Favorite Films Set in the 1830s

16077062_854b_1024x2000

Below is a list of my favorite movies (so far) that are set in the 1830s:

 

FAVORITE FILMS SET IN THE 1830s

1. “The Adventures of Huck Finn” (1993) – Elijah Wood and Courtney B. Vance starred in this excellent Disney adaptaion of Mark Twain’s 1885 novel about a young Missouri boy who joines a runaway slave on a journey along the Mississippi River toward the free states in antebellum America. Stephen Sommers directed.

 

1- The Count of Monte Cristo 2002

2. “The Count of Monte Cristo” (2002) – James Caviezel starred as the vengeful Edmond Dantès in Disney’s 2002 adaptation of Alexandre Dumas, père’s 1844 novel. Directed by Kevin Reynolds, the movie co-starred Guy Pearce and Dagmara Dominczyk.

 

2 - Pride and Prejudice 1940

3. “Pride and Prejudice” (1940) – Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier starred in this entertaining adaptation of Jane Austen’s 1813 novel. Robert Z. Leonard directed.

 

3 - The Count of Monte Cristo 1975

4. “The Count of Monte Cristo” (1975) – Richard Chamberlain gave an intense performance in the 1975 television adaptation of Dumas’ novel. Tony Curtis and Kate Nelligan co-starred.

 

4 - Impromptu

5. “Impromptu” (1991) – Judy Davis and Hugh Grant starred in this comedic tale about author George Sand’s pursuit of composer Frédéric Chopin in 1830s France. James Lapine directed.

 

5 - Amistad

6. “Armistad” (1997) – Steven Spielberg directed this account of the 1839 mutiny aboard the slave ship La Amistad and the trials of the Mendes tribesmen/mutineers, led by Sengbe Pieh. The movie starred Djimon Hounsou, Matthew McConnaughey, Morgan Freeman and Anthony Hopkins.

 

6 - Wide Sargasso Sea 2006

7. “Wide Sargasso Sea” (2006) – Rebecca Hall and Rafe Spall starred in this 2006 television adaptation of Jean Rhys’s 1966 novel, which is a prequel to Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, “Jane Eyre”. It focused upon the early marriage of Antoinette Cosway (Bertha Mason) and Edward Rochester.

 

7 - My Cousin Rachel

8. “My Cousin Rachel” (1952) – Olivia de Havilland and Richard Burton starred in this adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s 1951 novel about a young Englishman’s obsession with his late cousin’s widow. Henry Koster directed.

 

8 - The Alamo 2004

9. “The Alamo” (2004) – John Lee Hancock directed this account of the Battle of the Alamo, the only production about the Texas Revolution that I actually managed to enjoy. The movie starred Billy Bob Thornton, Patrick Wilson and Jason Patric.

 

9 - The Big Sky

10. “The Big Sky” (1952) – Howard Hawks directed this adaptation of A.B. Guthrie’s 1947 novel about a fur trader’s expedition up the Missouri River. Kirk Douglas and Dewey Martin starred.

“HUGO” (2011) Review

 

“HUGO” (2011) Review

To the surprise of many, the top two contenders for Best Picture of 2011 featured on the history of film in the early 20th century. One of them was the Oscar winning “silent” film, “THE ARTIST”. The other turned out to be Martin Scorsese’s latest endeavor called “HUGO”

Based upon Brian Selznick’s 2008 novel, “The Invention of Hugo Cabret”“HUGO” told the story of a 12 year-old boy named Hugo Cabret, who lives with his widowed father, a clockmaker in 1931 Paris. Hugo’s father, who is a fan of Georges Méliès’s films, takes him to the theater on many occasions. When Hugo’s father dies in a museum fire, the boy is forced to live with his alcoholic Uncle Claude, who is also a watchmaker at the railway station, Gare Montparnasse. After teaching Hugo to maintain clocks, Claude disappears. His body is later found in the Seine River, drowned. Hugo lives between the walls of the railway station, maintaining clocks, stealing food and doing his best to avoid the attention of the tough stationmaster to avoid being shipped to a local orphanage.

He also becomes obsessed with repairing his father’s broken automaton – a mechanical man that writes with a pen. Convinced the automaton contains a message from his father, Hugo steals mechanical parts in order to repair the automaton. However, he is caught by a toy store owner, Papa Georges, who takes Hugo’s notebook from him, with notes and drawings for fixing the automaton. Hugo follows Georges home and befriends a girl close to his age named Isabelle and the latter’s goddaughter. When Hugo is finally able to repair the automaton, it produces a drawing straight from a Georges Méliès film. Thanks to the drawing and a film historian, Hugo and Isabelle discover that the latter’s godfather is the famous filmmaker, now financially strapped and forgotten.

When I first learned about “HUGO”, I heard that it was based upon a children’s book. And I found it unusual that Martin Scorsese would make a film for children. As it turned out, “HUGO” is more than just a story for children. It eventually turned out to be a peek into another chapter in film history, slowly focusing on the work of Georges Méliès, who was responsible for early silent films such as “A TRIP TO THE MOON” (1902) and “THE IMPOSSIBLE VOYAGE” (1904). I noticed that Scorsese utilized his usual formula in unfolding the movie’s plot. As in most of his other movies, he slowly introduced the characters – both major and minor – before setting up his plot. And while this formula worked in such films as “GOODFELLAS”“THE AGE OF INNOCENCE” and “CASINO”, it did not quite work for “HUGO”.

For me, “HUGO” suffered from two problems. One, the movie lingered just a bit too long on the introduction of all the characters – especially those who did not have any effect on Hugo’s situation or with the discovery . And because of this, the pacing in its first half dragged incredibly long. In fact, it dragged so long that I almost lost interest in finishing the film. It was not until Hugo managed to repair the automaton and continue his and his father’s love of films when life finally breathed into the film. From the moment the automaton produced the drawing of the moon from “A TRIP TO THE MOON”, I became increasingly interested in the film. “HUGO” soon became a interesting trip into the world of early Frenchfilmmaking. And it ended as a poignant story about how a boy’s love for his father and movies allowed a forgotten artist to be remembered by a new generation of filmgoers. I found myself practically on the verge of tears by the last frame.

If there was one aspect of “HUGO” that truly impressed me was the movie’s production design. Thanks to the legendary Dante Ferretti, it is truly one of the most beautiful looking films I have seen in the past few years. The movie’s visual style was enhanced by David Warren’s supervision of the movie’s art direction, and cinematographer Robert Richardson’s recreation of the Multicolor process – which he also used in the first half of “THE AVIATOR”. Although I was mildly impressed by Sandy Powell’s costume designs, it was Francesca Lo Schiavo’s set decorations, especially for the re-creation of the Gare Montparnasse station circa 1931, which really impressed me. In the end, the movie almost conveyed a Jules Verne visual style that I suspect seemed appropriate for a film about Georges Méliès. I could comment on Howard Shore’s score. But if I must be honest, I have no memories of it.

