Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: 2009

Ron, Harry, and Hermione discussing strategical options for winning the Quidditch game.

“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” is a dark and foreboding film that boldly treads forward to the deeper depths of a magical realm. Gone are the days when we glisten with glee at the site of bursting bubblegum and exotically (and erroneously) flavored jellybean candy. Now enters the cold realization of sorcery’s unmagical fold, and the even colder ramifications which entail.

I will not indulge in describing the film’s exact plot, for most viewers are likely to have read the book at this point. All I will say is that it involves the venomous Lord Voldemort, who you will not see but will inexplicably sense and feel throughout the movie, and Harry Potter, who’s ongoing quest is further littered with obstacles, epiphanies, and grief.

If you are unfamiliar with the story, I advise you to not become disenchanted or disgruntled by director David Yates’ and screenwriter Steve Kloves’ storytelling: very soon, all events having taken place will be thoroughly explained in the upcoming two-part film, and it is perhaps best to enjoy the precarious cliffhanger we are placed upon while waiting for the finale. Author J.K. Rowling impaled and tortured our imaginations when she ended the sixth installment with this anticipation, and I am pleased to say that indeed, despite a seemingly bumpy retell of Rowling’s world, Yates builds up to this expectation, and very well indeed.

The film’s visuals are beautifully executed and the music, while far from surpassing the original John Williams’ score, is ambient and beautifully melancholic. Cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel creates a striking palette that feasts upon the world we have grown to love, and composer Nicholas Hooper returns from his musical debut since “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” with an even more moving composition. And of course, actors Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint splash the screen with their famous portrayals of Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, and Ron Weasley respectively.

I’ll take a moment to commend Tom Felton for his portrayal of Draco Malfoy, the notorious antithesis of Harry. I’ve always been fond of Felton ever since his first introduction in Christopher Columbus’s “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”: he has always been the strongest actor amongst his acting peers in the films, and here he shoots forward with a caliber that is both striking and moving. Despite his relatively brief screen time, Felton’s moments were gripping and when the film’s climax came about, I found myself incredibly sympathetic with his character – that, and during another moment beforehand when he slumps into the lonely confines of a school lavatory.

The film franchise has grown up. As all things go, with teenagers we are doomed to deal with a world of love and misunderstanding. These moments of infatuation were, in fact, quite entertaining, and not at all annoyingly drawn out; there were also moments of touching sweetness that do not necessarily draw upon a kiss. But more importantly, we are presented with empathetic unfolding of characters we are so very familiar with, a precedent that was set five years before with director Alfonso Cuaron’s aesthetic revamp in “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.”

“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” is not the strongest movie on its own, but it is a powerful foundation for truly appreciating Rowling’s narrative power. There are great moments of humor, gripping scenes of terror, and spectacular shots worthy of artistic merit. If you have been waiting for a summer film this year beyond Pixar’s “Up,” here is one you will most definitely enjoy. And if not for the story, then at least for the visual and bewitching ride.

Advertisement