Movie Review: Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince

(This review contains spoilers not only for this film but for the remaining of the series, and anyway I’d prefer it to be read after you’ve seen the movie.)

I paid eight bucks for this for the first time in more than a year of free screenings, and I’ll stand by my previous Order Of The Phoenix-based opinion that David Yates is as useful to the franchise as a wet matchstick. It was not a waste of money per se, since the Harry Potter movies are something I would throw money at just to see it in crazy cinema scale and dim lighting, but other than that I think I’d take a minute to mourn for the last two movies led also by this uninspired, boring turd of a director. It seems that Yates hasn’t realised that in a cinema, cameras have the ability to capture more than the 4 by 3 of a TV screen. Given a Confundus Charm I would have led Alfonso Cuarón (director of Prisoner of Azkaban, my favourite of the movies) into directing the rest of the series, and even then he would’ve done a better job in his confused state.

A lot of people are commenting on how Yate’s movie was a faithful adaptation, about how you can’t ask for more, really – and I understand that it would be a foolish thing to ask to have the entire book made into a movie verbatim. But consider this: were the romances SO important to the plot? The way I see it, Harry Potter is three-quarters action and adventure, and only one-quarter romance comedy. Heck, most of the story’s comic relief came in the form of Ron’s insensitive remarks and the Weasley twins. What Yates did was to eliminate the natural, seasoned humour of the twins, and turn Ron into some romantic cheeseball – a role I felt Rupert Grint wasn’t as comfortable with. Also a few-second glimpse of the twin’s joke shop does not compensate the fact that they didn’t crack a single joke throughout the 2.5 hour movie. The twins are so well-loved that removing their humour just doesn’t feel right. And while I’m at it, what the hell happened to Neville? I’m sure readers would know by now that he plays a significant role in the ending, yet here he is in this movie, reduced to being a waiter at Slughorn’s party.

But my greatest gripe with the film is its lack of focus on all things important, and its unnecessary, drawn out scenes with everything else secondary in the books. Yates just HAD to focus on the romantic sub-plot, didn’t he? This wouldn’t be particularly bad had the actors been good at sexual tension and all that, but one gets the feeling that Ginny was cast without much thought in the first movie, and it’s only now that Bonnie Wright has massive shoes to fill because J. K. Rowling decided she would be the Chosen One’s girlfriend. So because recasting is awkward and disruptive, they stuck with Wright and gave her a kissing scene with Harry. Now, this one kiss is important and crucial, almost like the Everest of Romantic Sub Plots, so its existence is inevitable, but what’s with the excessive touching between Harry and Ginny? What’s the point of drawing attention to the film series’ weakness – the young casts’ inability to act properly? Sure the actors have come far and improved, but it is still silly to tango with scenes calling for a certain standard of acting, particularly scenes that aren’t that important. It’s like refusing a short cut… and then looking silly for it.

Next up – the severe lack of focus on Dumbledore’s death. HELLO KNOCK KNOCK IT’S HIS FUCKING DEATH. What, you can give Lavender Brown 20 seconds to draw a heart in her condensed breath, but can’t let Dumbledore have a longer death scene, with some emotional build up and crowd-reaction scenes? The last time I felt this unsatisfied by a character’s death was Sirius’s one, which was really Rowling’s fault. Oh, I know, it must be because wrinkled old men aren’t entitled to extra seconds. I’m no cinematographer or director, but one shot of Dumbledore falling off the tower, and the next a close-up of his dead face? I’m seeing a movie I made in my imagination when I first read the book, and am certain that a wide shot would have had a greater impact. Dumbledore’s frail body, such a tiny speck in the surrounding area. Also I was not completely happy with Gambon’s utterance of his final words (“Don’t. Don’t.” Something like that.). I know I’m digressing but I imagined much more fear when he was saying this to Snape. Because, you know, it was all an act to make Snape seem like a heartless traitor. And for the first time, I did not agree with Rickman’s delivery of Snape’s “Aveda Kedavra”. It was without the ferocity that Snape usually unleashes on Harry, and despite the fact that killing Dumbledore was all part of the plan, you’d think that Snape-Rickman would try to be more convincing at wanting to murder Dumbledore. The only good thing that came out with the whole tower scene was surprisingly Tom Felton, because I was actually quite touched by his delivery of Draco’s, “I have no choice. I have to kill you… because if I don’t… he’ll kill me.” line. Not word for word of course, but it was a moment of great acting and I could never take Draco seriously with his OTT sneering.

Ok, I got carried away, sorry. This is an abrupt end to my rant because I feel like I’ve more or less mentioned everything I wanted to say, and said it in a long, long breath. I’d still recommend for people to watch it, but I wouldn’t blame them should they walk out unimpressed. That said I’m looking forward to and will pay to see the last two films of the last book in cinemas, despite them being directed by a dud.

P.S. Did anyone notice the Chinese New Year lanterns in one of the posters and in a scene? What’s up with those, anyone know?

4 YA fiction books better than Twilight

I know that if you’re a fan of the series, the last thing I should do is to belittle your shitty taste in literature. (If you’re not a fan, fucking good for you!) But since you’re a fan, I don’t exactly respect your tastes anyway, so belittling would be a natural reaction.

There’s a reason why Twilight and its red-and-black-themed brethren aren’t recommended reading by schools. Well, look up. Do you see an angel descending from the heavens, scowling in distaste yet aiming right for you? That’s me, bitch. I’ve come to save your sorry little soul from the evil clutches of Bad Authors. Here’s a list of books you should be reading for your own redemption.

Unwind by Neal Shusterman

From the jacket: In a society where unwanted teens are salvaged for their body parts, three runaways fight the system that would “unwind” them.