The film’s other real strength came from the cast led by young Asa Butterfield’s poignant portrayal of Hugo Calvert. He was ably supported by Chloë Grace Moretz, who gave a charming performance as Hugo’s friend Isabelle, and Helen McCrory’s skillful portrayal of Méliès’s supportive wife. Performers such as Ray Winstone, Jude Law, Michael Stuhlbarg, Emily Mortimer, Christopher Lee, Frances de la Tour and Richard Griffiths gave solid, yet brief performances. But aside from Butterfield, the most impressive performance came from Ben Kingsley, who was superb as Méliès. Kingsley conveyed every aspect of Méliès’s personality and life experiences. I am still astounded that he was never given any kind of acting nomination for his performance.

I cannot deny that “HUGO” is a very beautiful looking film. And I also cannot deny that I was mesmerized by the film’s second half – especially when it focused on Hugo and Isabelle’s discovery of Méliès’ past as a filmmaker. The movie also benefited from a first-rate cast and especially from superb performances from Asa Butterfield and Ben Kingsley. But Martin Scorsese tried to create a small epic out of a story that was part children’s tale/part film history. Which is why I believe“HUGO” fell short of becoming – at least in my eyes – one of the better movies of 2011.

“SKYFALL” (2012) Review

kinopoisk.ru-Skyfall-1787385

“SKYFALL” (2012) Review

Before I had sat down in a movie theater to watch the latest James Bond movie, “SKYFALL”, it occurred to me that four years had passed since the last movie about the MI-6 agent. During those four years, EON Productions endured another round of legal entanglements regarding the Bond franchise, delaying the production and release of “SKYFALL”by at least two years. But in the end, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson came through and released the company’s 23rd James Bond film. 

“SKYFALL” begins in Istanbul, Turkey; where MI-6 agents James Bond and “Eve” go after a mercenary named Patrice, who has managed to steal a list of undercover NATO agents from the laptop hard drive of a MI-6 field agent. Their assignment ends in disaster after Patrice wounds Bond in the shoulder, and “Eve” accidentally shoots Bond, during his fight with the mercenary atop a moving train. Following the Istanbul debacle, “M” is pressured by Intelligence and Security Committee Chairman Gareth Mallory to retire. During M’s return from her meeting, the MI-6 computer servers are breached, resulting in an explosion at the building that kills a number of employees. Bond, who had used his “death” to retire, returns to London and asks to return to the field. Despite his failure to pass a series of physical and psychological examinations, M allows Bond to find the person behind the theft of the list of NATO agents and the MI-6 explosions. Bond’s investigations eventually leads him to a former MI-6 agent named Raoul Silva who wants to humiliate, discredit and ultimately kill M as revenge against her for betraying him years ago.

When I finally walked out of that movie theater, as the end credits for “SKYFALL” rolled, the first thought that came to my mind was that the movie was a piece of crap. I was very disappointed by “SKYFALL”. The more I thought about the plot and characterizations featured in “SKYFALL”, I finally realized that my feelings about the movie had not changed. I still believe it was a piece of crap and one of the worst James Bond movies I have ever seen.

There are certain aspects of “SKYFALL” that I found admirable. And before I delve into the reasons behind my dislike of the film, I might as point out these admirable traits. Unlike 2008’s “QUANTUM OF SOLACE”“SKYFALL” was not marred by an uneven pacing. Directed Sam Mendes did an excellent job of giving the movie a steady pace that did not leave me breathless or groggy. I also have to give kudos to cinematographer Roger Deakins for his sharp, yet beautiful photography of the different locations featured in the film – especially for Istanbul, London and Scotland. And most of the action sequences in the movie – especially Raoul Silva’s attack upon M at a public inquiry and the chase scene through London’s Underground system – struck me as very exciting and well shot, thanks to Mendes’ direction, along with Stuart and Kate Baird’s editing.

Looking back on “SKYFALL”, I noticed that it featured some first-rate acting, by a superb cast. Daniel Craig returned for a third time to portray 007. And as usual, he was in top form, capturing the British agent’s self doubts after being shot in Istanbul. After seventeen years, Judi Dench portrayed “M” for the last time in a plot in which her character plays a major role in the story. Many have been speculating about an Academy Award for her excellent performance. The only reason I am not jumping on this bandwagon is that Dench has been knocking it out of the ballpark as “M”, ever since she first assumed the role in 1995’s “GOLDENEYE”. Javier Bardeem seemed to have been inspired by Heath Ledger’s Oscar winning performance as the Joker in his portrayal of Raoul Silva, a former MI-6 agent who seeks revenge against “M”. In his way, the actor’s performance was just as colorful. However, I do not think I will ever consider him to be one of my favorite Bond villains. I found his performance a little too showy and not very original for my tastes.

Naomie Harris was in fine form as MI-6 agent “Eve”, who turned out to be the iconic Miss Moneypenny. I really enjoyed Harris’ performance, but I have something to say about her transformation from field agent to secretary. Bérénice Marlohe did the best she could with the small role of Sévérine, a former victim of the sex trade who became Silva’s representative and mistress. Ben Whishaw was a ball as a young and geeky “Q”, who seemed more like a computer hacker, instead of an arms quartermaster. Both Ralph Fiennes and Rory Kinnear gave solid performances as Intelligence and Security Committee Chairman Gareth Mallory and Bill Tanner, “M”‘s Chief of Staff. And Albert Finney gave a lively and entertaining performance as Kincade, the gamekeeper of the Skyfall estate that belongs to Bond.

But despite its positive attributes, in the end I found “SKYFALL” very disappointing. And I believe the movie’s main problems could be found in the script written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan. The movie began in Istanbul with Bond and Moneypenny attempting to get their hands on the list of undercover NATO agents that had been stolen from another MI-6 agent. Unfortunately, the movie never explained how a field agent ended up with such a list on his laptop hard drive in the first place. Some fans have dismissed this plot hole, claiming it would have been unnecessary for the script to explain such a situation. I am sorry, but I refuse to dismiss it. For me, it does not make sense that a field agent stationed in Istanbul would have such a list in the first place. Only unusual circumstances could explain this situation . . . and the screenplay refused to do so.

