“HALF BLOOD-PRINCE” A SLIGHT LETDOWN

By Gary McPherson

When the Harry Potter phenomenon began to gather steam nearly a decade ago, I admit I was nowhere to be seen. Only after my wife read the books and raved about them did I get on board. And I am so thankful that I did, because J.K. Rowlings’ work is some of the most enthralling that I have ever had the pleasure to read.

So like so many other people, I wait with baited breath for each of the books to reach the silver screen and until now, I’ve felt like Hollywood has done each tale justice.

But “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” is a different animal. At over 700 pages, it is by far the deepest of the stories. It’s also in “Prince” that we realize this really is not a children’s saga, as it is filled with many more adult themes.

“Prince” is a dark and gloomy novel, and it left more than a few people with tears in their eyes as they finished the final page.

Director David Yates was faced with a tough task of staying true to the book, while at the same time creating a blockbuster. Reports are that the studio rejected numerous early drafts of the film because they were too dour. Hollywood strikes again!

The film follows Harry through his sixth year at the wizarding school of Hogwarts, as he and Professor Dumbledore inch closer to discovering how to stop the evil Lord Voldemort.

A good deal of the film also focuses on relationships among the students. Ron goes out with Lavender, but really likes Hermione, who has been going out with Cormac to spite Ron, while Harry likes Ginny, who has been snogging Dean, forcing Harry to find another girl to take to the gala.

While these interactions provide some levity and comic relief to the movie, the result is a ton of pertinent scenes hitting the cutting room floor.

For one, Voldemort is not in a single scene. Zero. Harry and Dumbledore explore various flashbacks combing over Voldemort’s early days, but so much is left out.

Hagrid, the giant groundskeeper, is non-existent, appearing on screen a total of maybe five minutes. Numerous other characters like Mad Eye Moody, Kreacher and the Minister of Magic don’t appear even once.

There is also a bizarre scene where the Weasly’s home, known as the ‘burrow’, gets destroyed by death eaters. Consider that this entire 15 minute segment is nowhere to be found in any of the books and it makes you wonder why it was even put in the film.

All that being said, the movie is entertaining and well done. If there were no book to compare it to, it would be difficult to find many faults. As I said before, the awkward moments among the lovestruck students are fun to watch. The Lavender Brown character provides some high comedy and Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape is brilliant, as always.

And the addition of Jim Broadbent to the cast was a wonderful choice. Broadbent plays Professor Horace Slughorn and every moment he is on screen is a joy.

One thing I will say is that even after sitting in a theater for two and a half hours, I was left depressed. Not at what I had just witnessed on the screen, but knowing that I’m going to have to wait at least a few more years for the final Potter book to hit theaters. (“The Deathly Hallows” is currently in production and will be split into two movies, with one to come out in 2010, the other in 2011).

It’s a true testament to Rowlings’ skills as a writer that “Prince” could include only about 2/3 of what is in the novel and still be an entertaining motion picture.

Grade: B+