Long before Half Blood Prince went into production, I was curious as to which bits in the film would be kept and which bits would be cut out. I was convinced that the director would keep as much of the main plot as possible, as had been done in the past, so I was not surprised that Fleur Delacour would not be appearing in the film nor did I join other fans’ outbursts.
However, when I heard that they would be ‘adding’ scenes, I became worried. What’s more that they would be action scenes involving the destruction of the Millennium Bridge and the Burrow, I was a little suspicious. I didn’t fully believe their claims that they were just thrown in to show that not even the muggle world was safe, or how not even the Weasleys were safe. I’m still convinced that a main reason for throwing them in was just to make the film more ‘action-based’, as little action actually happens in the book (Then again I saw this as a chance to create a fantasy film more about character development than action, something which had been failed to be realised).
When starting to watch the film, I was still a little suspicious as to how much of the original novel was kept in the film. When it was clear that the Dursleys were cut (Yet again, although not this time for time reasons) the fan in me screamed. However, not much actually happens with the Dursleys that’s worth the main plot, whereas a lot did happen in this new scene that replaced them at Surbiton station, so maybe it wasn’t all that bad.
After getting over the little things that had been altered, towards the end of the film, I realised that it was a pretty good film and adaptation for what they had to work with. I particularly enjoyed the character of Lavender Brown (although can’t understand how it is she’s been at Hogwarts for six years yet you’d think you would have recognised her long before), and there were certainly good moments of humour as well as more serious emotion, such as Tom Felton’s tortured Malfoy. Emma Watson as Hermione Granger was also really good. One of her best scenes was the potions lesson where Harry is doing well, and to add insult to injury, is not following the instructions, something that Hermione’s character would probably find heretical, and she gets so flustered to the point that her hair becomes extremely bushy (finally resembling how it is described in the books).
Rupert Grint’s best scene was when Ron was under the influence of the love potion, whereas Daniel Radcliffe’s best acting was when under the influence of the luck potion (Although I do not understand how it made him drunk. Not exactly lucky, is it?).
Another one of my favourite scenes is when Lavender and Hermione go head to head over Ron, an abbreviation that is perhaps an improvement compared to the book (yes, hardcore Potter fans, hate me all you like for just saying that).
One thing I didn’t like however, was what they did to Harry and Ginny’s ‘romance’. In the book, Harry struggles with his feelings over Ginny, who not only is Ron’s sister, but going out with Dean and appears to have got over Harry. But most of that originality is sucked from the film and instead their relationship is turned into a corny, cheesy romance between them. (Although I did quite like the scene where they fight together against the Death eaters, showing them as equals that is a key aspect of their relationship). This was one thing that was clear to me even before I watched the film, and something I was not too happy about. What was even more outrageous was, according to the trailer, Dumbledore and Hermione were pressuring him to become the chosen one, which completely contradicts the book and the overall message of free will and choice (i.e. Dumbledore in no way forced the destiny upon Harry, and made it clear that it was his choice, and doing so, made it less like he was being dragged to be fed by the lions, something completely overlooked by the filmmakers. That new dialogue was completely unnecessary! What were the writers thinking, not to mention once again taking away the originality which is what makes Harry Potter so great and turning it into a typical “Chosen One’s destiny and he cannot escape it”) so you can imagine I was glad when they cut it out of the theatrical release. Yes!
While on the topic, I might as well talk about the other flaws in the film. The scene between Dumbledore and young Tom Riddle, I felt, lacked emotion. I know the makes were probably going for a sinister and sombre feel, but honestly I prefer it when Riddle was getting all angry in the book and emotional. And even reading that you would have had no idea, although you could already see the evil of Voldemort, that how he would have turned out, so you can understand how Dumbledore could not have known how he would have turned out. In the film, though, you cannot understand how Dumbledore did not know how Riddle would turn out when he resembled the Omen Child’s grandfather. The same can be said in the other flashback with Riddle, where you can’t understand how Slughorn didn’t realise that Riddle was evil either, when he appeared quite sly and sinister. In the book he’s not so blatantly evil, that’s the whole point about none of the teachers suspecting him!