The screenplay also failed to explain why Silva waited so long to go after the NATO agents on the list Patrice stole for him. A certain period of time had passed between the incident in Istanbul and the bombing at MI-6. What took Silva so long to go after those agents? And did “M” or the British government ever bothered to alert NATO that some of their agents were exposed? Judging by the ease Silva killed some of the agents, I gather not. I also found Silva’s plans regarding his revenge against “M” rather convoluted. From what I gathered, he wanted to humiliate her before he can kill her. If it was that easy for him to bomb MI-6, why did he have to resort to allowing himself to be captured by Bond, in order to get close enough to kill her? He could have flown to the U.K. and killed before Bond or anyone else was able to guess he was behind the debacles that dogged “M” in the movie. And how did he know she would be appearing before a public inquiry on the very day he busted out of MI-6’s new quarters?

I also found Bond’s efforts to save “M” very questionable. One, how did Silva managed to track Bond and “M” to the former’s Scottish estate so easily? Were Bond and “M” wearing tracking devices? Did Silva use their cell phones? How? And if Bond had expected Silva to track them, why on earth did he not recruit back up to help him? If Silva had men to help attack “M” at the public inquiry, surely Bond must have realized that the former MI-6 agent would have help in Scotland. Instead, Bond relied upon the aging Kincade. I do not know who to charge with incompetence – the Bond character or the writers that created this scenario. Speaking of Skyfall, the sequence there featured two graves with the names of Bond’s parents, Andrew and Monique Bond. One might ask “what is wrong with that?” This would have been fine . . . if Purvis, Wade and screenwriter Paul Haggis had not re-written Bond’s past in 2006’s “CASINO ROYALE”. In that particular movie, Tresury agent Vesper Lynd accurately surmised that Bond was a middle-class or working-class orphan, whose education had been financed by a wealthy benefactor. In “SKYFALL”, the writers used Bond’s literary background. In other words, his father came from the Scottish landed gentry and his mother, from Switzerland. So . . . what happened to the background established in “CASINO ROYALE”? Did EON Productions rebooted the franchise for a second time, during Craig’s tenure? If so, I find this very sloppy on the writers’ part.

Before “SKYFALL” was released in U.S. movie theaters, I came across a few articles on the Internet, claiming that the movie might be less sexist than the previous Bond films. They cited the expanded role of “M” as an example of this more politically correct portrayal. After seeing “SKYFALL”, I realized that this opinion of a more feminist friendly movie is a joke. This movie has set the portrayal of female characters in the Bond franchise back at least forty to fifty years . . . back to characters such as Honey Ryder, Jill and Tilly Masterson, Tiffany Case, Solitaire, Andrea Anders and Mary Goodnight. Here is a look at the four female characters featured in this movie:

*Clair Dowar MP – Helen McCrory portrayed the Member of Parliament who led the inquiry into “M”‘s leadership of MI-6. It was bad enough that McCrory portrayed the character as a screeching harpy. But during the inquiry, she was interrupted by Gareth Mallory, who “suggested” in a patronizing manner that she cease her rants and allow “M” to talk. And she did! Why on earth did the screenwriters allowed Mallory to get away with such behavior to a MP? The script should have allowed Dowar to order Mallory to shut his hole and continue her rant, before allowing “M” to speak. But no. . . the all knowning male, Mallory, is allowed to shut her up in a very patronizing manner.

*Sévérine – Bérénice Marlohe, who portrayed Raoul Silva’s mistress, claimed she was inspired by Famke Janssen’s portrayal of “GOLDENEYE” villainess Xenia Onatopp. Honestly, I do not see the resemblance. Onatopp was a badass and slightly psychotic former fighter pilot and killer. Marlohe’s Sévérine simply struck me as a world weary woman who turned out to be nothing more than a bed warmer for Bond and a long time sex toy and tool for Silva. One, she barely lasted longer than a half hour in the film. Two, Bond had sex with her, despite guessing that she used to be a part of Asia’s child sex trade. Even worse, he failed to consider that sex with her would endanger her life. But he screwed her anyway in a rather . . . tasteless scene and Silva ended up shooting her like a dog. In the end, I realized that Sévérine reminded me of all those female Bond sacrificial lambs, whom Bond got to screw before they got bumped off. Marlohe was really wasted in this movie.

*Eve Moneypenny – Poor Naomie Harris. I realize that as the new Miss Moneypenny, she will have a job with the Bond franchise, as long as Craig continues to portray 007. But honestly, the screenwriters really screwed her in this film. Are audiences really supposed to believe that her character was unsuited to be a field agent, after the debacle in Istanbul? After all, she told “M” that she did not have a clean shot, before the latter ordered her to take it. Yet, upon Eve’s reunion with Bond in London, he tries to undermine her self-esteem by claiming she was unsuited for such a role. And then . . . what happens? Eve is assigned to assist Bond in Macau and ends up saving his life. Later, she held herself well during Silva’s attack against “M” at the public inquiry. Yet, near the end of the film, she informs Bond that he was right and decided to leave the field and become a secretary. A fucking secretary? This is how EON Productions set up Moneypenny for the Craig tenure? Not once did the film ever really indicated that Moneypenny had any difficulty over what happened in Istanbul. I felt really insulted after that last scene between Bond and Moneypenny.

*“M” – “SKYFALL” was supposed to be Judi Dench’s swan song in the role of Head of MI-6, after seventeen years. And this was EON Productions’ idea of a send off for Dench? Transforming her character into an incompetent boob? They had her character making mistakes left and right. Even worse, they reduced this “strong woman” into a useless and helpless female, who needed Mallory to come to her defense during MP Dowar’s rant against her and Bond to save her from Silva. And yet . . . if she was really that incompetent, how is it that she was the only one who figured out that a former MI-6 was behind their troubles? If the portrayal of “M” was supposed to be an example of a proper female hero, EON Productions can keep it.

There were other aspects of “SKYFALL” that left me feeling disappointed. I am a great admirer of Adele as a singer. But honestly? I have no memories of the movie’s theme song performed by her. The song simply went into one ear and out of the other. I also noticed that certain moments in the film showcased Craig posing in a standing position. In other words, he usually stood in one spot – whether at the bow of the boat delivering him to the Macau casino, next to Sévérine at the bow of Silva’s yacht, on a hill overlooking his family’s estate or on the rooftop overlooking the London skyline – feet apart and well dressed. Here is an example of that pose:

31

Before the movie ended, I could not tell whether I was watching a James Bond action film or a photo spread from a“GQ” magazine.

