Back by popular demand: Who's Reviews

PROLOGUE: Warning! This review is LONG. And I mean very very long. You can skip to the bottom if you like, but leave a comment!


The movie I am about to review is epic. So epic that I needed to call in backup. So I sought out many Eighth-Sters and Eighth St readers to help me with such a task. Here is my belated review for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.




I think that, overall, the later HP movies (ie. HP 4, 5, 6) have been thoroughly enjoyable. It’s satisfying for the movie-goer because it’s complex. Underneath that surface frivolity which you inevitably get during scenes of everyday (or not so everyday for ordinary muggles) life in Hogwarts there is the feeling of tension or unease which stems from the sense of foreboding: Voldemort will inevitably cause the breakdown of such happy scenes. And then comes the quasi-cathartic ending where Voldemort is warded off until the next school year and the joy of summer holidays masks the traumatic aftermath of having once again temporarily defeated the Dark Lord. Also, there is no denying that the magical world in HP books has been excellently crafted by JK Rowling. Not one detail escapes her mind; she has meticulously created an alternate universe in which readers or audiences can lose themselves. How kitch/stereotypical are flying brooms, McGonagall’s pointed witches’ hat and the cauldrons for potions? Yet how easily we forgive such stereotypes because Harry’s world is so damn good! Before I turn this into some psychoanalysis, I think I should get onto the actual movie. Ok here goes.


On the whole, I was pleasantly entertained. I laughed at the right moments, gasped in shock when I should have and got emotional when Dumbledore died (yes, we all knew it was coming but that didn’t detract from the raw emotionality of the scene). However, HP movies are for HP readers and fans. I don’t think that someone who didn’t read the sixth book could have easily followed the movie because there was too much cut out and too much information was assumed knowledge. But that’s ok because the whole world has read HP given how much moola JK has.




This movie has been called the “funniest” HP movie. While I agree that there were a lot more one-liners said in passing, the movie was not ‘funny’. Probably, the dark undertones had to be kept at bay by some sort of glossy, superficial coating otherwise younger viewers would have been too sad/depressed. In saying that, I thought the scary scenes in the movie were done excellently. The ‘Katie Bell’ scene, the ‘Weasley house is on fire’ scene and, of course, the cave scene were all very well done. They were true to the book (except the fire scene, which I thought was quite a smart addition) and also carried an extra menace which can probably be attributed to the visual effects (which were excellent of course). I think the visual effects did justice to the richness of the world which JK Rowling created - sometimes I just stared open-mouthed and amazed at the screen because they were so real/intense. So much better than Edward's crapola sparkle in Twilight. Guess it comes down to the budget/time-frame.


As for the flip side of the movie (ie. teenagers, love, relationships) I thought characters like Lavender Brown (who was totally wacko) and Cormac McLaggen (who was quite good looking despite the fact that he was supposed to be gross) were thrown in as token crazy characters. We could laugh at them and get a respite from the dark part of the story revolving around Malfoy/the blackened hand of Dumbledore/Bellatrix (who is played to perfection by Helena Bonham Carter). I was an 'original Dumbledore' supporter – the new Dumbledore was too short and just somehow not right... But this movie converted me. I felt Michael Gambon played Dumbledore extremely well with the right mix of good-humoured liveliness and serious authoritativeness. I have to say I was one sniff away from crying at the end of the movie where Harry is crouched over Dumbledore’s body crying and everyone raises their lighted wands… Sniffle sniffle… Oh, and also the terribly tragic scene where Harry force feeds Dumbledore the potion from the cave...

A hottie called Freddie Stroma aka. Cormac McLaggen... mmm... where was THIS in the movie?!

Young Voldemort was freaky as hell. Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, who is Ralph Fiennes’s nephew if you wanted to know, was sulky goodness. But the ‘older’ but Voldemort (Frank Dillane) was wierd. He had a deep mature voice with the looks of a twelve year old… I googled him and he’s apparently twenty-something years old. Must have been quite an effort for hair and make-up to make him look half his age.



As for Professor Slughorn, I thought he’d be slimier and less wide-eyed or weary. A bit more like Snape, a bit less like the stuttering Professor Quirrell in the first movie before he turned evil. (Am I making any sense?) But I love Jim Broadbent because he’s got that undeniable kind of adorable resigned, squashy-faced demeanour like when he played Bridget Jones’s father.


I have another qualm: Hermoine’s wardrobe. I know she’s a bookish character who probably cares more about Charms than her wardrobe (which gets me thinking: why do 'hotties' like Krum and McLaggen chase her if she's so nerdy?) but Emma Watson is a fashionista! I couldn't get a photo but try to cast your memories back to the last scene and remember her dowdy-coloured ¾ sleeve button-up shirt and bleak cardigan combo. While that scene was playing, I was wondering if, while Emma was climbing into that outfit, she was asking herself, ‘Why am I wearing this? I am the face of Burberry. I am apparently Karl Lagerfield’s muse. WHY?’


So what overall? This is where I called in some back-up. How do I condense a 2.5 hour movie into one single rating? No, that’s impossible. So I’m going to give you six different ratings so you get the diverse responses to the film:

C.L gives it a 6.5/10

Whitebread is less forgiving with a 4/10, citing the terrible ending (which I actually thought was tenderly poignant but oh well)

For the sake of protecting identities, I shall call this next person Draco Malfoy lover. She gives it a 9/10 (the one point is presumably taken off because there is not enough Draco though I thought this was the most Draco-focused movie out of them all)

Jester, a regular Eighth St commenter, gives it 7.5/10 but says it was too “transient” with “not a lot of substance” – can’t disagree but I guess this movie was really a tasty entrée for the next two movies

Cake Crusader, with whom I had the pleasure of watching the movie, gives it a 7/10 (because “Harry is too short” and doesn't mesh well with Ginny) but let me tell you that she was giggling at every scene when Harry and Ginny touched and bawling when Dumbledore died (sorry Cake for exposing that)

With all those comments in consideration, I’m giving the movie a square 7.5/10. It embodies the brand of HP which emerged in the fifth movie – darker, sort of funnier, more emphasis on teenagers but ultimately well-made (without American actors!!!) with amazing real-ish visual effects.


~ Hurley Who?



PS. Who actually made it to the end and read every word?!