lynch’s oddball Luna Lovegood a particular source of hilarity this time, and Hermoine’s slimy suitor is so unbelievably oily that he’s actually quite entertaining. Dame Maggie Smith, as always is hilariously droll as matronly McGonagall. Gambon as Dumbledore? Whatever. I’m just not a fan and that doesn’t change here. As for the three young leads, little has changed, with Radcliffe faring best as Harry, and Watson once again bringing up the rear as Hermione. However, at least she’s underplaying here instead of overplaying as she normally does. She’s really quite bland. She seems possibly bored with it all. Rupert Grint always somewhere in between the other two, does the unthinkable this time: He makes the usually annoying Ron quite likeable, for once. He also gets the film’s best line when Smith asks him why it’s always the three of them (Harry, Ron, and Hermione) getting into trouble. I’ll leave you to discover it for yourself, it’s pretty damn funny. I thought in the previous film that I felt the trio didn’t even seem to act like they were friends, there was little connection between them (perhaps we were meant to just assume so), and here they at least hang out together. However, it seems like here more than ever, that Hermione and Ron don’t much like Harry, and resent him. Aren’t they meant to be not just friends, but best friends? Meanwhile, the young characters seemed afflicted with the disease that many British people seem to. I’m talking about the compulsion to use the word ‘brilliant’ in every damn sentence (usually minus the ‘t’ on the end for some reason). I swear, not a scene goes by where someone doesn’t use the word. It’s so aggravating!

I don’t know what it’s like in the books, but Thewlis’ Remus Lupin makes a sudden appearance in this that seems to lack an establishing shot or introductory scene, it’s so random. Robbie Coltrane’s Hagrid only makes a one scene appearance of little consequence. This is one of the big problems with the film: Too many characters to deal with, meaning few get any real focus or depth, and it can all get a bit confusing. The confusion is furthered by the other big flaw with the film, the astonishingly Oscar-nominated cinematography by Bruno Delbonnel (the popular French film “Amelie”). To be charitable, I think it’s the worst cinematography to have ever earned an Oscar nomination. Yes, believe me, that’s being charitable. I understand that as the story grows darker and darker, Yates wanted Mr. Delbonnel to have the visuals be like-minded, but he does so to the point of never shooting any of the actors faces fully visible to camera. It’s a technique that often works wonderfully well in B&W film noir, but we’re no longer in the 1940s, the film is allegedly in colour, and even the best shadowy film noirs managed a non-shadowy shot or two so that we could actually see things. I mean geez, all these wizards and apprentices and no one can figure out how to turn a freakin’ light on? (Admittedly wands are used as torches at one point, a cute touch). I just wanted one shot of the actors faces in full-view, unobstructed. I didn’t really get what I wanted, and I’m certain the previous films weren’t nearly this dark. If you want to shoot in B&W, then shoot in B&W, if you’re shooting in colour, don’t darken and mute things to the point where it’s so ugly and hard to see anything that it lessens both the enjoyment and coherency of the story. Mind you, you don’t need crisp photography to work out that Felton’s Aryan-looking Draco is basically a rotter, you’ll be gobsmacked at how long it takes for fingers to be pointed in his direction. Hasn’t the kid looked pretty much like Satan for like six films now? Anyway, Delbonnel’s work, Oscar-nominated or not, nearly ruined the film for me, single-handedly. For instance, I feel very sorry for Warwick Davis. Not only is he an actor of short stature, not only does his character Flitwick barely have any screen time in any of the films including this one, but the photography is so damn dark during his appearance, I couldn’t be 100% certain it was him! Same goes for Coltrane’s Hagrid. Maybe I can understand losing the diminutive Davis on screen but how in the holy hell do you lose Robbie Coltrane on screen? Even dark scenes need some lighting, unless you’re using pitch darkness for scare tactics, which is not the case here. It’s just awful lighting, a cinematic trend that is currently pissing me of royally. This could’ve been a visually stunning film if I could’ve only seen something on screen. There’s a scene where Harry and Hermione are having a genuine heart-to-heart, and it’s a potentially well-acted dramatic moment ruined by the fact that we can’t see their damn faces in order to appreciate their physical acting, thanks to the awful lighting (or lack of lighting, to be precise). Does Mr. Delbonnel find Watson unattractive? Was there a major chicken pox outbreak on set? I will say that the special FX are absolutely terrific, perhaps the best in the series. They’re really impressive, not an easy thing given how quickly the quality in FX advances these days. I don’t normally like CGI flames (they never look like they’re physically occupying the same space as everything else on screen) but goddamn do we get some cool-looking fiery stuff towards the end of this film. The climax, involving the destruction of a ring admittedly made me wonder; ‘Haven’t we finished that series already?’ And indeed the ending itself gives off heavy “Lord of the Rings” vibe.

Overall, this is a solid, quite OK, if unremarkable entry into the series, which for me, doesn’t come close to matching “The Lord of the Rings” in quality, and certainly not in terms of cinematography. Scripted by Steve Kloves (all previous “Potter” films bar the previous and enjoyable “Order of the Phoenix”), who continually got maligned by fan geeks decrying his removal of supposedly important details throughout the series. From an outsider’s perspective I see it this way: There are books and there are movies, the two need not be exactly the same, especially since some literary things aren’t logistically possible or narratively expedient for a 2-2 ½ hour film. So long as the adaptation proves satisfying in spirit if not detail, it’s OK by me. Except in the case of “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”, ‘coz that’s my favourite book and I reserve the right to be hypocritical and nit-picky. 

Rating: B-