Ah . . . EON Productions. You really disappointed me this time. I had bought all of the claptrap about this being one of the best James Bond movies in years. Looking back, I now realize that Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson had overreacted to some of the negative press over “QUANTUM OF SOLACE”, which I actually enjoyed despite its flaws. The fans could not deal with a dark and grim follow-up to “CASINO ROYALE”, and the two producers reacted by delivering a movie that could not make up its mind on whether it was a grim espionage tale or a typical Bond fantasy adventure. It tried to be both and failed in the end . . . at least for me.

FRANCHISE RANKING: The “HARRY POTTER” Movies

Below is my ranking of the eight movies in the “HARRY POTTER” movie franchise, based upon J.K. Rowling novels:

FRANCHISE RANKING: The “HARRY POTTER” Movies

1. “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” (2004) – During his third year at Hogswarts, Harry becomes acquainted with creatures called the dementors and a past mystery regarding his parents and an escaped prisoner by the name of Sirius Black. Alfonso Cuarón directed.

2. “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I” (2010) – In this first half adaptation of Rowling’s final novel, Harry and his friends begin their search of the Horcruxes, objects that contain parts of Lord Voldemort’s soul. They are also forced to evade the evil wizard’s forces as the latter assume control of the wizarding world. David Yates directed.

3. “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” (2007) – David Yates directed his first HARRY POTTER movie in which Harry Potter and his friends deal with the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, Dolores Umbridge. They also become acquainted with the Order of the Phoenix, an old organization revived to deal with the new threat of Lord Voldemort.

4. “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” (2002) – Harry Potter returns to Hogswarts for his second year, when the school is beset by a strange monster with a link to the school’s Chamber of Secrets. Directed by Chris Columbus.

5. “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s (Philosopher’s) Stone” (2001) – Harry Potter is introduced into the world of magic for the first time as he enters the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Chris Columbus directed.

6. “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” (2009) – During Harry’s sixth year at Hogswarts, he is assigned to discovered the deep secret of the new Potions teacher and stumbles across a mysterious Potions book labeled the property of the Half-Blood Prince. Romance also fills the air. David Yates directed.

7. “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II” (2011) – In this continuation of “THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART I”, the three heroes, along with the staff and students of Hogswarts have their final confrontation with Lord Voldemort and his Death Eaters. Directed by David Yates.

8. “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” (2005) – Harry is manipulated into participating in the Triwizard Tournament as a last minute contestant. Mike Newell directed.

“HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part II” (2011) Review

 

“HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part II” (2011) Review

When I had first learned that Warner Brothers Studio and the producers of the HARRY POTTER franchise planned to divide the series’ last novel into two movies, I had harbored strong doubts against this plan. Then I saw “HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART I” and my doubts were erased. I thought for sure that they would be able to pull this off. And after watching the last movie in the movie . . . I have changed my mind again. 

Directed by David Yates, “HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART II” picked up where “PART I” left off – with the trio seeking refuge at Shells Cottage, the home of the recently married Bill and Fleur Weasley. Despite this, Harry Potter, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger continue their search of horcruxes, a group of objects that Lord Voldemort used to store his soul in order to ensure his immortality. After conversations with wand maker Mr. Ollivander and a goblin and Gringotts bank employee named Griphook, the three friends travel to the bank in London to get their hands on another horcrux, stored there by Deatheater Bellatrix Lestrange. After destroying the horcrux – Helga Hufflepuff’s cup – the trio is betrayed by Griphook, before they make their escape from Gringotts and London via a dragon imprisoned in one of the bank’s vaults. Harry, Ron and Hermione eventually make to Hogsmeade. They are briefly offered refuge by Albus Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth, at the latter’s tavern. Neville Longbottom arrive and lead the trio to Hogswarts Castle. Before long, the school’s inhabitants are engaged in a major battle against Voldemort and his Deatheaters.

As much as I had enjoyed “DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART I”, I now realize that it had ended too soon. By ending the 2010 movie with Dobby the House Elf’s death (along with Voldemort’s discovery of the Elder Wand), screenwriter Steve Kloves was left with the Gringotts Bank sequence before allowing the Battle of Hogswarts to take over the rest of the movie. And if I must be honest, I found this heavy emphasis on the battle very disappointing. The film’s title should have been“HARRY POTTER AND THE BATTLE OF HOGSWARTS”, instead of the “DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART II”.

There were scenes in “DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART II” that I enjoyed very much. Severus Snape’s death and memories of his past proved to be just as poignant as portrayed in the novel. Alan Rickman probably gave his best performances in the entire franchise. And he was ably supported by the likes of Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon and Daniel Radcliffe. Another sequence that I enjoyed featured Harry’s discussion with Albus Dumbledore in the afterlife, following his “death” at the hands of Voldemort. It was another poignant scene made enjoyable by performances from Radcliffe and Gambon. The kiss exchanged between Ron and Hermione was very memorable – especially in comparison to the slightly disappointing kiss shared between Harry and Ginny. I also enjoyed the sequence featuring the Malfoys’ (Jason Isaacs, Helen McCrory and Tom Felton) ultimate rejection of Voldemort in order to preserve their hides.

However, I have two favorite sequences from the movie. One featured the trio’s confrontation with Draco Malfoy and his two friends – Gregory Goyle and Blaise Zabini. Thanks to Yates’ direction, Mark Day’s editing and the visual and special effects teams, this was an exciting sequence. But my favorite is the Gringotts Bank sequence in which the trio attempts to find the horcrux stored in Bellatrix Lestrange’s personal vault. Again, the crew did wonders with this sequence, which was capped by an exciting escape on the back of an imprisoned dragon. This last scene really blew my mind and I believe that Yates and the crew really outdid themselves. The sequence also featured a first-rate performance by Helena Bonham-Carter, who had to portray Hermione . . . impersonating Bellatrix. The actress deserves a Saturn Award nomination for that scene alone.

But as much as I had enjoyed the above mentioned sequences, “HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART II” proved to be a disappointment for me. My main problem with the film is that it fulfilled my worst fears about the movie – it nearly became all about the Battle of Hogswarts. The movie brought back bad memories of the Battle of Helms Deep in “LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS” and the two major battles featured in “LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING”. The photography shot by cinematographer Eduardo Serra not only reignited bad memories of the second and third “LORD OF THE RINGS” movies, but also “HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE”. The movie’s photography possessed that grayish tinge that I found very unappealing. I also recall one scene in which Neville Longbottom found himself facing a large number of Voldemort’s combatants at the end of the castle’s bridge. I never realized there were that many Death Eaters in the Harry Potter universe. It looked . . . exaggerated. As much as I like Neville, I found the entire sequence featuring the hunt for Voldemort’s pet snake and horcrux, Nagini and Neville’s killing of it very contrived. Yes, I am aware that Neville did kill Nagini in the novel. But I do not recall Rowling resorting to contrived delay tactics featuring the attempts to kill the snake. By the time Neville killed Nagini – seconds before Voldemort again used the Elder Wand on Harry with fatal results – I realized that I no longer cared. While everyone else cheered, I rolled my eyes in disgust.

