Related Sections: Movies Reviews Top Stories
Review: Harry Potter grows up in The Half-Blood Prince
The target audience for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince already knows what happens in the movie. An interesting phenomenon with a movie like this is how it works to enthrall that audience and still speak to the rogues who haven't read all seven books.
As a member of the latter group, I can say it's easy to appreciate the level of production put into realizing these images, which should in turn satisfy the former.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince picks up Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) living on his own in London. A slight dose of real life—hitting on a waitress, reading the newspaper—grounds the next two and a half hours in our world so that we can appreciate the magnitude of the magic to come. When Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) whisks Harry off for a magical quest, the nearly grown-up Harry acts nonchalant, because this is his world. He's lived it most his life, so it's real to him.
With a new potions teacher (Jim Broadbent) at Hogwarts, Harry signs up for class and discovers an old spell book that belonged to the Half-Blood Prince. The Prince's notes and shortcuts help Harry excel in class, and in some of his personal endeavors. Meanwhile, he still has to help Dumbledore uncover secrets of Voldemort's past.
The spell work and visual spectacle of magic artifacts make the evolving world of Hogwarts look more grown-up. It's not quite the fantasy look of the first two films, when perhaps the visual effects were in their freshman year, too. Between the growth of the technology and the aesthetic of the later films, the magic now looks like something tangible, not just painted on the frame by digital artists.
The strongest aspect of the sixth film is the exploration of teenage dating with a magic twist. Harry and Ron (Rupert Grint) start asking out female classmates, leaving out Hermione (Emma Watson). When teenagers can use spells to express their heartache, that elevates the evergreen issues out of John Hughes territory.
The main plot works itself out rather mechanically with surprises and double crosses, but since the majority of the audience knows the story already, this shouldn't be a problem. It's the nature of long-winded novel-style storytelling, but everyone likes it, so who's to complain by part six? Something about the inevitability makes Alan Rickman's delivery of Snape's lines awesome. Getting there is a visual thrill, with emotional treats along the way.
By RedBeard at 9:58 PM ON 07/07/09
Wow, in the SyFy media, reporting on Harry Potter and you havnt read the books.... even on work time.... And you dont think that would be important??? and you write a review....
By dragonmom at 10:15 PM ON 07/07/09
Redbeard, I have to agree with your comment, how can someone review this movie without having read the book. That is just ludicrous.
By JD at 10:28 PM ON 07/07/09
He said he hadn't read all seven. Not the same as not having read any at all. Besides, it's a review of the movie, not the book. Why should it matter? Everyone should know by now that the book and movie of any source are never quite equivalent. To judge the movie based on the book isn't fair. There are some things one can do better than the other and vice versa.
Plus, I'd love to have a more objective look on the movies, from someone who's not a total fanboy/girl. I like the books, but I'm not an avid fan. I'd prefer an outsider to tell me it's good rather than someone who's view is already skewed by having read the books.
By Tsitra29 at 11:25 PM ON 07/07/09
as an avid fan of the books and the movies i do enjoy a prespective from somebody who has not totally delved into the magical world of Harry Potter. thank you for your insight and review
By goddogx at 11:42 PM ON 07/07/09
never read the books, never will :) enjoyed every movie! oh, btw, i'm 60 so i actually have a life beyond youthful angst LOL.
By Tarc at 11:58 PM ON 07/07/09
Though, seriously, I have trouble with a reviewer who hasn't read the books. Seriously? A writer that hasn't read the most contemporary of novel series, of which books 4 and 7 are on a great many top 50 (or 100) books of the last 100 years? If you're really a scifi writer, you're seriously slacking, or more likely showing a serious lack of judgement. Harry Potter isn't for children - it's good literature.
By Shadowrouge at 12:54 AM ON 07/08/09
Actually I like the fact that he hasn't read the book because I haven't read it either but like the movies, so to hear how the movie is from someone that hasn't read the books addresses some of the issues that people that haven't read the books worry about(such as how the acting and effects have improved rather then how the story is compared to the book).