Connor’s parents want to be rid of him because he’s a troublemaker. Risa has no parents and is being unwound to cut orphanage costs. Lev’s unwinding has been planned since his birth, as part of his family’s strict religion. Brought together by chance, and kept together by desperation, these three unlikely companions make a harrowing cross-country journey, knowing their lives hang in the balance. If they can survive until their eighteenth birthday, they can’t be harmed — but when every piece of them, from their hands to their hearts, are wanted by a world gone mad, eighteen seems far, far away.

Why it’s better than Twilight: Whereas Twilight was all “Kissmekissmekissmemememe Edwaaard!”, Neal Shusterman knows what it means to balance sexual tension with action and circumstance. I personally don’t qualify Twilight as being particularly good at the subject of sexual tension, because Bella and Edward are described making out every tenth page or so. If you’re into cheesy romance, fine. If you like a book that demands you to read between the lines, a book that doesn’t spoon feed you the details, read Unwind… and feel the love/lust amid all the danger. Because of the danger. I’m serious.

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins (Hunger Games Trilogy, Book 1)

From the jacket: Katniss is a 16-year-old girl living with her mother and younger sister in the poorest district of Panem, the remains of what used be the United States. Long ago the districts waged war on the Capitol and were defeated. As part of the surrender terms, each district agreed to send one boy and one girl to appear in an annual televised event called, “The Hunger Games.” The terrain, rules, and level of audience participation may change but one thing is constant: kill or be killed. When Kat’s sister is chosen by lottery, Kat steps up to go in her place.

Why it’s better than Twilight: I shudder to even compare these two books. Between Twilight and The Hunger Games is a vast plain so huge, the distance would make the circumference of the Sun look tiny. The Hunger Games is fear, death, pain, brutality, survival and teaser romance, basically The Condemned and Battle Royale put together and injected with steroids. Oh, and they’re also accomplishing the same results with kids below the age of 18. Twilight is death, and… sucking. See the difference?

Writer’s note: They’re making this into a movie.

Everlost by Neal Shusterman (yeah, again!) (Skinjacker Trilogy, Book 1)

From the jacket: Nick and Allie don’t survive the car accident…but their souls don’t exactly get where they’re supposed to get either. Instead, they’re caught halfway between life and death, in a sort of limbo known as Everlost: a shadow of the living world, filled with all the things and places that no longer exist. It’s a magical yet dangerous place where bands of lost children run wild and anyone who stands in the same place too long sinks to the center of the Earth.

When they find Mary, the self-proclaimed queen of lost kids, Nick feels like he he’s found a home. But Allie isn’t satisfied spending eternity between worlds. Against all warnings, Allie begins learning the “Criminal Art” of haunting and ventures into dangerous territory, where a monster called the McGill threatens all the souls of Everlost.

Why it’s better than Twilight: It’s a book with much more imagination and creativity put into it than what Meyer bothered to do for Twilight. Shusterman’s take on the afterlife is wild and original, where souls of the dead can’t die yet are still exposed to many different kinds of dangers… things worse than death. Things that don’t end because souls can’t die again, so they end up getting trapped for eternity. Now tell me what’s so great about a vampire that sparkles in the sun, can’t get fried, and can only be killed by a beheading? Oh wait, not just a beheading, right? The stump needs to be burnt or something? Point is, there is not much danger involved. And characters are flat if you don’t care enough for them except to use them in sexual fantasies. Meyer seriously underestimated the power and importance of fragility and sacrifice here. Being invincible is cool… up to a certain point only. I’d like to think of it as the nail in the coffin of her writing career.

Writer’s note: They’re also making this into a movie.

The Amulet of Samarkand by Jonathan Stroud (The Bartimaeus Trilogy, Book 1)

From the jacket: Nathaniel is eleven years old and a magician’s apprentice, learning the traditional arts of magic. All is well until he has a life-changing encounter with Simon Lovelace, a magician of unrivaled ruthlessness and ambition. When Lovelace brutally humiliates Nathaniel in public, Nathaniel decides to speed up his education, teaching himself spells way beyond his years. With revenge on his mind, he masters one of the toughest spells of all and summons Bartimaeus, a five-thousand-year-old djinni, to assist him. But summoning Bartimaeus and controlling him are two different things entirely, and when Nathaniel sends the djinni out to steal Lovelace’s greatest treasure, he finds himself caught up in a whirlwind of magical espionage, murder, and rebellion.

Why it’s better than Twilight: I’m sure this won’t be the first time you’ll hear someone complain about how mechanical Stephenie Meyer’s narration is. It’s grammatically correct, but lifeless and without voice (also another reason why the Harry Potter books are better). Stroud breathes sarcastic, mischievous personality into Bartimaeus the djinni, and the three books of the trilogy have been written with footnotes – the djinni’s own commentary on every page it narrates. Notice I say “it narrates”, because the book isn’t entirely all from the djinni’s POV. This is my only gripe with the book, because he is a much more colourful character than Nathaniel, although Nathaniel has his own darker traits. Still, this book has my recommendation, and Stroud’s view of magic is a different world from the Potter universe, and I can appreciate its originality.

Writer’s note: Also being made into a movie. It’s like Hollywood decided to let someone else better do the storytelling.

Hiatus.

I’m going on a break. No more reviews until I can watch movies again without being reminded of my job. Or ex-job. Which, did I mention, I left with utmost glee? I won’t start bitching about it, and I never thought I’d live to see the day that has me saying “OMFG Halp!” from an overload of movies, but yeah, there can be too much of a good thing.

I may occasionally return to upload super short rants about movies, but without the free screenings anymore you can expect reviews to slow to a trickle. I will also be busy with school, so that’s that.

Go read the archives or something. But just so you know, I appreciate you reading the stuff I write.