For me, the worst aspect of “DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART II” was that it failed to continue the strong narrative that began in “PART I”. I got the feeling that screenwriter Steve Kloves, along with Yates, decided to dump the story’s narrative by the wayside and focus at least 85-90% of the film on that damn battle. “DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART I”introduced a hint of some kind of scandal in Albus Dumbledore’s past. This was apparent in Harry’s conversation with Elphias Doge and Molly Weasley’s Aunt Muriel at Bill and Fleur’s wedding. In “PART II”, the trio met Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth Dumbledore, who made ominous hints about the late headmaster’s dark past. But this storyline, which had a lot do with how Dumbledore came into possession of the Elder Wand (one of the Deathly Hallows), was dropped the moment Neville made his first appearance. The jettison of this storyline also robbed moviegoers and Harry on the lessons of desire for power . . . and the fact that respected idols and authority figures also have feet of clay. And it seemed to make Ciarán Hinds’ appearance in the movie a complete waste of time.

Speaking of wastes of time, if you blink, you might come across some of the franchise’s past supporting characters who barely uttered a sound or two in this film. The movie featured appearances by Emma Thompson (Sybil Trelawney), Jim Broadbent (Horace Slughorn), Gemma Jones (Madam Pomfrey), Mark Williams (Arthur Weasley) and Miriam Margolyes (Professor Sprout). At least Julie Walters had her moment in the sun, when she killed Bellatrix Lestrange. Gary Oldman and David Thewlis (Sirius Black and Remus Lupin), along with Geraldine Sommerville and Adrian Rawlins (Lily and James Potter) had a line or two to spout, when Harry used the Resurrection Stone. Audiences also learned that Lupin had become a father . . . as an afterthought. In the novel, the Slytherin students had refused to defend the castle. I had hoped that Kloves would reverse Rowling’s narrative and have them take part in the school’s defense. Instead, Kloves’ script had Minerva McGonagall order all of the Slytherins to be locked in the dungeon before the battle. How disappointing, considering Snape and Slughorn’s willing participation in the war against Voldemort. By the way, I saw that Dean Thomas made it to Hogswarts before the trio. In “PART I”, he was reported on the radio to be on the run from Snatchers. Why did he decided to return to the dangers of Hogswarts . . . before the battle?

I have another question . . . when did Harry realize that he had become the Master of the Elder Wand? Following Voldemort’s death, he told Ron and Hermione that Draco Malfoy became Master of the Elder Wand, when he disarmed Dumbledore in the Astronomy Tower in “THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”. Harry became the master when he disarmed Draco at the Malfoy Manor in “PART I”. How did he find out? He had overheard Voldemort’s conversation with Snape in which he learned that one has kill the current Elder Wand master in order to become one. How did Harry find out that one can also become master by the disarming of a wand?

Earlier, I had stated that “DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART I” should have ended a little sooner – with the Snatchers’ capture of Harry, Ron and Hermione. I usually dismiss other people’s attempts to rewrite movies already filmed and released. But now, I find myself doing the same. After watching “PART II”, I realized that if “PART I” had ended with the trio being captured by the Snatchers, “PART II” could have featured the Malfoy Manor sequence, Dobby’s death and the Gringotts Bank sequence before the film moved on to the Hogswarts battle. I would have also preferred if Kloves had allowed Mr. Ollivander to reveal more about the Elder Wand; and Aberforth Dumbledore to reveal more about his older brother’s past.

I wish I could say that I enjoyed “HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART II”. I really do. I enjoyed “PART I” a lot. And there were scenes in this last film that really impressed me. But as a whole, this last movie in the franchise proved to be one of my biggest disappointments from the summer of 2011. Pity.

“HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” (2010) Review

“HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” (2010) Review

I have been a major fan of J.K. Rowling’s ”HARRY POTTER” novels as much as the next person. But I would have never become a fan if it had not been for the movie adaptations of the novels. Mind you, I have not harbored a high opinion of all the movie adaptations. It has been a mixed bag for me over the past nine years. Of the seven movies that were made, I have a high opinion of at least four of them. And the most recent movie – ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” – happened to be one of them. 

I never thought I would think highly of ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I”. When I had heard that Warner Brothers planned to split Rowling’s seventh novel into two movies, I did not think it was a good idea. And I felt it was an attempt by the studio to get as much profit from Rowling’s saga as much as possible. Being a steady fan of the franchise, I went ahead and saw . . . and thanked my lucky stars that the movie had not been shot in the 3-D process. Not only did I develop a high opinion of ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I”, I fell in love with it. Considering the number of complaints I have heard about the movie, I suspect that many would be surprised by my opinion. But I did. I fell in love with that movie. And considering the detailed nature of Rowling’s novel, the decision to make two movies from it may have done justice to Steve Kloves’ screenplay.

Directed by David Yates, ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” told the story of Harry Potter and his two close friends – Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger – and their efforts to elude Lord Voldemort and his Deatheasters throughout Britain, after the latter assumed control of the wizarding world following Albus Dumbledore’s death in ”HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”. Not only did Harry, Ron and Hermione do their best to elude Voldemort and the Deatheaters; they had to find and destroy the remaining horcruxes – objects or receptacles in which Voldemort had hidden parts of his soul for the purposes of attaining immortality. Harry had destroyed Voldemort’s school diary in ”CHAMBER OF SECRETS”. And before the start of ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”, Professor Dumbledore had destroyed another – Marvolo Gaunt’s ring. There remained five horcruxes for the trio to find and destroy. But as fugitives within Britain’s wizarding world, their task proved to be difficult.

