Harry Potter and the Totally Random Film
Thursday, September 17, 2009
, Posted by Should I See It at 2:45 AM
Film: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Warner Brothers Pictures)
Director: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Tom Felton, Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent.
Director: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Tom Felton, Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent.
Plot: Harry Potter is back for his sixth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. He finds a Potions book that says "this book is the property of the Half-Blood Prince." Romance is on the Rampage and Harry finds out important information of how to defeat Lord Voldemort.
I never thought it possible, but David Yates has done it again. He has managed to suck the spark and life and, dare I say it, the magic out of yet another Harry Potter film.
Not that there isn’t magic, of course. It’s just that it isn’t, well, magical. It is mechanical and sparse, not organic the way Alfonso Cuaron made it when he directed the third instalment Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (which, for the record, is the best in the series).
For a two and a half hour film, not a lot happens. I question whether the film makers could have done the same amount of exposition in less time, or if they could have used to their time more effectively and let the audience in on a lot more and had a complete story.
Yates produces some fantastic moments in the film, but, unfortunately great moments do not mean a great film. There is no flow, no cohesion. The focus on raging teenage hormones feels like filler, until the last 45 minutes where the story really kicks in. And that last 45 minutes (where stuff actually happens) feels at odds with the rest of the film.
I could handle all the romance if it was actually done well. The ‘romance’ between Harry and Ginny Weasley suffers incredibly in its translation from book to screen. Ginny Weasley is a character that has been shafted in the previous instalments, leaving her underdeveloped coming into the sixth instalment. Unfortunately, the creative team struggle to reconcile the otherwise background character in the films with the funny and feisty character in the novels, leaving her without a distinct personality. Without that, the romance between the two characters seems forced and unexplained. It seems a case of bad writing, but also more specifically bad direction. Radcliffe’s Harry does not seem to be interested in Ginny for the most part of the film. At the point where the two characters do come together, is incredibly awkward and, dare I say it, random.
My biggest complaint about Yate’s direction is that the film is devoid of energy. Half the time the cast seem to be mumbling their lines (only the superb Alan Rickman can escape this criticism.)
To be fair, it isn’t all Yates’ fault. The score by Nicholas Hooper is intrusive, (most of it sounds like it has been recycled from The Order of the Phoenix) and the editing is sloppy. After a promising performance in Order of the Phoenix, Daniel Radcliffe is disappointing as the eponymous hero. He seems to just stand there and watch everyone else act. He doesn’t seem to be engaged on the same level as everyone else. Though the Felix Felicis scene does allow Radcliffe to demonstrate hitherto unsuspected comedic abilities.
Steve Kloves’ screenplay is a bit of a mixed bag. At times he gets things so right- the speech he gives to Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) about Harry’s mother is so perfect that I had to think twice as to whether or not it was in the book- and at other times he gets it really wrong. The Death Eater’s attack at The Burrow is full of plot holes and is jarring in context with the rest of the film.
However, it is not all bad news. There are some really fantastic performances in this film. Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy proves that he actually can act. There is a moment after Dumbledore’s death, when Draco and the Death Eaters are fleeing the castle, and he turns around and watches Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter) destroy the Great Hall. In that moment, the look on his face conveys not only the recognition of the end of his childhood, but also the pain of knowing that he can never return- not only to Hogwarts, but to that innocence of childhood. That is one of my favourite moments in the film. And I think that this performance from Felton guarantees him a career beyond the Potter films.
After ho-hum performances in Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix Rupert Grint is back in full force as Ron Weasley. Part of the success of his performance is that he is (finally) given some decent material to work with. His comic antics one again prove that he is the one most likely out of the trio to have a successful career post- Potter.
Emma Watson gives her best performance since Philosopher’s Stone in 2001. She seems to have let go of the overacting and the excessive eyebrow wiggling and actually found the vulnerable side of Hermione. I felt I was actually watching Hermione, instead of Emma Watson playing Hermione. However, I will put out a note to the wardrobe and makeup designers on the Potter films. Yes Emma Watson is a gorgeous girl, but Hermione is not. Watson’s Hermione is too thin, too pretty and too well dressed. It’s such a small thing to get worked up over, but Hermione would not have pink as the staple colour of her wardrobe. She is meant to be a bit frumpy. Oh well (*sigh*). Hermione’s prettying up is just another example of Hollywood’s superficiality, and propagation of ultra thin and glamorous women however wrong it may be for the character.
Frank Dillane as teenage Tom Riddle is excellent. Such a great find by Yates. I expect to see him in films for many years to come.
But the real scene stealers are newcomers Jessie Cave as Lavender Brown and Freddie Stroma as Cormac McGlaggen. Both inject a comedy and an energy into their scenes that is unmatched by any other their other young co- stars.
Should I see it?
If you are a fan of the Potter books or films, there is plenty to enjoy. However, if you are not you will have a hard time following the story (or lack of).
I never thought it possible, but David Yates has done it again. He has managed to suck the spark and life and, dare I say it, the magic out of yet another Harry Potter film.
Not that there isn’t magic, of course. It’s just that it isn’t, well, magical. It is mechanical and sparse, not organic the way Alfonso Cuaron made it when he directed the third instalment Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (which, for the record, is the best in the series).
For a two and a half hour film, not a lot happens. I question whether the film makers could have done the same amount of exposition in less time, or if they could have used to their time more effectively and let the audience in on a lot more and had a complete story.
