Harry Potter and the half blood prince

[cinemabon]

This will be the first film of the year with a 100% cream of the crop rating. I have tickets for the midnight show, which is sold out. Having read all seven novels to my son in character, we are excited to see the first midnight show togther as "adults."

Review to follow...

[cinemabon]

Harry Potter and the half-blood prince by David Yates

The perfect teen coming-of-age film this summer has arrived. The Hogwarts wizards have run smack dab into puberty and fallen head over heels in love. All the stuff about Voldemort and those other bad people is secondary to the every day, run-of-the-mill relationships taking place in halls all over the school. Now instead of seeing the school from the perspective of those cute little kids, we see students making out (snuggling?) everywhere in practically every scene. This leaves very little time on screen in terms of plot.

Oh, yes, those pesky little books keep getting in the way of another Harry Potter movie. Actually, in this film, we never do see the man who must not be named. The novel, which actually concentrates on the villain, is basically left in the cold this time out in Director David Yates version. Yates will direct the final three books on film (“Order of Phoenix” “Half blood prince” and “Deathly Hallows”). Instead of scenes with Voldemort (in the novel he constantly plots behind the scenes), Yates concentrates on the other part of the book that had to do with Harry’s personal life as a teenager. While the novel used the romance part to balance the plot, that aspect of the movie becomes the most prominent. The one character let loose this time is Tom Felton, better known as Draco Malfoy. In the novel, Voldemort promises to release his father from Abakazan Prison if Draco will kill Dumbledore. Draco’s mother goes to Snape and pleads for her son’s life. She does not want him to murder (and hence become a death eater). In the opening of the novel and the film, Narcissa makes a pact with Snape to prevent that from happening. The details of the intricate plot are sadly missing from the rest of the film. In fact, the big shocker of novel (“Who is the half blood prince?”) is merely a tossed off line at the end. In addition to Tom Felton, Alan Rickman as Snape brings far more to his role than practically any person in the film. Who else could say those lines with so much dripping venom? Rickman’s Snape is as important to the success of Harry Potter as James Earl Jones voice is to Star Wars.

J.K. Rowling spent a great of time in this novel on Tom Riddle, his origins and his early life. Again, Yates and company condensed nearly all of that down to a few scenes, glossing over the important stuff in favor of the teen sex comedy stuff. Of all the students, only Tom Felton stands out in his performance as a tortured young man bent on a mission to save his father (never explained in the film). The true mission of Rowling’s plot, searching for clues about Voldemort’s origins, is not explored until nearly two hours of film have passed. Dumbledore seems to rush in and demand that Harry do this and that to learn more at the last moment. The real climax to the novel is the great battle scene, which becomes redundant in the film as an afterthought.

While the audience and I enjoyed the teen sex comedy part, the glossed over real plot of the film is lost. Hence, when people did rise during the end credits, they did not understand that in the (upcoming) last novel, all the things they enjoyed from the series… the funny Aunt and Uncle, Harry’s magical predicaments, the train ride, Hogwarts quirky students and faculty are gone from the final novel. Rowling rejects these tried and true elements to explore the trio’s finer points. The next part revolves around Harry seeking revenge on Snape and searching for Voldemort, ad infinitum. You won’t even find any romance in the final book. It comes as an afterthought. Rowling made that much clearer at the end of “Half blood prince.” She also made more of the shocking ending that involves the tragic close to this great friendship of Harry’s mentor.

Technically, “Half blood prince” is a wonderful movie experience. It’s full of surprises, beautiful cinematography, and hilarious Ron Weasley stuff. But as a reflection of J. K. Rowling’s complicated and thoughtful work, it is not.

Go see the film first. Then read the novel to fill in the blanks. You’ll enjoy both.

[Chris Knipp]

[Revised post.]

I think you mean snogging--a UK term for making out but also found in the Urban Dictionary. Otherwise, very helpful comments. I'm seeing it this evening for a friend's birthday event and will keep in mind your point that there's more about kids in love and less about magic this time. (I can live with that.)

Above all I appreciate the care you take to compare the film with the book it's based on ("The details of the intricate plot are sadly missing from the rest of the film," etc.) This is always important to me when the book source is a famous one.

Some reviewer's quotes I found interesting:

Variety (McCarthy): "dazzlingly well made," (which agrees with your statement, 'Technically, "Half blood prince" is a wonderful movie experience').