As I had stated earlier, I ended up falling in love with ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I”. But this feeling did not blind me to its flaws. And it had a few. One, what happened to Dean Thomas? For the first time in the saga’s history, he had a bigger role. At least in the novel. He failed to make an appearance in this adaptation. Mind you, his lack of presence did not harm the story. But it would have been nice for Harry, Ron and Hermione to encounter at least one fellow Hogswarts student (other than Luna) during their adventures. And poor Dean Thomas had been sadly underused since the first movie. Two, I wish that director David Yates and editor Mark Day had chopped some of the scenes featuring the Trio’s ”Winter of Discontent”. I could understand that the three friends would endure a great deal of despair over their situation and the state of the wizarding world. However . . . was it really that necessary to endure so many shots of Harry, Ron and Hermione staring into space, looking depressed? These scenes nearly bogged down the movie’s middle section. The Dursleys barely made a presence in this movie. Worse, Kloves had decided to delete Harry and Dudley’s goodwill good-bye. Who became the new owner of Sirius Black’s home, Number 12 Grimmauld Place, following his death? Since ”THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” movie failed to clear the issue, I had hoped this movie would. It never did. I had also hoped that ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” would clear reveal the identities of the two other horcruxes that were revealed in the sixth novel – Helga Hufflepuff’s Cup and Rowena Ravenclaw’s Diadem. The only thing that Kloves’ script did was mention that the Trio did not know about the cup, the diadem and two other horcruxes.

Despite these annoyances, I still love ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I”. The only HARRY POTTER movie that I love more is 2004’s ”HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN”. There had been complaints of the movie’s dark tone. Personally, this did not bother me one bit. In fact, I reveled in the story’s darkness. Other HARRY POTTER have ended on a dark note. But the story’s dark tone was not only well handled in Rowling’s novel, but also in Kloves’ script. Why? Because it suited the story. Aside from the ”Winter of Discontent” sequence, the rest of the pacing for ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” was well handled by Yates and Kloves. The movie also featured some outstanding sequences. Among my favorite were the following:

*Lord Voldemort’s murder of Charity Burbage at the Malfoy Manor.

*The Order of the Phoenix escort Harry to the Weasleys’ home, the Burrows.

*Harry, Ron and Hermione’s escape from Bill and Fleur’s wedding at the Burrows to London.

*The attack upon the Trio by two Death Eaters at a London café.

*The Trio steal Salazar Slytherin’s locket from Dolores Umbridge at the Ministry of Magic.

*Ron’s departure from Harry and Hermione, following a vicious quarrel between him and Harry.

*Harry and Hermione’s narrow escape from Godric’s Hollow.

*Ron’s reunion with Harry and Hermione and his destruction of Salazar Slytherin’s locket (a horcrux).

*Xenophilius Lovegood’s (and Hermione’s) narration of Peverell brothers and the Deathly Hallows.

*Dobby’s rescue of the Trio, Luna Lovegood and Mr. Ollivander from the Malfoy Manor.

Of the above scenes, at least three of them stood out for me. One of those scenes was the quarrel that broke out between Harry and Ron during the ”Winter of Discontent”. I found it ugly, brutal and emotional, thanks to the performances of the three leads. They really made this scene worked and for the first time; it occurred to me that Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson had really grown in their skills as actors. Hell, in this scene, they gave the best performances in the movie. Another scene that really stood out was Xenophilius Lovegood’s narration of the bleak tale regarding the Peverell brothers and the three Deathly Hallows (the Elder Wand, the Resurrection Stone and the Cloak of Invisibility). What made this sequence unique was that it was shown via some visually stunning animations designed and directed by Ben Hibon. But the one scene that really impressed me was the Ministry of Magic sequence that featured the Trio’s retrieval of Salazar Slytherin’s locket from the odious Dolores Umbridge (now head of the Muggle-Born Registration Commission). From the moment that Harry, Ron and Hermione used Polyjuice Potion to transform into three workers from the Ministry of Magic (Sophie Thompson, David O’Hara and Steffan Rhodri), until their escape via apparition; the entire scene was a fabulous ride filled with tension, humor, chaos and adventure. I would rate it as one of the best sequences in the entire saga.

I had already commented on the marvel of the three leads’ performances. For once, Radcliffe, Grint and Watson were the ones to give the most outstanding performances; instead of a supporting cast member. But there were other excellent performances. One came from Tom Felton, who continued his ambiguous portrayal of Hogswarts student Draco Malfoy that began in ”THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”. Another came from Ralph Fiennes, who gave a better performance as Lord Voldemort – especially in the opening sequence at Malfoy Manor – than he did in both ”THE GOBLET OF FIRE” and”THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX”. In fact, I could say the same about Helena Bonham-Carter, who seemed less over-the-top and a lot scarier than she was in her previous appearances. Rhys Ifan was deliciously entertaining as Luna Lovegood’s equally eccentric father, Xenophilius. And I have to give kudos to Sophie Thompson, David O’Hara and Steffan Rhodri did a great job in conveying their adolescent characters (Hermione, Harry and Ron) through body language – especially since the three leads added their voices. And in his few scenes, Alan Rickman was his usual superb self as the enigmatic Severus Snape. A good example of how ambiguous he could be can be seen in the sequence featuring the death of an old friend of Snape’s – Charity Burbage. All you have to do is look at Rickman’s eyes and face.

Considering that this tale has no choice but to end happily in ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part II”, I could assume that”Part I” might prove to be the darkest movie in the HARRY POTTER. On the other hand, Yates and Kloves might prove me wrong. But despite a few flaws, I believe that ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” is one of the best movies in the franchise. I have not truly enjoyed a HARRY POTTER this much since ”THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN”. And I can thank director David Yates, screenwriter Steve Kloves; and the three leads – Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. Excellent job, guys. Excellent job.

“HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” (2009) Review

Below is my review of the new HARRY POTTER movie called ”Half-Blood Prince”. Directed by David Yates, the movie starred Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson and Sir Michael Gambon:


”HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” (2009) Review

When the producers of the latest installment of the HARRY POTTER movie franchise had announced their intentions to push back the movie’s release date from November 2008 to July 2009, a relative of mine had expressed disappointment. My own disappointment was muted by the possibility that the movie required further retakes for improvement. After finally seeing”HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”, I am beginning to wonder if any retakes had ever been made.

Judging by my words, one would assume that I harbor a low opinion of ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”. Well . . . that person would be right. Because I do have a low opinion of the movie. I am almost inclined to declare ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” as the worst HARRY POTTER ever made. But I believe that it would receive stiff competition from 2005’s ”GOBLET OF FIRE” for that particular title.