By ThirdArtist at 2:00 AM ON 07/08/09
I've never read the books, yet seen all the movies. I find that there are quite obvious plot holes or rushed plots (esp. movie #3) that would most likely be resolved by reading the novels. As a purely movie buff, I find them to be very aesthetically pleasing and visually astounding. I believe that if you treat the movies as a singular story, you can see the overall themes of the stories - I'm not assuming or trying to project anything. I enjoy the movies - but then again, I would go to/watch any movie to give it a chance - for mere entertainment. I'm not looking for some life altering experience, I'm there to hear/see a story unfold. *shrugs* I do plan on reading the novels, but I don't want to get lost in the comparison of the two. Seeing as there isn't a continuous director - you can't subject the movies to a sigular unified vision as you would a series of novels with a singular writer. I'm rambling, but the point I'm trying to make is that the movies can be found enjoyable... and I'm sure the books will open my eyes into the deeper world barely scratched on the surface by the movies' rushed captured vision of the novels' wonderful tale. I can't wait to sit down and start reading the novels... but I feel that the movies have to be seen in a different light - as a cover song would be compared to the original Again, I'm rambling - but I enjoy/ed the movies - even with the plot issues - they're still enjoyable.
By xdeathknightx at 7:52 AM ON 07/08/09
I have never read the books and just stuck to watching the movies. And when I see people on here treating the books like the best writing to ever grace this planet I don't even want to read the books anymore. I am sure they are fun to read but people acting like they are the holy grail are pretty much a huge turn-off.
By BrianaMJ at 8:55 AM ON 07/08/09
I agree with the others, it's nice to read a review from someone who hasn't read the book. I learned with Jurassic Park: The Lost World that reading the book before watching the movie isn't really all that beneficial, since you'll be picking apart the plot and the differences. Yes, I wouldn't mind reading the opinion of someone who's read the books multiple times, but it's also nice to read a review of someone coming at it with a fresh eye, and not bogged down by literary history and the comparison of the two.
By Rafe at 9:05 AM ON 07/08/09
Are you folks serious? A film critic should NOT have to read a book to understand and report his or her impressions of a movie!! That's why there is a writer and a director who are supposed to translate the book to film!
Finally, if there is one thing that I've noticed lately is how vicious people are on this site when a film reviewer doesn't agree with a commenter's opinion. Why? If you like a film why not the champion the film instead of trying to destroy someone else who has a different opinion?
Look at the recent comments that came after Transformers 2. How horrible that some might not like it's racist caricatures or expect that the movie might be better after seeing other big summer sci-fi movies.
P.S.
No. I haven't read the books. One day I might but that shouldn't stop me or others from going to see the HP movies and enjoying them.
As for the Harry Potter books, they are fantasy, not science fiction. Not all science fiction fans like fantasy. Some of us will never touch a fantasy book unless it's a blue moon. Others will gobble them up.
Furthermore, I'm shocked by the belief that every one has to read Harry Potter books because they're popular. That's not the case. Yes, Harry Potter is popular contemporary fiction but there have been many other fantasy and science fiction novels along with other genres that appeal to different people.
The Twilight books are hugely popular. Does that mean we all have to run out and read them? What if we aren't into teen romances with sexist undertones? What if we don't like angst ridden 150 year old vampires who lust for teen girls?
A film viewer should generally be able to go into a movie and sink into the experience without having to have read the book. Many people loved the Lord of the Rings movies but never read the books.
By dshell at 12:32 PM ON 07/08/09
The first two comments are week. This is a movie review for movie watchers, not a book review or a movie review for readers. It is simply an unbiased movie review. (Reading the book creates bias.)
If you want a bias opinion, go elsewhere, but don't whine here.
"When the ignorant have opinions, Hitler becomes President."
By Chrystal at 6:23 PM ON 07/09/09
I just might want to see this movie.
Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
Chrystal:
I just might want to see this movie....More »