Latest Potter film long on character, humor, but short on story
By Ben Saylor
Insights
Published July 29, 2009

It’s been more than half a decade since the first film adaptation of a Harry Potter book hit theaters. Sequels have dutifully followed, but here in the summer of 2009, we still have not one, but two films to go. (The seventh book in J.K. Rowling’s series, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” will be released as two separate movies in 2010 and 2011.)

In other words, this franchise has come a long way, but it still has a ways to go, chronologically speaking. And while it’s largely been a pleasant journey, I find myself filled with a desire for closure.

This desire increased upon viewing the film adaptation of “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.” Adapted from J.K. Rowling’s book by series veteran Steve Kloves, “Prince” is somewhat similar to its predecessor, “The Order of the Phoenix,” in that it focuses more on character than it does plot. Unlike the early installments, which had higher quotients of story, “Prince”’s main narrative doesn’t really kick in until the last act of the movie. There’s not much point in trying to summarize that narrative this late in the game, as anyone seeing this movie will (or should) know what’s going on.

Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley, Emma Watson as Hermione Granger and Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter in Warner Bros. Pictures' "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." (Photo by Jaap Buitendijk/Warner Bros. Pictures)

Returning director David Yates has shown a fine touch with actors between “Phoenix” and “Prince,” and it’s to the credit of him, Kloves and the cast that the first two-thirds of “Prince” are as entertaining as they frequently are. After the glum and brooding “Phoenix,” the humor quotient has been increased, the main source being the romantic travails of our bespectacled hero (Daniel Radcliffe) and his best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson). There are also some very well done scenes of Quidditch, a series element that has always been hit or miss in the films, but which really crackles in “Prince.”

In addition to the three leads, Michael Gambon and Alan Rickman turn in fine work as Professors Dumbledore and Snape, respectively. Series newcomer Jim Broadbent is also very good as Horace Slughorn, a former Hogwarts professor who possesses a key secret.

Unfortunately, there’s very little momentum propelling the vignettes that make up the bulk of “Prince,” which makes the film’s narrative shift in the third act rather jarring. And while most of the film has a fairly languid pace, the more serious events at the end feel rushed and lack the impact they did in Rowling’s work.

Still, while the film of “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” isn’t quite what it could have been, it does leave one anticipating the grand finale, which was really the point in the first place, wasn’t it?

On the Web:

• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (official site)