Not all of ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” seemed terrible to me. One, the movie can boast some of the best acting featured in the entire franchise. Director David Yates seemed to have gone through a great deal of trouble to draw out some excellent performances from the cast. I was especially impressed by Rupert Grint’s lovesick Ron Weasley; Jim Broadbent as the new Potions Master, the eccentric and slightly selfish Horace Slughorn; Michael Gambon as a frighteningly vulnerable Albus Dumbledore; Jessie Cave as the Ron-infatuated Lavender Brown; the always superb Alan Rickman as Severus Snape; and Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy. I was surprisingly pleased by Felton’s performance as a Draco who found himself recruited by Lord Voldemort to carry out a special task involving Hogswarts and Dumbledore. Felton’s past performances seemed to have been an exercise in adolescent hammy acting that was usually accompanied by sneers. For once, Felton portrayed Draco as a complex individual who may have gotten himself involved in something that was over his head, instead of a caricature of a school bully.

The movie also featured some rather memorable moments for me. Bruno Delbonnel’s photography and John Richardson’s special effects really shone in a sequence that featured the Death Eaters’ kidnapping of wand maker Mr. Ollivander (John Hurt) and attack upon one of London’s bridges. I also enjoyed the humorous scene that featured Slughorn’s introduction into the story. And from an emotional point of view, one of my favorite scenes centered on a quarrel between Hermoine Granger (Emma Watson) and Lavender over a hospitalized Ron, recovering from a love potion and poisoned mead meant for Dumbledore. But my two favorite scenes happened to be Harry and Dumbledore’s encounter with inferi inside a seaside cave; and also Bellatrix Black Lestrange (Helena Bonham-Carter) and Narcissa Black Malfoy (Helen McCrory)’s visit to Snape’s home in Spinner’s End. Although some fans have dismissed the inferi shown in the film as ineffective, I found them creepy. Especially when they attempted to claim Harry’s body for themselves. Dumbledore’s fiery solution to their threat proved to be breathtaking. As stated earlier, my other favorite scene featured the Black sisters – Bellatrix Lestrange and Narcissa Malfoy – visiting Snape’s home. Not only did I enjoy how Delbonnel’s photography captured the gloomy and rain-soaked atmosphere of Spinner’s End, I also enjoyed the tense interactions between Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham-Carter and Helen McCrory when the sisters managed to coerce an “Unbreakable Vow” from Snape in order to protect Draco.

As much as I had enjoyed the above aspects of ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”, there was a great deal about the film that disappointed me. One of the main problems I had was the movie’s pacing. How can I put it? It was too damn slow! I cannot think of the numerous times I nearly fell asleep or squirmed in my seat out of sheer boredom. Perhaps the movie had emphasized too heavily upon the love lives of Harry and his friends and not enough on both Lord Voldemort’s past and the identity of the Half-Blood Prince. Even worse, the movie not only left out scenes important to the saga’s main narrative, but inserted scenes that proved to be irrelevant to the story. I will begin with those scenes featured in the novel, but not in the movie.

Considering that the name of this particular story was ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”, I found it odd that screenwriter Steve Kloves had placed such a small emphasis on the title character’s Potions book discovered by Harry. Moviegoers saw Harry use the book to win Slughorn’s favor during Potions class. And in one scene, Kloves allowed Hermoine to express annoyance at Harry’s use of the book. Moviegoers even saw Harry briefly spot the Sectumsempra spell before using it in a duel against Draco. But the movie never hinted any real effort by the friends to discover the real identity of the Half-Blood Prince, as they had done in the novel. And Snape’s identity as the owner of the book seemed to have come out of the blue near the end of the film. Nor was it ever mentioned that his witch mother’s surname was Prince. Hell, that Potions book almost became an afterthought in the film.

I also found myself annoyed that the movie only featured two flashbacks or memories of Voldemort’s past – one in which Dumbledore first met the eleven year-old Tom Riddle, and the second in which Horace Slughorn told an older Tom about horcruxes. As any fan of the HARRY POTTER franchise knows, a Horcrux is a “receptacle in which a Dark wizard has hidden a part of his soul for the purposes of attaining immortality.” With part of a wizard’s soul thus stored, the wizard becomes immortal so long as the Horcrux remains intact. For this reason, Horcruxes are typically hidden in a safe location. The literary version of ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” allowed Harry to learn about the objects that Voldemort had converted into Horcruxes via the memories of others who had met the dark wizard. In the movie, Harry only learned that the diary he had destroyed in ”THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS”, Salazar Slytherin’s locket and Marvolo Gaunt’s ring were Horcruxes. I can only wonder how Yates and Kloves will reveal the identities of the other Horcruxes in the two ”DEATHLY HALLOWS” movies. What exactly are the seven Horcruxes that Voldemort had created? They are:

*Harry Potter – Dumbledore realized that the boy wizard was a Horcrux right before his death
*Nagini – Voldemort’s pet snake seen by Harry in his dreams about Voldemort in ”GOBLET OF FIRE” and ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX”
*Tom Riddle’s diary – destroyed by Harry in ”CHAMBER OF SECRETS”
*Marvolo Gaunt’s ring – found and destroyed by Dumbledore in ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”
*Salazar Slytherin’s locket – taken by Regulus Black and substituted with a fake
*Rowena Ravenclaw’s diadem – unbeknownst to anyone
*Helga Hufflepuff’s cup – unbeknownst to anyone

The movies have only revealed the following Horcruxes to the audience – Harry, Nagini, Tom’s diary, Gaunt’s ring and Slytherin’s locket. Of the five, the movies have either skimmed over or never revealed the origins of the ring and the locket. Nor has ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” bothered to reveal how Voldemort got his hands on Ravenclaw’s diadem or Hufflepuff’s cup. Without any additional scenes featuring Voldemort’s past and with Dumbledore dead, I am curious to see how Kloves will allow Harry, Ron and Hermoine will learn about the diadem and the cup in the two”DEATHLY HALLOWS” movies.

There are other deleted scenes that disturbed me. Audiences had learned in the first story,”SORCERER’S STONE” that Snape had coveted the position of Defense Against the Dark Arts instructor for years. Yet, when he finally assumed the position, the movie never gave audiences a glimpse of his tenure in this position. Also, Dumbledore did not put Harry in a body-binding curse and hide him underneath his invisibility cloak. Instead, Harry is instructed to hide when Draco and the Death Eaters make their appearance in the Astronomy Tower, and do nothing. I really cannot see Harry following these instructions. Even if Dumbledore had made them. Even worse, Yates and Kloves also left out the battle between the Death Eaters and the Order of the Phoenix, after the former managed to infiltrate Hogswarts’ grounds. Either the director or the producer had claimed they did not want to repeat themselves, considering a similar battle will be featured in ”DEATHLY HALLOWS II”. But audiences will not be able to see this in another two years. I really see no reason why they could not have included this. It made no sense that the aurors posted at Hogswarts would not eventually become aware of the Death Eaters’ presence, especially with Bellatrix Lestrange whooping it up inside the school’s Great Hall. In fact the entire finale left me feeling disappointed. Not only did Kloves and Yates include a scene that featured Dumbledore instructing Harry to hide inside the Astronomy Tower, they deleted Dumbledore’s funeral, yet included a scene in which the students and faculty at Hogwarts had gathered around Dumbledore’s body before paying homage to the dead wizard by lighting up their wands. Let me go on record in stating that this whole ”We Are the World”moment left me rolling my eyes in disgust.

