Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince - 12A
Rated: Lacks magic ***
Win rare Harry Potter books
Enter now to win deluxe first editions of all seven titles - worth £3,000
WOW. What a year it's been for the Harry Potter kids.
Hermione's hooked up with a balding banker, Ron's down with the swine flu, and Harry got his dong out in London's West End every night for four months.
Only problem is, that was real life. The last year at Hogwarts has been much less exciting. The sixth Harry Potter film is 2½ hours of Deathly Dullows that does dibbly squit apart from set up the seventh Harry Potter film.
Thrill as Harry talks to Dumbledore! Gasp as he has talks to Dumbledore again! Be astounded as he makes eyes at Ron Weasley's sister for a bit then talks to Dumbledore!
To say that HP6 is light on incident is like saying that the new Transformers film occasionally gets a wee bit noisy. Understatement of the frickin' Quidditch season
The main plot centres on Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) trying to discover how Voldemort became immortal.
With Harry's help, the ageing prof lures the Dark Lord's old teacher Horace Slughorn (the brilliant Jim Broadbent) back to Hogwarts in an attempt to wheedle the info out of him.
All this, including the bits about the Half-Blood Prince of the title, takes about 30 minutes, tops. The rest of the time is taken up with Harry, Ron and Hermoine's love lives. But Skins it is not.
Harry fancies Ron's sister Ginny (Bonnie Wright), while Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermoine (Emma Watson) still eye each other up with what doesn't quite pass for sexual tension.
This lack of action must have been of concern to the studio suits because there are a couple of new scenes not in the book that serve no purpose other than to cram in some explosions when the bean-counters tend to think crowds want to see 'em.
But they couldn't feel more tacked on if they'd used Pritt Stick.
The Death Eaters' attack on the Weasleys' home is a pointless, no-stakes light show. And the rollercoaster ride through London showing the Death Eaters' journey to Diagon Alley might look good, but it means nothing - you're essentially watching the bad guys go to the shops.
But for most Potter audiences, the biggest concern is how much the kids have changed since the last film. And in terms of their acting abilities, the answer is "not quite enough".
Daniel Radcliffe, as Harry, still struggles with the demands of the role. The fact he looks like the teenage offspring of Hitler and a gay owl doesn't help either.
Emma Watson, as Hermione, remains a master of eyebrow-twizzling and not much else. While Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley gets a grudging award for "most improved original kid" - mainly due to a brace of reasonably funny scenes.
But all three are outshone by the bit- parters - Evanna Lynch is great as Luna Lovegood, as is Jessie Cave as Ron's admirer Lavender Brown.
So why three stars rather than two? Simple. What Half-Blood Prince lacks in guts, it makes up for in glamour. The film looks amazing - from the showpiece effects (take a bow, whoever designed the inky cascades of the pensieve) to some beautiful moments, such as a shot that pans up the outside of Hogwarts and catches Lavender giving Ron a cheeky kiss on the South Tower (easy).
The backstage crew haven't so much put lipstick on a pig as shoved that pig in a Prada frock and got it a 12-page "my lovely home" photospread in Tatler.
Plus the adult cast are as impressive as always - and there's a cameo from Finchy from The Office as a minor villain.
Is it enough to make Half-Blood Prince worth a look? On balance, yes - but don't expect much more than 153 minutes of prologue to the series' big finish.
Prisoner of Azkaban showed you COULD satisfy the Potter freaks AND make a great film in its own right. Half-Blood Prince doesn't come close but millions will buy tickets anyway.
And that, if you're Warner Bros, is magic.
OUT WEDNESDAY
This article has 16 comments
i for one think the movie is very well put together even though they left some parts out but then again don't they always i am a really big fan of harry potter and i think it is a wonderful movie i just don't want to see it end
By Emily. Posted July 23 2009 at 1:25 AM.
Daniel I love U!!!
By ann. Posted July 20 2009 at 4:09 PM.
bit harsh saying daniel radcliffe looks like hitler is it not?
i think your review is accurate, yes. even the way they dealt with 'who is the Half-Blood Prince?' mystery seemed rushed and besides the point. plus all the scenes with the Death Eaters were equally unclear. sexual tension between ron and hermione was almost as convincing as the excuses MPs used for their expenses...in other words not.
By anonymous. Posted July 19 2009 at 1:24 AM.
This review is absolutely spot-on. I couldn't agree more when you say "...there are a couple of new scenes not in the book that serve no purpose other than to cram in some explosions...". The attack on the Burrow was pointless and served no purpose to further the plot. They threw it in just to add some action to a movie that certainly lacked it.
By Amy. Posted July 18 2009 at 9:15 AM.
I don't see why everyone seems to have a problem with the review. It was spot on. I'm Potter obsessed, but that doesn't mean this film has to be good because it's Harry Potter
By Nikhil. Posted July 17 2009 at 1:41 PM.
Very accurate review.
By Sara Taylor. Posted July 17 2009 at 1:37 PM.
This film is even more stocky than the previous ones. There were enough action / fight scenes in the book for the director to choose from instead of making up his own (the Death Eaters attach on The Burrow). And honestly, the scoring/music in the movie - it sucks. It did not draw me into the movie but left me staring at it from an emotional distance. Maybe Yates should get lessons from Guy Richie or Michael Bay about action scenes.
By Oupoot. Posted July 17 2009 at 1:31 PM.
"The teenage offspring of Hitler and a gay owl" After that you cannot possibly think anyone will take this seriously :D Thanks for the laughs :D
By Holden. Posted July 15 2009 at 3:46 PM.
ok, from what i gathered from the review, the film is EXACTLY like the book, apart from the extra scenes. As the book just set up the final installment, so to b fair, the review is accurate to a certain extent.
By Martin. Posted July 13 2009 at 8:28 PM.
I've seen it and totally don't know where this review is coming from. It was great and I'm an old lady come on!
I more than likely will take my family to see it again!
By Joanne. Posted July 13 2009 at 5:57 PM.
RUN A THING TOO LONG AND YOU KILL IT.....THEY KILLED IT.
By LANA. Posted July 12 2009 at 11:59 PM.
I wouldnt go by this review as what you have made out to be a problem most other reviews say is utter genius
By Jenny. Posted July 12 2009 at 10:18 PM.
the film is soo good seen it in the usa preimer heremonie so hotttttttttttttttttttt
By jack . Posted July 12 2009 at 8:03 PM.
Possibly, if the review is correct, there may be a directorial problem. I recall there being mention of a difficulty in finding the right director this time - as well as the studio not being too happy during the production.
JK wanted Terry Gilliam for the films originally. He, Del Toro or Peter Jackson would have moved the films up a few notches - and may have prevented remakes within the next ten years...
I just hope they pull the stops out on the last one. It deserves it.
By RussN. Posted July 12 2009 at 11:21 AM.
Lmao, I first read your name as 'Robbie Coltrane', haha.
But please tell me; did you like the movie? That question please.
By Maggie Smith. Posted July 12 2009 at 11:21 AM.
Please look at this picture and all previous HP films from the viewpoint of 12 year olds etc who will all leave their local cinemas totally spellbound and mesmerised. J K Rowling and the Warner Bros have helped create cherished memories which will last a lifetime. Not to mention the hundreds of jobs created for everyone involved and in the current climate we should all be grateful for this.
By simplymo. Posted July 12 2009 at 10:19 AM.