Harry Potter e o Enigma do Príncipe

Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince sets a couple of milestones in the film series. Harry and sidekicks Hermione and Ron are coming a bit late into puberty which is understandable considering all the adventures they've had. But they're now starting to see what the opposite sex is all about.

Helping them along is an old colleague that Dumbledore has brought back to the Hogwarts one Professor Slughorn, a new character into the Potter saga played by Jim Broadbent. Slughorn (how I do love J.K. Rowling's use of Dickensian names in the Harry Potter series) is a master of potions and of course when you talk potions, it's love potions that are most in demand. But they do have only a short term effectiveness and at least one of the trio gets overdosed on it. And the cure almost kills as well.

The Half Blood Prince also provides us with some insight into the life of the younger Lord Voldemort back when he was a Hogwarts student named Tom Riddle. Broadbent and he bonded back in the day and that's why Dumbledore wants him back.

The Half Blood Prince keeps up the high standard of film making that the Harry Potter series is known for. It even got a nomination for Cinematography from the Academy. Broadbent is a nice addition to the Hogwarts stock company even if only for the two remaining films in the series.

No sense telling you to see it, you probably have and enjoyed same.

Let me say this. Half Blood Prince as a movie alone was very good. It stands it's ground as a film better than any of the others of the series. But only as a film. And only because there are so many parts to a film. This installment obviously stepped everything up a notch: the cinematography, the special effects, the darker score, the improved acting, etc... But the key element which was boosted this franchise into world-class fame, is the story. And in this one, it's just not there. As a fan of the books and having had no SERIOUS gripes with any of the other films, I must say i HATED the screenplay for this one. Everything that made the book amazing was ripped from the film, and instead replaced by annoying large quantities of romantic subplot. Yes, there is romance in the sixth book but not shoved down your throat. JK Rowling masterfully crafted a novel that was perfectly balanced. The romance was there although it didn't detract from the main plot and at times was intertwined with the larger goings-on at hogwarts. In the movie the romance takes up most of the screen time. Not to mention the ending of the film was brutally butchered.

So much time could have been detracted from the silly romances to focus on more important things which were completely ommitted or deliberately changed. The ending is extremely anti-climactic and once it's over it'll leave you in your seat thinking "it's over?"

My final gripe with this movie is that it really should have been PG-13. If you've read the novel then you know the subject matter is MUCH darker and the story would have been done greater justice with just a higher rating(and a better screenwriter, yes i'm looking at you Steve Kloves).

Overall as a movie i'd give it an 8 out of 10.

But as a HARRY POTTER movie it gets 4 out of 10. And that's pushing it.

Well heres to 2010 to see how they screw up the finale. Oh wait, they already did. I didn't know there were 8 years at hogwarts...

I have always been a big fan of Harry Potter, both the books and the films. Half-Blood Prince is my favorite of the first 6 books, and now I can say that the film is as well. First off, the film does cut a lot of things out. It cuts some of the Horcruxes that are talked about, and some of the memories of Tom Riddle, but even without them, this is an incredibly powerful film. The opening sequence I loved and I was glad that the writers would include such a scene. It shows the danger of the world that everyone lives in now that Voldemort is back. David Yates is back directing the 6th film after the fantastic Order of the Phoenix, which I thought he created a much more moodier and grittier Harry Potter adaptation. In Half-Blood Prince, Yates directs with much larger confidence and maturity, one that is shown much throughout the film. This Potter film is the first to actually make me smile and laugh along with it. It has a lot of whimsical, light and genuinely funny moments, which I thought were brilliant and stayed true to the book. When the film requires it to, it gets darker and more menacing, which I also thought was balanced very nicely with the tone of the book. I like judging the Harry Poter films more as films, not always as adaptations. There will always be some people who are disappointed, but I am grateful for the things that were in the film, that they were well-made and stayed true to what I imagined while reading the book. This film succeeds in that. Steve Kloves is a very talented writer, to cut all those things out of the book but for it to stay with that same tone that J.K. Rowling marks on them.

What helps this film are the performances to a great extent. The adult cast as always is great. Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman, and Helena Bonham Carter all deliver high-worthy performances. They should all be considered for Oscar consideration come the end of the year. The young cast is brilliant. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson have all grown very comfortably into their characters, and they know their strengths and weaknesses. Bonnie Wright also becomes more important in just the right time, since she is also very good as Ginny. Evanna Lynch is fantastic again like in the last film. The young kids playing Tom Riddle are spot-on. But the biggest surprise for me had to be Tom Felton. His character is more important here than in the other films, but Felton really was masterful. He portrays everything about Draco Malfoy that was intended by Rowling: his fear, his anger, his remorse. Malfoy is in a very dark place, and Felton goes up and beyond what I would have expected from him. The strongest of the young cast.

The other aspects of what make this film brilliant are the technical aspects of course. The cinematography must be what is most amazing. It is so well-done, captures every shot right and with powerful meaning behind it. The different color textures and lighting really are beautiful. Also, Some truly amazing shots in this film. Like always, the set designs are wonderful. The visual effects are strong, but not to a point that they detract from the film. If the Academy does not recognize at least the technical side, then what can they recognize?

Overall, I simply loved Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Yes, the ending was shorter here than in the book, but I thought it still worked well, and certainly not anti-climactic. The death was very well done, and I thought was handled better than in Order of the Phoenix (while still a great film, lacked the emotion for Sirius dying). The ending was perfect, left me feeling sad and happy at the same time, and cannot wait for Deathly Hallows! The best Potter film yet.

Darker than ever, Lord Voldemort has been revealed in the 'Order of the Phoenix'. The forces of darkness are gathering strength. Fear has spread throughout the wizard world. Harry Potter is now investigating Voldemort's plans through his old teacher Professor Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent).

Director David Yates returns and will for the remainder of the series. It has a more serious tone. The teenage love drama is heating up especially for Hermione and Ron. It comes to a head in this one in a satisfying melodrama.

The reveal of Voldemort's plan is a bit confusing. More effort is needed to explain what a Horcrux is. A scene with Voldemort creating one of the Hocrux would solve the problem. For the big death climax, the action is rather lacking. It needs more drama. I'm reminded of 'Empire Strikes Back'. In that movie, the big scene gets the most iconic treatment. Something like that is needed here. But it still works while following the book. That's probably more important.

It's a real shame that I could never give a film featuring Harry Potter the status of a perfect film. Each tale relies so heavily on those that came before or after that one can never be a truly all-encompassing work. Sure, the three-act structure can be utilized, but without the background info, nor the knowledge that more will be coming, watching a middle installment alone will leave you confused and disorientated. The reason I bring this up is the fact that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is good enough to warrant the praise and to put the idea in my head about whether to call it a masterpiece. The tone is perfect, the laughs are many, the darkness is charcoal black—how could this be the same director as the abysmal—in comparison to the rest of the series—Order of the Phoenix, David Yates? Two words … Bruno Delbonnel.

Who is Delbonnel you may ask? Well, he is the brilliant cinematographer behind the camera. I may have blamed the failures of the fifth film on its screenplay as Steve Kloves was glaringly absent, (he being the writer of each other film, including this new one), but a film is a team effort. Therefore I guess maybe I shouldn't put all the accolades on one man now; I just feel absolutely compelled to do so because so many moments linger in my mind due to the beauty of their composition and use of their environments to stay interesting and exciting at all times. Visually, you cannot be bored. It just goes to show that it is never the director alone, but also the team he or she brings along. I like Yates and was surprised at how much I disliked his first foray in the Potter universe, granted, I felt the book itself was sub-par at best. Thankfully, he did not disappoint with his second of three, (make that four as book seven goes to a two-part finale), because, as it was with the novels, Half-Blood Prince is by far the best of the series—until Deathly Hallows of course. And adding the pedigree of a guy like Delbonnel, with films such as Across the Universe, A Very Long Engagement, and Amelie in his back pocket—all stunning works of art—only makes his job easier.

I can't get over the use of close-ups throughout, or the multiple instances of framing used to hide something on screen. Oftentimes, the camera pans or cuts to reveal something in the fringes, to highlight the focal point when it's not centrally located, or literally move our eyes to exactly where the filmmakers want them to be. The blocking is superb with some scenes blurring the edges and keeping only our main object of interest in focus, timing and positioning executed with aplomb. And did I mention the close-ups? (Yes, I know I did.) One sequence, with Harry and Ginny running through a field of tall grass after intruding Death Eaters, is shot with a high speed pan to keep the characters crisp as the foliage darts and blurs in their wake. I'd be remiss not to mention the special effects as well, especially when dealing with the black smoke trails from Voldemort's flying goons as well as the wispy pensieve. Whether completely computer generated or practical dye clouds in water, the effect is pitch perfect, even dissolving each memory in sections, leaving important pieces, like young Tom Riddle, to be lingered on just a second longer than the rest.

As for the leads, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson are solid as usual, (Radcliffe showing some solid comedic chops after taking luck elixir), and Rupert Grint's Ron Weasley gets some room to break free. But it is the supporting roles that deserve notice. Helena Bonham Carter will scare children, so kudos to her, and Michael Gambon's Dumbledore will win even more hearts as his leader finally allows Potter into the inner circle of the plan to rid the world of Voldemort, it now being a circle of two. It is newcomer Jim Broadbent, however, as Professor Slughorn who steals the show. Broadbent is known for his many comical expressions and his rubber face is utilized to great effect here. A blowhard and man with many "friends", his jubilant smile and need to collect powerful and famous wizards for his Slug Club are ever-present, bringing some levity as well as effectively hiding the dark secret that lies beneath.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince succeeds in the details. It is an exercise in minimalism and showing only what is necessary to the plot. Condensing the novel better than ever done before, Kloves has given Yates the tools to make a film and not just a visual representation of the words. What had previously been done best by Azkaban's Alfonso Cuaron, this one works better at retaining more subplots and not stripping it quite so bare. Subtle hints are planted so no longwinded exposition is needed to make us, as an audience, feel stupid and lectured to. Instead Yates and crew allow us to show our intelligence and ability to use our eyes and memories to piece things together, making the experience more enjoyable as we believe we are solving the mysteries and not the director who is skillfully guiding us through. I'd say it couldn't get better than this, but my confidence in Yates has been renewed and my hopes that Deathly Hallows is treated with respect is at one hundred percent, so who knows what the future has to offer?