Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

RATING: B

In David Yates' first go-around as a Harry Potter director, he had to adapt the longest Harry Potter book (Order of the Phoenix). And then he chose to make it the shortest movie in the series (at the time). That should have totally not worked, right? Well, it more or less did--somehow. And he got to stay on as director--the first repeat HP director since Chris Columbus, who directed the first two movies. His next task? Adapt the worst Harry Potter book. 

To be clear, it's not that I actually dislike the book version of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. But compared to the rest of the series, it is a bit more slow-paced and underwhelming and easily my least favorite of the series. Part of the problem is that there actually isn't a whole lot of action scenes--even in the book version. Aside from the finale, most of the plot revolves around the dark past of Lord Voldemort. The rest of the story is essentially a bunch of love triangles. Oh yeah, and then there's this Potions book that Harry ends up with that has some extra material written in it by the "half-blood prince." 

And although there is some very important material in this book/movie regarding the past of Lord Voldemort, there's not so much about what he's up to in the present day. There is a dastardly plot being hatched, but it's being carried out entirely by his minions. And aside from the opening scene, we don't get much of a sense of Voldemort or his Death Eaters causing havoc in the world--even though the fact that he's back is well known and accepted now. In fact, we never actually see present-day Voldemort himself in this movie. Keep in mind that this would be the penultimate movie if not for them splitting Deathly Hallows into two parts; and yet we don't even see the series' main antagonist, even though he's been in almost all the other movies (in one form or another). 

Despite the fact that there's less going on in this movie, it's still surprisingly decent. David Yates arguably actually does a better job at directing this movie, even if the final product isn't as good as the last movie. That doesn't make sense, right? Well, as I've already explained, this is the weakest installment in the book series. Making it *not* the worst movie is impressive. Also, this is actually one of the most cohesive and easy-to-follow movies in the series; people who have not read the books are much less likely to be confused in this movie than in the last few ones. The flow is quite good; no awkward transitions here. And perhaps due to there being more disposable material from the original source this time, very little important material is cut out this time. (I do feel like they cut out more of Voldemort's backstory than they should have, but the two most critical "memories" are kept, so it works for cinematic purposes.) 

Another thing that really helps out this movie is that it arguably has the most levity in the film series. There's plenty of fun dialogue to go around; and little of it even has to do with the often-annoying teenage-love stuff. One of the more standout parts involves Harry being on a "liquid luck" potion, which makes him act a bit silly while still providing him with... well... excellent luck. Also, there's just more time given on screen this time for the protagonists to hang out and crack jokes or snark a bit now and then. It's not overdone, but it is a welcome presence given that the film might very well be a slog without it. 

Still, the lack of action is felt at times. Aside from the final act (and even that doesn't really feature straight-up magical duels like the last one did), the most exciting parts in this movie are an attack on the Weasley's house which is interesting but wasn't even in the book and feels forced in, and a brief duel between Harry and Draco, and... uh... that's about it. I guess this reflects more poorly on the source material than anything when you have to literally invent a whole new action scene for the movie just to keep the audience from getting bored. There's enough interesting stuff going on via the exposition front that the story isn't altogether boring, but it does definitely feel more slow-paced. 

Anyway, I always seem to devote at least one paragraph to talk about the casting, since it's pretty much always excellent. Besides the usual stars whose names hardly need mentioning at this point, Michael Gambon (Dumbledore) and Tom Felton (Draco) kind of break out in this movie. Gambon had been fine before, but he gives his best showing as Dumbledore in this movie. And for Felton's part, he hadn't been given much to do for most of the previous movies except "my father will hear about this" scenes, but he finally is given more to do here as his character becomes a bigger part of the plot, and Felton does very well as a result. Newcomer Jim Broadbent is also noteworthy as Professor Slughorn. Also, Evanna Lynch's character Luna Lovegood is sadly a bit underused here, but she's still great when she is on screen. 

Half-Blood Prince still belongs in the bottom half of the Harry Potter movies in terms of ranking. But it's still pretty decent. I do feel like it's about as good as it could have been. Most of my complaints aren't really a reflection of the movie itself, but more the source material. I have to give credit to Yates for doing as well as he did with this; if anything, this certainly proved he was the guy to go with for the final stretch.