Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" is my favorite of Rowling's books, and this sixth installment in the film series follows suit as the best of the franchise. The darker, more mature tone of the previous film is continued here as Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) begins to accept his role as "the Chosen One" and gain a better understanding of what's in store for him in his quest to destroy Lord Voldemort. Essential to this quest are the memories he explores that illuminate Voldemort's past and provide clues into how he can be defeated once and for all. But this inevitable confrontation is not the only obstacle facing Harry in his sixth year. Hormones have finally kicked in at full throttle, and Harry, Ron, and Hermione all have relationship difficulties that provide the bulk of the humor in the film even as the dramatic climax looms, culminating in an event that shakes the foundation of Harry's world at Hogwarts.

"Harry Potter" purists - you know, those people who have life-sized cardboard standups of Dobby the house elf in their bedrooms and practice Stunning spells using two #2 pencils taped together - will probably find a lot to criticize in this film. As is the case with every other movie in the franchise, given the length of the novel and the complexity of the plot, there are a number of scenes and details that had to be left out in order to keep the running time manageable. Fans of the books are used to this by now, but what I think the purists will find dastardly and OMG TOTALLY out of line is that director David Yates and Co. have gone so far as to add scenes that were absent from Rowling's work. Blasphemy, right? I say no. The opening bridge scene is not only a great way to connect the dangers facing the wizarding world to Muggle London, but also one of the most impressive visual effects sequences in the film. The other prominent addition to the film is Harry's Christmas at the Burrow. To my recollection, there is at best minimal reference to this holiday in the book, and it is this 5-10 minutes of footage that will likely put most purists up in arms. Why make such a big change, they'll say. Why not give us another memory of Tom Riddle's past, they'll posit. WHY WOULD THEY FILM SOMETHING THAT'S NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE BOOK, they'll scream in frustration as they tear up their ticket stubs and cry into their Hedwig pillow. Well, because it's an adaptation. No, these two scenes are not detailed in the text. The filmmakers could have eliminated the Burrow scene and included another memory scene. But they didn't, and in no way does the addition detract from the story on the whole. In fact, it works to further develop the relationships between Harry and the Weasleys that have been growing on screen for 8 or 9 years. Remember, people. This is an adaptation, an interpretation of Rowling's text; I'm willing to give David Yates and the screenwriters some creative license.

That's not to say I don't have issues with some of their choices. There are some significant changes to the way the climax plays out that took away from the overall impact, and the absence of a final battle, while understandable (the filmmakers have said they wanted to avoid repetition with the second part of "Deathly Hallows"), was nevertheless disappointing. There are also some integral characters we either haven't met yet - Bill and Charlie Weasley, Rufus Scrimgeour - or haven't heard from in a while - Dobby, Rita Skeeter - that I worry won't get the appropriate treatment on screen before all is said and done. However, the heart and most crucial elements of this story are present and portrayed well enough that I can forgive these shortcomings.

It's these portrayals that really make "Half-Blood Prince" stand out above the other films in the franchise. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson continue to show their growth as actors. All three have shining moments of both comedy and drama in the film - Harry's trip on Liquid Luck and Ron's profession of love for Romilda Vane are among the highlights. Not enough can be said about the group of established British actors that are once again cast in support of the younger stars. Michael Gambon has made the role of Dumbledore his own, giving another solid performance here and creating a kind and powerful mentor for Harry. Alan Rickman and Jim Broadbent steal every scene they are in as Professors Snape and Slughorn, and though their roles are lessened significantly, the presence of Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane is always comforting.

"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" is the most well-developed, balanced, and enjoyable of the films thus far. The performances of the young cast are easily the best they have produced to date. The screenwriters have done an admirable job condensing such a layered novel into a never-arduous 153-minute runtime while mixing the comedy with the drama extraordinarily well (this is probably the funniest of the six movies). I left the theater twice (yes, I saw it twice - I'm not a purist, but I am a nerd) full of anticipation for November 2010. If the two-part "Deathly Hallows" film is remotely as good as "Half-Blood Prince," "Harry Potter" fans are in for a hell of a final ride.

Rating: 4.5/5