And speaking of inserted scenes, I have noticed several others that were included in the film. One scene featured a flashback with Harry and Dumbledore emerging from the Ministry of Magic, following the battle that resulted in Sirius Black’s death in ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX”. I can only assume that the flashback was meant to hint Harry’s continuing grief over his godfather’s death. And yet . . . aside from a brief mention by Horace Slughorn, there was no further mention of Sirius. The filmmakers had decided to add this scene, yet did not bother to add a sequence featuring Harry’s inheritance of the Blacks’ home at Number 12, Grimmauld Place and their house elf, Kreacher. A plot point that would prove to be very important in the upcoming ”DEATHLY HALLOWS”. Another scene featured Harry at a neighborhood café, where a pretty waitress manages to catch his attention before Dumbledore made his appearance. Was this scene supposed to be a foreshadow of the adolescent soap operas that permeated a great deal of the movie? Or Harry’s own libido? Well, the topic of Harry’s libido was first approached in ”GOBLET OF FIRE” and continued in ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX”, through his relationship with Cho Chang (Katie Leung). In other words, I found both the Ministry of Magic flashback, and café scene irrelevant to the story. Both could have easily been replaced with Harry learning about his inheritance from Sirius. Yates and Kloves also decided to include a scene featuring the Death Eaters attacking and burning the Weasleys’ home, the Burrows, during the Christmas holidays. My question . . . why bother? What purpose did this scene serve other than to include an action sequence in the movie? Neither Ron, Ginny or Harry seemed disturbed by the event following their return to Hogwarts. In fact, audiences never learned where Molly and Arthur Weasley were staying following the fire. And in the end, the sequence only robbed more potential screen time from the more important horcrux storyline.

Another aspect of the movie’s story that annoyed me turned out to be the Vanishing Cabinet that Draco used to smuggle Death Eaters inside Hogwarts Castle. Now, I am well aware that the Vanishing Cabinet played a major role in the story. But Kloves and Yates took it too far. In other words, they gave away the mystery surrounding Draco’s actions before they could surprise the moviegoers. While still in London; Harry, Ron and Hermoine managed to eavesdrop on Draco interacting with the owner of a Knockturn Alley shop called Borgin and Burkes. And instead of following Rowling’s example by maintaining the mystery behind Draco’s actions until near the end of the story, Kloves’ screenplay continuously hinted Draco’s intentions and the cabinet’s magic properties before the finale at the Astronomy Tower. In my opinion, Kloves and Yates could have maintained the mystery, leaving enough time to explore the horcrux storyline via memories of Voldemort.

Although I found myself impressed by the acting featured in the movie, I had a problem with three of the characters. One of the characters I had a problem with happened to be Cho Chang (Katie Leung), Harry’s girlfriend in ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX”. Or should I say a lack of Cho Chang? What happened between Harry and Cho? ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX” never bothered to bring closure to Harry and Cho’s story, after he and Hermoine discovered that Cho had been forced to expose Dumbledore’s Army thanks to the Veritaserum (truth potion) forced upon her by Dolores Umbridge. I had expected to see such closure in ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”, but it never materialized, much to my disappointment.

I also had a problem with the characterization of Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright), as well as the Harry/Ginny romance. I just want to say that Bonnie Wright is not to blame. She has shown in the past – namely in ”GOBLET OF FIRE” that she is quite capable of portraying Ginny as J.K. Rowling had written her – a lively and sardonic girl, whose outgoing personality made Harry feel relaxed. And then came ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX” and David Yates. In both the fifth film and this one, Ginny seemed quiet and . . . dull. Well, at least two scenes in ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”gave Wright a chance to portray a lively Ginny – one that featured the Quidditch tryouts for the Gryffindor team in which she managed to get everyone to shut up, and the Room of Requirements scene that led to her first kiss with Harry. There were times when I suspected that Yates had a view of Ginny as the quiet type and that it seemed to be at cross purposes with Rowling’s portrayal. As for the Harry/Ginny kiss in the Room of Requirements . . . meh. I am not certain if they actually kissed or simply touched lips. Harry’s kiss with Cho in ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX” seemed more memorable. Either Daniel Radcliffe found Katie Leung more attractive than Bonnie Wright or . . . you know what? I do not know. I just was not that impressed by the kiss.

Last, but not least, there is Evanna Lynch’s performance as Luna Lovegood. In my ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX” review, I was very critical of Ms. Lynch’s portrayal of Luna. I thought she came off as too unemotional for my taste. And two years and one movie later, her performance has not improved one whit. I hate to say this about the Irish actress, considering that she is such a major fan of Rowling’s book series. I hate to say this, considering that everyone else seemed to think that she is perfect. I simply find it hard to accept this prevailing view of her performance. Ms. Lynch does not strike me as a talented actress. I’m sorry.

I might as well be blunt. Although I found cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel’s photography of the Death Eaters’ attack upon London and the Spinner’s End sequence impressive, I hated the rest of his work. I hated that he had decided to use a dark, washed-out tone for the movie, similar to what Roger Pratt had used in ”GOBLET OF FIRE”. For some reason, there seemed to be this idea that in order to convey the story’s darker tone, the film had to look similar to the second and third movies from the ”LORD OF THE RINGS” trilogy. And I am not that fond of those two movies. I also hated both Yates and Delbonnel’s decision to emulate ”LORD OF THE RINGS” again by shooting Dumbledore’s fatal fall in the same manner that Gollum’s death was filmed in ”Return of the King”. I found the whole scene rather cheap, worthy of another eye roll.

I wish I could say that I loved ”HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”. I wish I could say that I even liked it. I will admit that I enjoyed a few scenes featured in the movie. And I certainly felt impressed by the cast’s performances. But . . . I feel that screenwriter Steve Kloves and director David Yates made some major mistakes with the movie’s plot by leaving out scenes and storylines that were necessary to drive the saga’s main plot. And even worse, they inserted scenes that were not in the novel and – at least to me – irrelevant to the plot. Nor did it help that the movie crept at a pace that nearly put me to sleep, halfway into the film. Honestly? The filmmakers of the HARRY POTTER franchise could have done better than this.