Rated: Lacks magic ***
Hermione's hooked up with a balding banker, Ron's down with the swine flu, and Harry got his dong out in London's West End every night for four months.
Only problem is, that was real life. The last year at Hogwarts has been much less exciting. The sixth Harry Potter film is 2½ hours of Deathly Dullows that does dibbly squit apart from set up the seventh Harry Potter film.
Thrill as Harry talks to Dumbledore! Gasp as he has talks to Dumbledore again! Be astounded as he makes eyes at Ron Weasley's sister for a bit then talks to Dumbledore!
To say that HP6 is light on incident is like saying that the new Transformers film occasionally gets a wee bit noisy. Understatement of the frickin' Quidditch season
The main plot centres on Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) trying to discover how Voldemort became immortal.
With Harry's help, the ageing prof lures the Dark Lord's old teacher Horace Slughorn (the brilliant Jim Broadbent) back to Hogwarts in an attempt to wheedle the info out of him.
All this, including the bits about the Half-Blood Prince of the title, takes about 30 minutes, tops. The rest of the time is taken up with Harry, Ron and Hermoine's love lives. But Skins it is not.
Harry fancies Ron's sister Ginny (Bonnie Wright), while Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermoine (Emma Watson) still eye each other up with what doesn't quite pass for sexual tension.
This lack of action must have been of concern to the studio suits because there are a couple of new scenes not in the book that serve no purpose other than to cram in some explosions when the bean-counters tend to think crowds want to see 'em.
But they couldn't feel more tacked on if they'd used Pritt Stick.
The Death Eaters' attack on the Weasleys' home is a pointless, no-stakes light show. And the rollercoaster ride through London showing the Death Eaters' journey to Diagon Alley might look good, but it means nothing - you're essentially watching the bad guys go to the shops.
But for most Potter audiences, the biggest concern is how much the kids have changed since the last film. And in terms of their acting abilities, the answer is "not quite enough".
Daniel Radcliffe, as Harry, still struggles with the demands of the role. The fact he looks like the teenage offspring of Hitler and a gay owl doesn't help either.
Emma Watson, as Hermione, remains a master of eyebrow-twizzling and not much else. While Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley gets a grudging award for "most improved original kid" - mainly due to a brace of reasonably funny scenes.
But all three are outshone by the bit- parters - Evanna Lynch is great as Luna Lovegood, as is Jessie Cave as Ron's admirer Lavender Brown.
So why three stars rather than two? Simple. What Half-Blood Prince lacks in guts, it makes up for in glamour. The film looks amazing - from the showpiece effects (take a bow, whoever designed the inky cascades of the pensieve) to some beautiful moments, such as a shot that pans up the outside of Hogwarts and catches Lavender giving Ron a cheeky kiss on the South Tower (easy).
The backstage crew haven't so much put lipstick on a pig as shoved that pig in a Prada frock and got it a 12-page "my lovely home" photospread in Tatler.
Plus the adult cast are as impressive as always - and there's a cameo from Finchy from The Office as a minor villain.
Is it enough to make Half-Blood Prince worth a look? On balance, yes - but don't expect much more than 153 minutes of prologue to the series' big finish.
Prisoner of Azkaban showed you COULD satisfy the Potter freaks AND make a great film in its own right. Half-Blood Prince doesn't come close but millions will buy tickets anyway.
And that, if you're Warner Bros, is magic.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment