First Night: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Odeon, Leicester Square
It's dark – but at least there's a kiss
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
PA
Actor Daniel Radcliffe greets fans at the World Premiere of his latest film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Gone are the happy-go-lucky adventures of young Harry, Ron and Hermione; danger and darkness lie in wait in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The books, and correspondingly the films, have graduated in seriousness.
Director David Yates balances this with humour, though, and maintains an air of adolescence. We get a little romance: Harry realises that he fancies his best friend's sister, Ginny, and the pair share a kiss; and the long-awaited romance between Ron and Hermione finally takes shape, albeit awkwardly.
Remember, in this film Harry is supposed to be 16. Neither he, Ron nor Hermione looks 16 – but they don't look ridiculously old; hair and make-up have done their job.
As Ron Weasley, Rupert Grint is hilarious, capturing that feeling of uncomfortable, awkward youth. Even Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) manages to be funny when taking a potion that brings good luck in all his endeavours. Sadly Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) doesn't achieve the same level of humour, but at least she tries.
The acting of all three main characters has stepped up a level: still not great, but it's passable. They are, naturally, shown up by co-stars Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith and Jim Broadbent. Only one big name, Michael Gambon, disappoints; he doesn't quite capture the pure love of Albus Dumbledore – at times coming across as too harsh.
The scriptwriters bungled several key set pieces, including the funeral scene – although they almost make up for it with a magical passage where students and teachers raise their wands in tribute. Tears poured down many faces in the cinema at that moment.
The Half-Blood Prince is frightening, funny, romantic and entertaining but as the end credits rolled, I still felt disappointed. I had waited all year to see my second-favourite Potter book brought to life. If I wasn't a die-hard fan, I'm sure I would have loved it. My gripe is that the film was simply too different from the book – the writers inserted pointless scenes and took out others crucial to the narrative.
It just could have been better.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Also in this section
- The Informant! Steven Soderbergh, 108 mins, (15)
Glorious 39, Stephen Poliakoff, 129 mins, (12A)
The Twilight Saga: New Moon, Chris Weitz, 130 Mins, (12A) - A Serious Man, Joel and Ethan Coen, 105 Mins, (15)
- DVD: Ice Age 3, For retail & rental (20th Century Fox)
- DVD: Land of the Lost, For retail & rental (Universal)
Comments
the independent have another main review coming out just for the film.
if you don't like it, then don't read it idiot.
The girl can write and she is obviously a harry potter fan so the article is supposed to be why harry potter fans might not like it.