Yates produces some fantastic moments in the film, but, unfortunately great moments do not mean a great film. There is no flow, no cohesion. The focus on raging teenage hormones feels like filler, until the last 45 minutes where the story really kicks in. And that last 45 minutes (where stuff actually happens) feels at odds with the rest of the film.
I could handle all the romance if it was actually done well. The ‘romance’ between Harry and Ginny Weasley suffers incredibly in its translation from book to screen. Ginny Weasley is a character that has been shafted in the previous instalments, leaving her underdeveloped coming into the sixth instalment. Unfortunately, the creative team struggle to reconcile the otherwise background character in the films with the funny and feisty character in the novels, leaving her without a distinct personality. Without that, the romance between the two characters seems forced and unexplained. It seems a case of bad writing, but also more specifically bad direction. Radcliffe’s Harry does not seem to be interested in Ginny for the most part of the film. At the point where the two characters do come together, is incredibly awkward and, dare I say it, random.My biggest complaint about Yate’s direction is that the film is devoid of energy. Half the time the cast seem to be mumbling their lines (only the superb Alan Rickman can escape this criticism.)
To be fair, it isn’t all Yates’ fault. The score by Nicholas Hooper is intrusive, (most of it sounds like it has been recycled from The Order of the Phoenix) and the editing is sloppy. After a promising performance in Order of the Phoenix, Daniel Radcliffe is disappointing as the eponymous hero. He seems to just stand there and watch everyone else act. He doesn’t seem to be engaged on the same level as everyone else. Though the Felix Felicis scene does allow Radcliffe to demonstrate hitherto unsuspected comedic abilities.
Steve Kloves’ screenplay is a bit of a mixed bag. At times he gets things so right- the speech he gives to Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) about Harry’s mother is so perfect that I had to think twice as to whether or not it was in the book- and at other times he gets it really wrong. The Death Eater’s attack at The Burrow is full of plot holes and is jarring in context with the rest of the film.
However, it is not all bad news. There are some really fantastic performances in this film. Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy proves that he actually can act. There is a moment after Dumbledore’s death, when Draco and the Death Eaters are fleeing the castle, and he turns around and watches Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter) destroy the Great Hall. In that moment, the look on his face conveys not only the recognition of the end of his childhood, but also the pain of knowing that he can never return- not only to Hogwarts, but to that innocence of childhood. That is one of my favourite moments in the film. And I think that this performance from Felton guarantees him a career beyond the Potter films.
After ho-hum performances in Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix Rupert Grint is back in full force as Ron Weasley. Part of the success of his performance is that he is (finally) given some decent material to work with. His comic antics one again prove that he is the one most likely out of the trio to have a successful career post- Potter.
Emma Watson gives her best performance since Philosopher’s Stone in 2001. She seems to have let go of the overacting and the excessive eyebrow wiggling and actually found the vulnerable side of Hermione. I felt I was actually watching Hermione, instead of Emma Watson playing Hermione. However, I will put out a note to the wardrobe and makeup designers on the Potter films. Yes Emma Watson is a gorgeous girl, but Hermione is not. Watson’s Hermione is too thin, too pretty and too well dressed. It’s such a small thing to get worked up over, but Hermione would not have pink as the staple colour of her wardrobe. She is meant to be a bit frumpy. Oh well (*sigh*). Hermione’s prettying up is just another example of Hollywood’s superficiality, and propagation of ultra thin and glamorous women however wrong it may be for the character.
Frank Dillane as teenage Tom Riddle is excellent. Such a great find by Yates. I expect to see him in films for many years to come.
But the real scene stealers are newcomers Jessie Cave as Lavender Brown and Freddie Stroma as Cormac McGlaggen. Both inject a comedy and an energy into their scenes that is unmatched by any other their other young co- stars.
Should I see it?
If you are a fan of the Potter books or films, there is plenty to enjoy. However, if you are not you will have a hard time following the story (or lack of).
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Official Site here.
I agree with you, this film is kind of disappointing. You got it right about Ginny; she is particularly bland and awkward in this film. She’s not the witty, feisty, ‘girl power’-y character she is in the books, and I can’t imagine this Ginny secretly practising Quidditch on her brothers’ brooms or hexing Malfoy.
As for Harry, the character is supposed to be (mostly) quite serious and quiet as a result of everything he’s been through, so maybe Dan Radcliffe was just trying to get into that?
Anyway, great review, thanks.
I agree with the Ginny part, but I believe that Dan did a great job as Harry. He portrayed how awkward the character really is. Also, the part about how nothing happens...have you read the book? Even less happens in it than the movie! It is entirely a set up for the final Harry Potter.
I also don't think that the 3rd movie was the best. In fact I would say it is my least favorite. I also don't think that the characters were mumbling their lines, but that the main three were showing how awkward teenagers really are.
So to sum up I agree with comments about Malfoy's character and Ginny's, but I think Daniel Radcliffe did a great job showing how much his character changes and how he is just a teen trying to deal with death.
I don't think the movies represent harry properly. in moments where harry is supposed to be awkward or just normal harry, they have him saying cliche heroic lines half the time. where in the books he has a sort of confidence sprinkled with a dry wit, in the movies he's just awkward. when he's getting upset in the movies i can't sympathize with him the way i can in the books, i kind of want to tell him to quit his bitching. in the movies he never seems to be as much fun, and the chemistry between him and his friends is off.