Perhaps my favorite book in the series I was looking forward greatly to “Harry Pottery and the Half Blood Prince”. There were times during the movie I wanted to take a short nap – and not just because I was coming down with something. But at other times I was alternately thrilled entranced and moved.
Does does one start with the negative or the positive? (You may be interested to know a few weeks back we had an English Conversation lesson that centered on movie reviews. Turns out that our Chinese friends almost never go see a movie at the theater. Very expensive in China and movie theaters are dying out. We took a delightful teenager from Church of the Nations who had never been to the movies and had never had popcorn.
Oh right. Movie reviews. Apparently nearly all movie reviews follow a certain pattern and structure – sort of like a Pauline letter or a lament Psalm.)
There are at least two strong primary criticisms. First – the movie departs considerably from the book and often in ways that make for a weaker story. We are not surprised when we find out how Draco Malfoy enables… uh… people to get in… at the end of the film. (Trying hard not to give anything away.) In the book we are surprised. “Oh – so that is what he had been doing”. The budding relationships are resolved rather early and again not in the sudden “oh my!” moment one finds in the book. Surprise and unexpected moments of glory and delight are far more interesting.
Second – and this relates to the first – the movie is astonishingly slow. Boring even. More specifically large sections in the middle (not the beginning or the end). And for some reason tries to focus heavily on all the romantic developments and entanglements. To the point that the movie is almost more about “Harry and friends snog and get snogged” than it is about the growing threat of Voldemort and the efforts by Harry and Dumbledore to defeat him. My wife thought they were trying to borrow a page from “Twilight”. As they say in the film “excuse me – I have to go vomit”. The cutesy attempts at humor often fall flat. There is cheese in this film.
Now granted perhaps some of the above was unfortunate consequences of having to take a long and very well developed story (with multiple layers) and sending it through that meat grinder also known as “producing a screenplay somewhere between two and three hours”.
The whole anti-relationship between Potter and Snape is left out entirely. Which is a shame because Alan Rickman steals nearly every scene in which he briefly appears. Watch Rickman’s face toward the beginning during and after the “unbreakable vow”. The man is a master of the craft and further evidence that the British understand drama and acting far more than the Americans. (Sorry if that offends some people.) Rickman (with the script) also takes Snape “down a notch” – less harsh and more difficult to despise. (As if foreshadowing the next/last book.)
The movie opens well. A bloodied and shattered Potter being mobbed by the press. Potter reading in a train station cafe. The attack on London. The scenes evoke well the sense of tension and growing menace.
The quidditch match – utterly delightful. Although you gotta admit… is anyone else struck by how um… odd… male players look on those broomsticks? especially as they are vying for female attention? (Think about it.) (They can take out the whole “Potter in detention” subplot but not the stupid puberty love theme?*)
*(If you do not know that is a reference to the classic “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes”.)
The scene in the cavern… I felt like an invisible hand was squeezing my chest the whole time. Chilling and frightening. One person in the theater actually cried out loud when… And to see Dumbledore “unleashed”. For a brief shining moment we see just how powerful he is. (Let us come back to that.) Extremely well done.
One change from the book that is positive is how the movie focuses much more on Draco Malfoy. By the end of the movie we cannot hate him. We pity him. And during the film we are permitted to see the emotional turmoil and anguish Malfoy experiences as he tries to carry out (most half-heartedly) his dreadful mission. He is… a different kind of Judas?
There are some “theological” themes I could get into. Many suggest that Harry is a kind of “Christ” figure especially in the final film. (This is not to suggest Rowling was engaging in cheap allegory.) But in this film… there is much about obedience and trust. Not blind obedience – but obedience to someone that one knows from experience one can trust.
“Are you going to ask me why we are here Harry?”
“No sir. At this point I just sort of go with it”.
Precisely.
If Harry is the “son” who obeys his surrogate “Father” – what of the scene where the “Father” is the one who must drink the cup that cannot be taken away? where the “Father” sacrifices himself in order to help defeat the enemy? But this fits my personal view (literary theory?) that characters can move from archetypal role to archetypal role all within the same story or film. (Consider Max in “Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome”. The rogue/scoundrel becomes the Savior/Liberator. Go figure.)
There is more we can explore – but perhaps that is enough for now.
Anyways – do see it. But I so wish they left out all that silly teenage “romance” rubbish.
Addendum:
There are two reviews at Big Hollywood – one more positive and one more negative – that seem to make many of the same points that I do. But they write so much better than I.
John Nolte, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” (more negative)
Andrew Leigh, “‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’: An Alternate View” (more positive)