Lisa Schwartzbaum: "But the story is, still and all, only a pause, deferring an intensely anticipated conclusion. "

Michael Phillips (Chicago Tribune) "near the top of the series heap, just behind Alfonso Cuaron's "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban."'"

Lian Lacey (Toronto Globe and Mail): "The movie's climax takes Harry Potter into territory that is much more like epic horror than most of what the series has seen before. There is more obvious religious symbolism and apocalyptic violence as Harry emerges into his role as 'the chosen one.'"

The Onion: "This is the darkest, saddest, most sophisticated Harry Potter film yet."

Perhaps provctively, from The New York Post (Kyle Smith): "It's a definite improvement over J.K. Rowling's dimly written and exposition-clogged book." I gather you would strongly disagree with that.

Not everyone is delighted with the film itself, e.g., Mahohla Dargis (NYTIMes): "Much like its young hero, played by Daniel Radcliffe, the film has begun to show signs of stress around the edges, a bit of fatigue, or maybe that's just my gnawing impatience."

[tabuno]

Ironically I agree with all of Cinemabon's excellent comments about this latest movie, except that of it being a "wonderful movie experience." It is just because of what Cinemabon's explanations and observation about this movie that made it irritating, boring, confusing, frustrating, and a bit off-putting.

[Chris Knipp]

I find Harry Potter films hard to follow, I rarely grasp who all the characters are or exactly what is going on all the time, but I am used to the customary settings now and this one was a very positive experience because I went with friends as mentioned, and I could certainly appreciate the lush production values, gorgeous images, irresistibly warm sweeping musical background, and excellent British cast. There are beautiful moments, and the focus on teenagers beginning to fall in love was not excessive or obtrusive and was actually sweet and sometimes amusing, as it was intended to be. It was also nice to be in a large good auditorium with the best projection and sound in San Francisco (for this kind of thing anyway), the Metreon, with every seat taken and the audience raptly attentive and appreciative, laughing a little and clapping a little but surprisingly quiet. Too seldom that happens. Alan Rickman, Daniel Radcliffe, Robbie Coltrane, Ian McKellan, Hermione Baddeley, Rupert Grint, Michael Gambon...and on and on. What's not to like?

[tabuno]

To sum it up using Cinemabon's words:

1. "All the stuff about Voldemort and those other bad people is secondary to the every day, run-of-the-mill relationships taking place in halls all over the school." By putting the Voldemort second to the coming of age story, the action-driven, singular focus of the movie must compete, not mesh with the movie's plot creating for me a jarring, jig-jagging confusing pace that detracts from the movie. The "run-of-the-mill relationships" are just that, nothing that hasn't been done before and in many ways potential for the confluence of magic and relationships was as with the love potion more for comedic effect than serious examination of the coming of age horrors that plague teenagers. I like to refer back to Buffy: The Vampire Slayer television series which remarkably week after week come up with a finely honed and balanced drama/comedy blend while dealing seriously with teenage and adolescent issues.

2. "Now instead of seeing the school from the perspective of those cute little kids, we see students making out (snuggling?) everywhere in practically every scene. This leaves very little time on screen in terms of plot. " Without a plot, there is making little sense of the movie, especially when there is no context or backstory contained within the movie itself to help structure it. This is a coming of age movie and as such it is already strained with the confusing changes of being a teenager and in many ways its incumbent on the movie to be able to balance this chaos of coming of age with a more cogent message and journey through its plot that apparently is missing most of the time and pacing to make sense of it all.

3. "The novel, which actually concentrates on the villain, is basically left in the cold this time out in Director David Yates version. " Most epic movie as I recall that a direct conflict between good and evil especially in fantasy movies and apparently is also found in the source material itself. By elminating this interplay, the primary tension, the essence of good and evil is pushed underground, not allowing the audience to realize the intimate and personal battle at hand. Even in spy movies that require stealth and intrique, secrets, and lies, there still remains a focus on the plot and maneuverings, the behind the scenes activities that are strongly suggestive of possibilities not raising questions and confusion, unless leading toward a deliberate twist in a movie.

