Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince Review

I’m the guy who’s always saying that a book and a movie NEED to be treated as two separate entities.

I seem to find myself saying this more often whenever a new “Harry Potter” movie comes out. The main reason for this is simply that a much larger number of people have read these books — and almost every one of those readers has a very specific and very strong idea of what the movie should look like and what details (no matter how minor) are ABSOLUTELY crucial to the film adaptation.

Of course, as with any movie adaptation, it’s absolutely impossible to include everything (at least if you want to keep the movie under seven hours), so some people inevitably go home disappointed. Still, I generally try to judge a movie that is based on a previous piece of work on its own merit. Then again, that’s usually pretty easy for me to do since I don’t allow myself any time for leisure reading at all, so I haven’t really read too much at all. (Unless they make “Crossword Puzzle: The Movie”, I don’t think this situation will change.)

This time it’s different. (Aren’t one-sentence paragraphs dramatic?)

I’ve read all the “Harry Potter” books, seen all the movies, and “Half Blood Prince” has definitely presented the biggest challenge to my “keeping the movie and book separate” philosophy. It’s not because the movie is bad (far from it). However, I would certainly say it’s the most different from the source material, which is a little jarring since it immediately followed what I considered to be (in the second movie review I ever wrote for my blog — aww) the BEST adaptation. Both movies share the same director, David Yates, but have different a screenwriter (regular writer Steve Kloves comes back after sitting out “Order of the Phoenix) so maybe that explains it.

The story follows Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and Co.’s sixth year at Hogwarts. With the Death Eaters crossing over and causing havoc in the Muggle world, Harry and Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) seek to learn more about Voldemort’s past. Meanwhile, Harry gets help throughout the school year from a mysterious potions book, whose previous owner was known as the Half Blood Prince.

Naturally, if you’ve never read any of the books or seen any of the movies, you have no idea what I just said in the previous paragraph. Though the number of people who are COMPLETELY ignorant to the world of Potter is pretty small (and they wouldn’t be watching this movie in the first place) I still felt that the movie’s opening 20 minutes were overly confusing — and not just because Harry got jungle fever with a waitress who had no problem hitting on a 16-year-old kid.

To be honest, I feel like only reason I was able to follow what was going on — from the time the movie began, until Harry and Dumbledore have finished recruiting Horace Slughorn (a very effective Jim Broadbent) to teach at Hogwarts — was because I’d read the book and knew what was happening. I think even people who’ve only seen the movies may have felt a little disoriented.

Now 16, Harry and his two best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), also deal with the raging hormones of adolescence. In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of this movie has been that it focused too much on the lovey-dovey stuff at the expense of the Voldemort storyline.

While some of that is true (sometimes I forgot the stuff with young Voldemort and the Half Blood Prince was happening), I didn’t have a problem with it for two reasons. 1.) The relationship-y stuff helps ground the more fantastical and magical aspects of the story, and reminds us as to why we care about these characters in the first place. 2.) Grint, Watson and (especially!) Radcliffe have gotten better with each movie, so they are able to make this stuff more interesting and appealing. Still, Jessie Cave was WAY too over-the-top for me as Lavender Brown — I would’ve preferred to see more of the delightfully kooky Luna Lovegood, played very well by Evanna Lynch. I also wish Bonnie Wright’s Ginny Weasley had been a little livelier.

Once we DO get around to the more serious stuff, we’re fortunately in very capable hands. Gambon gives his best, most affecting performance yet as Dumbledore since taking over the role in the third movie. Alan Rickman (who simply IS Snape) was characteristically good (though a little underused for my taste). However, I was most impressed by Tom Felton’s work as Draco Malfoy. Up until now, he hasn’t been asked to do more than spit insults at Harry and his friends, but in “Half Blood Prince” he’s asked to convey anger, fear, and a brooding insecurity and pulls it off brilliantly.

I wasn’t as thrilled by some of the additions Yates and his team made to the movie. The books are long (and beloved) enough that the producers must already be concerned about leaving stuff out. As a result, I don’t really think they should be trying too hard to put stuff IN — especially when the stuff they add are pointless action scenes like the one that takes place in the Burrow and only seems to exist to give Helena Bonham Carter’s Bellatrix Lestrange some additional screen time.

Still, the departures from the “Half Blood Prince” text in this movie only seem like a bigger deal because the previous films have been so incredibly faithful (which is something some of us forget at times).

Despite some questionable pacing (none of the action sequences really seem to get going) and an unavoidable lack of closure (this movie really is just a big setup for the final chapter), “Half Blood Prince” succeeds as a movie because of its strong, likable cast, which is usually a more powerful weapon than any dazzling spell or potion.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince…B