We’ve waited an extra seven long months, but Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is finally in theaters today. No more character posters. No more re-cut trailers. No more TV spots. Just the movie. Finally.
I directed you to a few early reviews last week, but now that the floodgates have opened, we have a better idea of what the critical reaction is: in a word, great. On Rotten Tomatoes, the flick is currently hovering at 90% positive, with 123 positive reviews versus 13 negative reviews.
Some negative reviews make concessions. For example, Manohla Dargis’s pissy review for the New York Times (”Are we there yet?” is the opening sentence) admits that the franchise is “remarkably sturdy.”
However, other negative reviews just come across as ignorant. For example, Victoria Alexander from FilmsinReview says, “Does J.K. Rowling ever explain why wizards have unkempt too long, bushy beards? What’s up with that?” Even some critics that are actually reputable and not merely attention-seeking fall into this trap. For example, Rex Reed for the New York Observer wrote this gem: “The kids at Hogwarts no longer have any relevance. They have never heard of iPods, cell phones or the Internet.”
Heh. The old “relevance” argument. Critics, and I am one, so God bless ‘em, are always trying to peg things as “relevant” or “irrelevant”. So the common line of thinking would be that, in this post-Twilight world, there’s no place for the slightly more chaste Harry Potter. But that narrative, which I’ve heard from at least three or four major critics now, is simply untrue. The box office is going to be huge for Half-Blood Prince — probably about double what it was for Twilight — so instead of sounding “relevant”, critics that claim otherwise will just look misinformed.
But as always, I’m dwelling too much on the bad reviews. On the good side, Roger Ebert gave the film a thumbs up with three stars. Order of the Phoenix actually got his lowest review, with two and a half stars, so apparently the series is back on the upswing for him. He also lays out the entire film quite reasonably in his last paragraph:
I admired this Harry Potter. It opens and closes well, and has wondrous art design and cinematography as always, only more so. “I’m just beginning to realize how beautiful this place is,” Harry sighs from a high turret. The middle passages spin their wheels somewhat, hurrying about to establish events and places not absolutely essential. But those scenes may be especially valued by devoted students of the Potter saga.
I haven’t seen it yet, but I already have tickets for a 7:30 showing tonight. I hope to see you there.
The reviews have started pouring out for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and you’ll be happy to know they’re almost all positive. As I write this, it’s sitting at a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, with only one rotten review — and that one gave it 3 out of 5 stars, hardly a pan.
The general consensus? Not a lot of action, a lot of relationships, and great performances all around. Here are a few reviews to keep you busy:
CHUD:
A remarkable achievement, a film that is moving, that is funny, that is honest and true and sad and sweet. It’s a movie about characters who we have come to know and love, and it’s a movie that understands that it’s these characters, and not the magic they perform, that is the real hook of the series.
The BBC:
Those wanting noisy spectacle and endless action will be disappointed. This is a talky Potter.
It feels long - but not in a bad way. The main characters and the complex plot get a chance to breathe…relationships are what interests Yates.
Even when we first meet Harry in a cafe at Surbiton station, he is effortlessly catching the eye of a waitress.
Variety:
But assessing the romantic entanglements is not nearly as much fun as simply beholding the big physical changes in the young actors, whose onscreen maturation will have been documented across the span of a decade when all is said and done. The biggest change since “Phoenix” two years ago has been registered by Tom Felton, who plays Malfoy; he’s now a tall stringbean in the Jimmy Stewart mold, with a face that’s come to resemble that of Jonathan Pryce, and he towers over Daniel Radcliffe’s Harry, who looks to be the shortest person in the cast (not true when Imelda Staunton was around).
Rupert Grint, as Ron, has always looked a tad older than the others and continues to while showing more character. Emma Watson, perennially appealing as Hermione, has become a very attractive young woman, and Bonnie Wright’s Ginny intrigues as the sort of initial plain Jane who keeps growing on you.
The Independent (written by a 15-year-old girl):
The acting of all three main characters has stepped up a level: still not great, but it’s passable. They are, naturally, shown up by co-stars Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith and Jim Broadbent. Only one big name, Michael Gambon, disappoints; he doesn’t quite capture the pure love of Albus Dumbledore – at times coming across as too harsh.
The scriptwriters bungled several key set pieces, including the funeral scene – although they almost make up for it with a magical passage where students and teachers raise their wands in tribute. Tears poured down many faces in the cinema at that moment.
The Half-Blood Prince is frightening, funny, romantic and entertaining but as the end credits rolled, I still felt disappointed. I had waited all year to see my second-favourite Potter book brought to life. If I wasn’t a die-hard fan, I’m sure I would have loved it. My gripe is that the film was simply too different from the book.
I think that twinge of disappointment is something all die-hard Potter fans feel after seeing every single film. You’re excited, you know it was good — but there’s just that nagging subconscious telling you that it didn’t live up to the books. But how could it?
What I’m excited about is that Steve Kloves wrote the script after skipping the fifth movie. Order of the Phoenix felt rushed; I’m looking forward to enjoying the quieter moments this time around.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
0 Comments