Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is one of my favorite in the series. I realize that not much happens plot wise; it really just exists to prepare Harry and the audience for Deathly Hallows. But there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I thoroughly enjoyed learning all about Tom Riddle before he became Lord Voldemort. It humanized him and also deepened his character to the point that he became almost pitiable. Thus I was super stoked when the release day finally came. In fact, my brother and I walked 5 miles round trip just to see it. The problem is that I was very let down.
. . . but more of that in a minute . . .
In the sixth movie of the series, Harry and his friends are back at Hogwarts, but this time around, love seems to be brewing . . . not just in the Potions classroom . . . XD. Ha. Moving on . . . Harry is finding it difficult to see Ginny with Dean; Hermione gets jealous of Ron and tries to make him jealous; Ron and Lavender start a very physical relationship that Ron grows very tired of quickly; Romilda Vane (and some of her friends) are out to try and win Harry's love through force (love potions) if necessary. At the same time, Harry has also begun lessons with Dumbledore regarding how to defeat Lord Voldemort by destroying horcruxes. Not everything, however, goes as planned, causing the death of a major character.
This is definitely not my favorite movie.
For one thing, they left out so much about Tom Riddle's past that I feel is necessary for understanding the events of Deathly Hallows. After all, the only reason that Harry is able to defeat Voldemort is through understanding him.
For another, they burn down the Burrow. What on Earth was that about? Seriously. I have two books and 6 DVDs talking about how each film is made and the thoughts behind them, but there is NOTHING that I've found about this poor and flawed directoral / writer decision. Honestly, I don't get it. It served no purpose. At all. When I first saw the movie and tried to analyze and understand why this happened, I came up with only one idea: maybe they burned down the Burrow because they were going to skip the wedding and move on to the hunting of Horcruxes quicker in the first installment of Deathly Hallows But no. Obviously I was wrong. So I have to ask: WHY?????
Furthermore, why are we burning Hagrid's hut down as well? This, however, is slightly more acceptable because there was supposed to be a "battle" going on at the school between Death Eaters and members of the Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore's Army. The quotation marks around "battle" are highly necessary because that was the saddest attempt at a battle I've ever seen (minus the "battle" supposedly happening in Breaking Dawn of the Twilight series). In the book, the battle is much more interesting, but here, I feel nothing but disappointment. Neither D.A. or the Order would allow Death Eaters to enter and attack Hogwarts, but where are they in the movie? Sleeping, I suppose. Or wandering around until by some strange consequence, they all find and gather around Dumbledore's dead body.
I just don't get it, but whatever. Moving on. . .
I did, however, enjoy David Yates' idea for the undertone of the film. While Order of the Phoenix (as well as Deathly Hallows) had a more political stance, Half-Blood Prince shared many qualities of a Romantic Comedy. While it annoys me because the focus of the book is on Tom Riddle, the focus on young love is a interesting choice. All of the "good" characters we know and love are falling in love; Riddle, however, who appears in several places in the book does not now nor ever experienced love (unless we're referring to Bellatrix's creepy, unhealthy worship/love of Voldemort despite the fact that she is married). And, after all, the strongest difference between Harry and Voldemort is love! Also, Deathly Hallows is intense and, in some places, quite depressing, so having something light and happy such as love may be well-deserved.
LOVE
After all, that is why Weasley's Wizard Wheezes is so successful. Diagon Alley has fallen into ruin after multiple Death Eater raids, but Fred and George don't let that stop them. They truly want to bring joy and humor into the world even though Voldemort keeps getting stronger.
Moreover, I honestly believe that Fred and George's shop is even more necessary because we see that Voldemort's Death Eaters have crossed into the Muggle world and are destroying everything in sight, including the bridge seen at the beginning of the film.
As with the other movies, there are new characters introduced, including Professor Slughorn, Lavender Brown, Fenrir Greyback,Cormac McLaggen, and Tom Riddle (a younger version)
Jim Broadbent joined the screen as Professor Horace Slughorn.When I first saw screenshots and other pictures of Broadbent, I wasn't sure I would support this casting choice. He just didn't look anything like the Slughorn I imagined him in my head. He, however, won me over. He captured every facet of Slughorn that appeared in the book (minus the moustache of course) and exceeded my expectations. So, I apologize casting people; you were right and I fully endorse your decision to give this role to Mr. Broadbent.
Lavender Brown is another character who appeared in this film even though she makes small appearances throughout the series. I can understand why she wasn't in the movies because she was really just the name of the girl who hung out with Parvati Patil who could easily be replaced by Padma Patil. Seeing as she starts "dating" Ron, however, she became a necessary character. Jessie Cave was wonderful -- she was funny; believable; she was the typical, love-struck teenager who finally got a chance to be with the guy (Ron) she's been crushing on for years; and she embraced every portion of Lavender Rowling wrote on the page.
Fenrir Greyback was also introduced in this film, but I'm not convinced that he belonged there. He is there long enough to attack the school (and Bill Weasley), but that doesn't happen. In fact, the only thing in the book movie Greyback did was bite Lavender Brown during the Battle at Hogwarts. But, with everything the directors left out over the course of filming the series, I don't see why they didn't leave him out of the picture as well. He doesn't even act; he's just a muscular, threatening looking person -- perfect for cage fighter, Dave Legeno. But I still wonder why he was there at all?
Cormac McLaggen also joins the screen. All I have to say is that McLaggen is a pompous ass and Freddie Stroma. Congratulations . . . I guess. Do you want to be known for perfectly capturing that personality and attitude.
And now to the thing that bothers me (excluding the burning of the Burrow): Tom Marvolo Riddle. Don't get me wrong, the little boy version, played by Ralph Fiennes' nephew, Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, is adorable and was fantastic. 16-year-old Riddle, played by Frank Dillane, however, bothers me SO much. I know that Christian Coulson may be too old to return for the same role in Half-Blood Prince, but they could have at least tried to make them look alike. But no. Why do that? At least Dillane makes a better Tom Riddle as far as attitude and personality; it also helps that he looks enough like Fiennes to pass as an older version of him, but there is no excuse for the lack in consistency. None.
NOT OKAY
But whatever.
I still enjoy the book and the movie isn't that terrible if you can forget the book exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment