It's back. Swishing wands, flying broomsticks and one absolutely beautiful castle - it can only be Harry Potter.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the sixth instalment in the series that follows the triumphs and travails of Harry and his friends as they struggle against the evil Lord Voldemort and his fiery Death Eaters. It is, of course, based on the celebrated books by J K Rowling and if there is anybody left alive who hasn't heard of Harry Potter then they really ought to have their eyes and ears examined because it must be one of the greatest entertainment franchises in history.
For director David Yates, it must have been at once the easiest of films and the most difficult of films. The easiest because commercial success was guaranteed; when approached to direct the first Harry Potter film, Steven Spielberg described it as like 'shooting ducks in a barrel. It's just a slam dunk. It's just like withdrawing a million dollars and putting it into your personal bank accounts. There's no challenge.' The most difficult because of the expectations of the fans, comparisons with the films that have gone before, and the unappealing task of squeezing a great, sprawling novel into two or three hours of film.
Mr. Yates must have found it difficult to know where to start, and so in this review, do I. However, when it doubt a quick exposition of the plot will usually answer, so here we go (no spoilers for this film, but may reveal endings of earlier books and films in the series).

The Plot
Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is now in his sixth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, along with his best friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson).
All is not well in the wizarding world. The Dark Lord, Voldemort, has returned to his full strength and has reassembled his Death Eaters around him. Together they aim to exterminate wizards who do not have "pure" wizarding blood (that is to say, those whose ancestors don't possess magical powers). Harry and his friends oppose this evil nonsense, and are allied with the 'Order of the Phoenix' who aim to instead bring down Lord Voldemort and return the wizarding world to peace. Prophecy predicts that Harry and Voldemort must dual each other, with each of them being the only one who can break the powers of the other.
The film begins with some impressive cinematography as some Death Eaters wreak havoc over London, including destroying the Millennium Bridge. We also see Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) making an 'unbreakable vow' with a Death Eater to protect Harry's arch-rival Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) and to help the latter with the mission given to him by Voldemort. The loyalties of Snape are a key plotline throughout the whole series of films, as he is both a Death Eater and a member of the Order of the Phoenix, with both organisations thinking that he is an agent working for them. Where do his true loyalties lie? Does he have the power to lead Harry to the clutches of Voldemort, or vice-versa?
The plot is a little disjointed, but one of its focal points is the new potions master, Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), a vain and slimy if good-willed individual who headmaster Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) suspects knows some vital information about Lord Voldemort's past. Dumbledore tasks Harry with discovering this information, but Harry is at a loss as to how he will go about it. Will he succeed? And what will it reveal if he does? Harry also has newly-discovered talents at Potions (previously one of his least strong subjects) thanksto a battered old textbook he discovers in the potions cupboard that has numerous scrawls on how to improve potions. The book belonged to the 'Half-Blood Prince', but Harry can't discover that person's identity and he dismisses Hermione's concerns as mere jealously that he is now out-excelling her in potions. Who exactly is the 'Half-Blood Prince', and how does this fit in with the rest of the plot?
The other main focus of the plot is the question of what exactly Draco Malfoy is up to. Harry is convinced that Malfoy is now a fully-fledged Death Eater, but everybody else thinks that this is nonsense. Harry observes Malfoy in the 'Borgin & Burkes' shop of dark wizardry and frequently observes him wandering the corridors of Hogwarts in the dead of night. What exactly is he up to? Harry is convinced that Malfoy is behind two apparent assassination attempts on Dumbledore, but then again Harry so often lets his hatred cloud his judgement. Is he right or wrong this time? And if he is wrong, then who is behind these attempts on Dumbledore's life?
Finally, this film departs from the previous instalments in the series by giving much greater prominence to romantic subplots. It is clear to all that Ron and Hermione share a mutual attraction, but with Ron involved with the infatuated Lavender (Jessie Cave), will it all end in tears? And Harry is clearly discomforted by the sight of Ron's sister, Ginny (Bonnie Wright) enjoying the company of Dean Thomas (Alfred Enoch), but will he pluck up the courage to do anything about it? It is with this eclectic mix of threads that the film races towards its conclusion. How will all these questions be answered in such a short space of time? You will have to watch the film to find out.

The Screenwriting and Directing
I immensely enjoyed J K Rowling's Harry Potter books. When I first read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone I read it in one sitting, and then went out and immediately bought the next three books in the series that had up to that point been released. The remaining books in the series I pre-ordered, and read within a day or two of their release.
To be honest, I don't really understand why I enjoyed them so. They are certainly a long way from my usual field of reading, and I usually find modern children's books shallow and frustrating. Harry Potter isn't like that, the books are suffused with gentle humour (the names of characters and places are genius), the characters are charming and credible, and the whole Harry Potter universe is wonderful fantasy, not merely in the sense of being paranormal, but also in the sense of being somewhere that you would want to be. Who doesn't want magic powers, after all?
It has been a mighty task then, to take the books to the big screen. The 'feel' of a film is a joint effort between the screenwriter and the director, and the 'feel' of the Harry Potter films has certainly changed very much as the series has progressed. All of the films except for one (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) have been penned by Steve Kloves, but the role of director has changed many times, from Chris Columbus for the first two films, Alfonso Cuaron for the third, Mike Newell for the fourth, and David Yates directing both the fifth film and the current instalment.
Some commentators have posited that the frequent changes of director have created a disjointed series, but I would argue that instead they have helped the films to move with the changing tone of the books. For while the early films are childish and fun, with almost cartoonish special effects in places (the flying car in the second film is a case in point), the later films are darker, more mature, and focus in more detail on the central characters.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince on screen continues this development towards darker, more character-driven films. Where the focus strays away from dark, tense action, it heads towards the romantic entanglements of the central characters rather than the lessons, exams, detentions and interactions with teachers that provide the staple fair of the early films. Even quidditch, the ball-game played on broomsticks that is heavily featured in all the books, barely gets a look-in in this film.
This change in focus is in many ways a disappointment. Yes, it demonstrates that aging and maturing of the Harry Potter characters, but the plot never goes anywhere near the realities of teenage life; there is not even the lightest reference to anything more intimate than kissing, so we will never know if there is a contraceptive spell, or whether witches get unwanted pregnancies just like real-life teenagers. When the plots of Harry Potter are focussed on magical lessons, mischief-making and schoolboy (and schoolgirl) rivalries, then there is less of a 'realism gap', because the plotlines are so 'way out there' that no question of realism arises.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince lacks 'charm' when compared with previous instalments. It simply isn't as much fun. The film is much darker than earlier films, with tense soundtrack underscoring a generally uneasy atmosphere, with Death Eater attacks and other action providing some scary moments that get the audience jumping with surprise and chewing their fingernails with nervousness. The diverting moments of magical frolicking are too infrequent for my liking and when they do arrive they are either too miserable (frustrated romance) or too slapstick. Indeed the latter, the more childish moments of humour, seem very much out of place in the film, and leave you wondering if the director and screenwriter have tried to do too much.
The plot is very disjointed, with various focuses that don't really seem to come together, or things happening without enough explanation. We see Draco Malfoy wandering about the castle, but we don't have any serious discussion among the characters as to what he is up to. Expository dialogue is a mainstay of both the books and of the early films, and it really could have helped to fill in some the gaps here. It would also have helped to anchor the action more firmly within the school year, again as in both the books and previous films. There is mention of Christmas and there is snow on the ground in some scenes, but there is really little intimation of the passage of time, something that could have been done quite easily with a series of quick shots of lessons (maybe with plants growing in Herbiology, etc.).
It is understandable that the script for the film must alter significantly from the books, for there simply isn't enough time in two or three hours to recreate every scene, every sub-plot from the book. And in any case, a different medium necessarily requires different priorities; a film must recreate every scene visually, whereas a scene in a book is limited only by the imagination of the reader (and of course will fit the individual preferences and prejudices of each reader). However, the screenwriting here really does try to alter too much unnecessarily. The worst example of these is the addition of a Death Eater attack on the Weasley's house, which is completely unnecessary to plot development, which raises a great many questions about why and how it occurred, and which features the characters reacting in slightly daft ways. It attempts to create tension, but is in fact slightly comic, and the screen time would much better have been filled with some more normal interaction between the characters at a nice Christmas scene, with some useful dialogue to develop the characters and help to tie together the disparate plot.
The screenwriter does have a particular difficulty with this film, and indeed will have with adapting the final novel of the series, because Rowling's books themselves become more difficult. Even in the books, the increasing maturity of characters and their world-saving feats sit increasingly uneasily with the essentially childish fantasy world. And as the characters become more adult, it becomes more difficult to suspend belief and go along with the strangeness. Can you imagine the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe working as a book (or indeed film) if it was a group of sober adults who stumbled through the wardrobe? It is almost as if child characters enable us to regain our childhood imaginations, but adult characters force us back into adulthood ourselves.
The cast and the acting
Harry Potter films have always been notable for the strength of their peripheral cast, with the three lead actors causing rather more debate as to their qualities. One strength of the franchise has been the remarkable consistency in the cast throughout all of the films to date; even the most peripheral of the cast (some who are barely more than extras) have barely changed at all over the films.
Of the three leads, Daniel Radcliffe who plays Harry has been the weakest throughout the series. He just seems a little bit wooden and slightly too stereotypical in his acting-school shocked expressions and sighs. In the books, Harry Potter has a lot more life to him. Unfortunately he hasn't improved his game in the Half-Blood Prince, and it is doubtful whether he can. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, who play Ron and Hermione respectively, are much more natural actors and bring a lot more humour and tension to the films. In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince they do particularly well at portraying their romantic interests and emotional difficulties that ensue. The flowering of Emma Watson as a stunningly beautiful young woman is bound to get a few more male bums on cinema seats over the coming months.
In the supporting roles, Jim Broadbent's depiction of Horace Slughorn is wonderfully creepy. It finds the perfect point of humour without falling into farce or hampering or distracting from the plot. Helen Bonham Carter gives a similarly delightful performance as Bellatrix Lestrange, a terrifying, deranged portrayal of one of Voldemort's Death Eaters. Among the other main supporting roles Sir Michael Gambon continues to be outstanding as Dumbledore, Robbie Coltrane is so good that he 'is' Hagrid in my mind, Alan Rickman continues to chill as Snape and young Tom Felton takes his portrayal of arch-villain Malfoy to a whole new level, no longer the archetypal bully but instead a deeper and more troubled character.
The only disappointment is Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley (Ron's younger sister), who has a much greater role here as Harry's love interest. She originally appeared in the first film of the series with a small role, and that was perhaps more fitting to her talents. She is plain, wooden and lifeless, which may explain why Daniel Radcliffe's Harry is attracted to her, since they seem to share these unfortunate traits. Perhaps this is one case where they should have changed the actor halfway through the series, is it too much to hope for that Warner Bros. might rectify this situation before the final film?
There are other supporting actors in very minor roles, often who have had greater roles in earlier films, and these are generally performed very well. The likes of Julie Walters, Dame Maggie Smith and Timothy Spall continue to add weight to the production, even if their on-screen roles are small.
Suitability for children
Traditionally Harry Potter films have been children's films, but the Half-Blood Prince is darker and scarier. It is rated 12A, which is probably suitable rating, but is certainly suitable for children under 12 according to parental discretion.
The Harry Potter universe has always been a parent's dream, with a distinct lack of swearing, sex, drugs and general realism. This doesn't change in the sixth film, with exception of one usage of 't*sser' that I probably only noticed because it seemed so out of place. The development of romantic plots doesn't lead to anything more than a bit of French kissing, which is hardly going to shock or corrupt children, though it may embarrass them or leave them giggling!
The only reason it may not be suitable for very young children (and this is where the parental discretion comes in) is because it is definitely scary in places. This is both in terms of the sudden 'makes you jump' sort of action and also in terms of the depiction of evil characters and magical creatures (corpses rising from a lake near the end of the film are particularly scary).
I've no doubt that most children from the age of 7-8 upwards will enjoy this film; it has plenty of action and has some moments of humour that are directed particularly at the younger audience. They may struggle to follow the plot though, since it is in so many parts, so do be prepared to explain things to them afterwards!
DVD
This review is posted under the DVD heading (following the example of others), but obviously the DVD is yet to be released. It will be released in the UK on 7 December 2009 (handily in time for Christmas stockings) and as yet I can't find any indication of extras that will be included.
Naturally I will update this part of the review as and when I watch the DVD.
Conclusion
I've enjoyed the whole Harry Potter franchise, and the film of the Half-Blood Prince is no exception. It had plenty of action, some good humour, and was a good way to spend a little over two and a half hours (running time is 153 minutes to be precise). Nevertheless I was disappointed by the disparate nature of the plot and the screenwriting that removed some of the magic, both literally and figuratively. The acting was generally excellent but Daniel Radcliffe as Harry continues to let the side down. It is a film that is suitable for a wide audience and is likely to be enjoyed by most.

There's really two ways that you can look at this film - either as an adaptation of JK Rowling's novel or as a free-standing family fantasy film that's part of a series. Either way you look at it though, this film scores heavily.

As a reader and lover of the books this film is very much what I've been wanting to see since Dan Radcliff first donned a pair of wire-rimmed specs and had a lightning-bolt scar painted on his forehead. 'Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince' is one of the shorter books in the series and yet the film is one of the longest. Why? Quite simply, because, this is by far and away the most accurate and faithful adaptation of the works of JK Rowling we've seen to date. Certainly it is true that the pruning shears have been wielded and a number of sub-plots, and even entire characters, have been lost but this is the first time that I've left a Harry Potter film not feeling disappointed by the things and amount that had been cut.

So, looking at this as a film, it would be fair to say that there are some real high points to this, most notably the performances given by the cast. This is a film that has strong performances from top to bottom which results in a film with emotional light and shade in a way that none of the previous films in the series have done. Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith (as Professors Dumbledore, Snape & McGonagall respectively) are all well established and truly comfortable in their characters and, meaning this as a tribute rather than a criticism, at times come across more as teachers than wizards & witches. Helena Bonham-Carter seems to be having an absolute blast as the evil and deranged Belatrix Lestrange but, for me, the star adult performance comes from Jim Broadbent as Professor Horrace Slughorn. He captures the combination of the oily collector of star pupils with the hollow emptiness of faded glory and the guilt of having set 'He Who Must Not Be Named' on the path to his perceived immortality with such aplomb that it wouldn't surprise me to see a nomination for a best supporting actor Oscar for Mr Broadbent if this weren't a family oriented blockbuster with an almost exclusively British cast. As it is, he'll just have to satisfy himself with the warm feeling of a job well done in that he turned in a performance that stood him above some of the most proficient of his peers alive and working today.

Of the 'child' actors, although they're now young adults rather than children, there has been significant growth from all - not just physically but in terms of their abilities as performers. The central three characters continue to shine although now they have truly been joined by Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy. Tom does an excellent job of conveying the emotional pressures and stresses Draco is under as the Death Eaters 'man on the inside' at Hogwarts, desperately trying to bring the Dark Lord's plans to fruition. The fact that he manages to make Draco (to date always the thoroughly un-likeable rotter/bad guy) a character worthy of sympathy is an indication of just what a good job he does. That said, the man of the match has to be Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley. Often criticized in the press as being the ginger one that pulls faces as screams a lot in previous films, here he shines and despite the growth as performers in both Emma Watson and Dan Radcliffe, Rupert steals the show.

As a film this does a fantastic job of capturing the rampage of teenage hormones through the already established relationships of the Hogwarts alumni. I'm sure that there will be criticisms that this is a film that is light on plot and serves only to gather together some of the plot lines from previous films in the series and set the scene for the grand finale and, to a point, those criticisms are not unfounded. That said, that was also very much the case with the book and no blame can be laid at the feet of Steve Kloves (the writer of the screenplay) who, for the most part, has done a spectacular job - both in the work he's done adapting 'Half Blood Prince' and in convincing Warner Bothers that the finale (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) will need to be made as a two part film to do it justice.

If I were to lodge any criticisms they would be that, at times, the pace of this film seems to be a little off in that we spend time on one aspect of the story before rushing headlong into the next making things feel a bit stop-start on occasion. The other criticism would be that the issue of horcruxes was glossed over a little too much. We got a thorough understanding of what they are and even an insight as to how they're created but the significance of the number of them and the importance Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort gave to the objects that he turned into his horcruxes was very much glossed over - something that surprised me bearing in mind the relevance of these points to the finale of the story; even more so given the fact that the last book has been finished and the screenwriters know what's coming up rather than in previous films where, while working from a position of having privileged information, they were, to a greater or lesser extent, as much in the dark as the rest of us as to how it was all going to turn out.

Still, those quibbles aside, this is a film that takes its place in the series with style and grace. It employs special effects which are so good that you simply forget that they're not the result of the magic of Harry Potter's world (the Death Eater's destruction of the Millennium Bridge is particularly good), is crammed with rock solid performances from some of the greatest British actors ever to set foot onto a stage, brings together numerous plot lines left hanging from previous films (not least of which is the question of who will Harry, Ron & Hermione wind up with from a relationship point of view) and leaves us drooling in anticipation for the big Harry Potter vs Lord Voldemort showdown on which the fate of both the wizarding and muggle worlds rests.

With a 12A rating, which is fully deserved, this film may be a bit on the scary side for younger audience members but then they're likely to be with parents/adults when they see this so everything should be fine from that point of view. The only other warning I would make is that this film makes no apologies whatsoever to those who have not read the books or seen the previous films. If you have seen the films or read the books then expect to be thoroughly entertained. If, however, you've got no prior experience with Harry Potter then expect to be completely lost and confused as back stories etc are taken as read and there's little or no preamble to even point you in the right direction. This is not a failing or a criticism, it's just the way it is - one can't expect to walk into a serialized story at part 6 of 7 (or 8 if you count Deathly Hallows Pt 1 & 2 as separate entities) and expect to have everything that's gone before spelled out for you again, after all this isn't a James Bond film where each story very much stands on its own. No, this is the sixth instalment in the story of Harry Potter and, viewed in that light, is one of the best films in the series. My only problem now is that I can't decide what I'm looking forward to more, 'Half Blood Prince' being released on DVD/Blu Ray or 'Deathly Hallows' being released in the cinema.