Well, despite all of this, even though I was ready to accept that the Half Blood Prince was an excellent adaptation, it was spoiled with the horcruxes. In the book, Harry is at least given some idea as to what they are, and where to find them. In the film, he has no idea what they are and is led by Dumbledore to believe that they can be anything, when in the books there is significance as to what they are, nor where to find them, just that dark magic leaves a trace. HOW IS THAT SUPPOSED TO HELP HIM IN ANY WAY? How is he supposed to know which treasure in the vault is the horcrux or that Nagini is also a horcrux? Apparently the main reason why the pensieve (Which has changed shape and form for some reason) scenes have become so insignificant along with Malfoy’s plot, the whole horcrux and half-blood prince plot in comparison to their hormones running wild, is because no film can possibly be based around flashbacks.
Well what about that Daniel Craig flick, Flashbacks of a Fool? Or the Prestige? Or the Watchmen, that also had a number of flashbacks? There was also this film about a ghost, and a guy who’s come to this old manor and receives flashbacks throughout the film. Okay it was low budget, but it still worked. The first Hulk film also partially relied on flashbacks. I’m sure there are others that I can’t think of.
Sigh. I miss the days of Chris Columbus, he at least understood the importance of the main plot!
Another thing that I was disappointed about, and I’m glad to see other fans share my opinions, is the omission of the big battle scene at the end. That could have been one of the most fast pacing moments of the film, and it even looked like they were keeping it. But no. It was gone. Which made you wonder what was the point of the whole ‘Malfoy fixing the cabinet’ plot. What did he go through all that trouble of fixing it, just so the death eaters could get in, only to leave? Oh sure Bellatrix made a mess of the great hall (Which was one of the most important scenes as it is symbolic of Hogwarts crumbling down and never being the same again with the death of Dumbledore) and burnt down Hagrid’s hut, but surely they only needed to send one death eater in that case? (Although I quite liked Bellatrix’s expanded role. Perhaps they’ll bring back Barty Crouch, it’s not like it was confirmed he was demented and let’s be fair the individual death eaters aren’t as significant as they are in the book. Oh all right. I like David Tennant, okay?). I also expected a more action packed fight between Harry and Snape, and was not happy with Snape’s lack of emotion in that scene as compared to the novel:
Snape: I am furious that you used my own spell against me, Potter.
Harry: You don’t look so furious.
Snape: Oh I am furious. See this? This is my furious face.
Which makes you wonder if they were able to squeeze in two new fight scenes, then why take away one? Apparently it was to avoid repetition with Deathly Hallows. I’m sure the audience wouldn’t have mind. I don’t think the readers certainly did in the books. Yes, yes, I know, it’s a film, it’s different, but is it really that different? Sometimes I think, and this is probably true, that filmmakers use that as an excuse to make whatever changes they like to a piece, whether they need to or not, and few people can complain since, rightly, they haven’t been in the filmmakers’ shoes.
I watched another film recently, Watchmen, which I knew beforehand had mixed reviews. After watching the film, I found out, much to my outrage, that the main criticisms what that Zach Snyder was TOO faithful to the original material. That directors need to exercise ‘creative interpretation’ and that he failed to show his own.
That reviewer is a moron. Fans don’t want to see a different take, they want to see the material they love on the big screen. And even those who haven’t seen or read the novel, would realise that it was much better, not because of quantity, but of quality. Directors and writers should not have liberty to do whatever they want with the material other than make it suitable for the screen. It is common sense. If the director is held in lower creative regard than the author, then the director should respect the author and aim to depict what is written down to the screen, rather than do what they wish with it.
Another thing I disliked was how they didn’t show Dumbledore’s funeral. Sure they’re showing it in the next film, but it’s not the same as it would have been in this one, as it is the funeral that waves goodbye to Dumbledore as the book finishes. Having it at the beginning of the next film lessens its significance. It also removes the bit where Harry sacrifices being with Ginny in order to save her (A scene which was slightly reminiscent of the ending of Spiderman). I don’t understand the reason being that it ‘didn’t fit with the rest of the film’.
Apart from that, the last bit of the film was perfect, although the inferi looked more like double sized Gollums rather than zombies.
Overall this was a good film. I give it four stars out of five, mainly the four instead of five for how they dealt with the horcruxes and the ending.
