Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

There is no denying the massive popularity of the Harry Potter books and the positive effect they have had on getting children to enjoy reading, especially as they are fantasy books. The problem is the books have become a victim of their own popularity. With each new volume, they have increased in volume, going from books to tomes. It’s as if the editors at Bloomsbury have become so in awe of Rowling that they are afraid to wield the red pen in case the goose stops laying its golden eggs. The first three books were tightly written, they told the story and were filled with little snippets of information that have relevance once the future volumes are read, which shows just how good a writer Rowling is – much in the same way that rewatching the first season of Heroes reveals so many future story threads. Then they started getting verbose, filled with repetition and largely unnecessary exposition. By book four, anyone interested in reading it would already know Harry’s history and that Dumbledor wears half-moon spectacles.

One of the problems of adapting a book, especially a much-loved book, for the screen is that large chunks have to be chopped out, and most of the internalisation of characters’ thoughts that work on paper can’t be transferred to the screen. Trimming the 600-page Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince book to a reasonable movie length (although it is still 150 minutes) is not such a bad thing, and a lot more digestible than Stephen Fry’s 21+ hours reading on the audiobook version. Not that there is anything wrong with his reading, in fact it is probably the best way of hearing the full story. What the latest movie does is take all the salient bits of the story and tell them at a fairly cracking pace that makes the two-and-a-half hours pass fairly quickly. Hardcore fans may bemoan some of the bits that where chopped, but they would rather have the whole story translated verbatim anyway. To a certain extent I can see their point of view. Having spent a summer holiday travelling the highways and byways with Fry’s telling of the story there is something to be said for the more detailed and leisurely pace of the story (aforementioned repetition and exposition aside). However, movies are a visual medium and require a different approach, and visually, this latest movie is quite stunning, with very impressive special effects that are surprisingly subtle for a mega-budget film on wizards and magic – and they’ve kept the quidditch to a minimum. The cinematography is superb: the colour grading of the film certainly conveys the dark times of the story and there is some great framing and composition.

What really lets the film down is the acting from the kids – Harry and Hermione in particular. Not only is their delivery unconvincing, but for the most part they don’t convey any real or believable emotion. In the books it is all about Harry’s inner turmoil, and in the film this has to be expressed through the acting and it just isn’t. When they are acting beside some of the finest thesps in the country, if not the world, their shortcomings are even more obvious. I also get the impression that the novelty is also wearing off for the adults. They are still consummate professionals, and apart from Helena Bonham Carter, don’t seem to be having a great deal of fun, even if it is supposed to be a very serious story, with a very sad ending.

This text will be replaced

I have to say that I wasn’t particularly looking forward to seeing the film, and it is not one I would otherwise choose to see, but the experience wasn’t as bad as I expected and I’m sure that the fans (apart from the usual sniping) will not be disappointed.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is in cinemas everywhere from July 15 from Warner Bros.