4. "Instead of scenes with Voldemort (in the novel he constantly plots behind the scenes), Yates concentrates on the other part of the book that had to do with Harry’s personal life as a teenager. While the novel used the romance part to balance the plot, that aspect of the movie becomes the most prominent." What remarkable about losing the balance, the anchor of this movie so to speak by its focus on Harry's personal life, the movie loses its moorings and is cast adrift all the while the director actually has two movies in which to put onto the screen only one novel. LORD OF THE RINGS was able to accomplish its amazing epic adventures with only one movie per novel! Actually the coming of age scenario wasn't really just focused on Harry Potter and in many ways his story was one of the least told as more of the comng of age dilemmas seemed to focus on Wesley and Hermoine, again deflecting the two primary characters Harry Potter and Voldemort almost into secondary roles or secondary plot importance.

5. "The one character let loose this time is Tom Felton, better known as Draco Malfoy. In the novel, Voldemort promises to release his father from Abakazan Prison if Draco will kill Dumbledore. Draco’s mother goes to Snape and pleads for her son’s life. She does not want him to murder (and hence become a death eater). In the opening of the novel and the film, Narcissa makes a pact with Snape to prevent that from happening. The details of the intricate plot are sadly missing from the rest of the film." Without this explanation, the entire first third of the movie is more of jumble of scenes disconnected with the audience (the ones who have not read the book or seen or recall previous movies). In the future unless Harry Potter novels become required reading in school or for parents to the children, this movie will have to depend on its associated movies to be a complete movie experience. Draco Malfoy's character himself isn't really presented in an authentic, realistic way and for most of two-thirds of the movie remains a two-dimensional character, stereotypical of villains all over. Yet by the end of the movie there is a weak attempt to enlarge on his character which unfortunately not expanded on throughout the movie. The audience doesn't get to understand or feel his pain and tortured soul (a greatly missed opportunity for an educational and valuable look at bullys).

6. "In fact, the big shocker of novel (“Who is the half blood prince?”) is merely a tossed off line at the end. In addition to Tom Felton, Alan Rickman as Snape brings far more to his role than practically any person in the film. Who else could say those lines with so much dripping venom? Rickman’s Snape is as important to the success of Harry Potter as James Earl Jones voice is to Star Wars." Unfortunately, I've probably missed something huge here, but the whole Snape having to become a protector of Malfoy, eluded me, a huge gaping logical hole and thus Alan Rickman's behavior was a mystery throughout - even though his performance and presence in the movie was solid.

7. "J.K. Rowling spent a great of time in this novel on Tom Riddle, his origins and his early life. Again, Yates and company condensed nearly all of that down to a few scenes, glossing over the important stuff in favor of the teen sex comedy stuff. Of all the students, only Tom Felton stands out in his performance as a tortured young man bent on a mission to save his father (never explained in the film)." Perhaps the best oppotunity to explore coming of age themes was excluded here as Malfoy had the most to lose and most to betray morality. And the rest of the teen sex comedy stuff wasn't particularly original or revealing, never taking it seriously.

8. "The true mission of Rowling’s plot, searching for clues about Voldemort’s origins, is not explored until nearly two hours of film have passed. Dumbledore seems to rush in and demand that Harry do this and that to learn more at the last moment. The real climax to the novel is the great battle scene, which becomes redundant in the film as an afterthought. " The first third of the movie is a mysterious puzzle with no explanation or direction, with no connective plot to tie it together to make sense of anything. The audience is exposed to the real world, then it's suddenly gone, as the trailers offer the possibility of the magic world colliding into the real world, making the movie more directly threatening to us muggles and more compelling.

9. "While the audience and I enjoyed the teen sex comedy part, the glossed over real plot of the film is lost. Hence, when people did rise during the end credits, they did not understand that in the (upcoming) last novel, all the things they enjoyed from the series… the funny Aunt and Uncle, Harry’s magical predicaments, the train ride, Hogwarts quirky students and faculty are gone from the final novel. Rowling rejects these tried and true elements to explore the trio’s finer points." This is perhaps is a grave deviation and the shock of such a transformation into young adult movie from a juvenile/children's movie is such that the roots of the foundation have been so crushed that like a teenager, the movie itself has lost in bearings and way, searching for an identity. Yet it is incumbent on the director to be able to find as a parent would a singular strand, a path in which to advise and guide the movie which unfortunately it seemed for most of it was lost or missing. Dumbledore's opportunity to really sit down with Harry Potter as a father (to provide a sense of plot) was lost in all the mystery and action and so even the eventual demise of Dumbledore didn't have as emotional impact as I felt in other movies.

9. "as a reflection of J. K. Rowling’s complicated and thoughtful work, it (the movie) is not." As a film adaptation of the novel, it appears that this movie is only a superficial fantastical mirage and only appears to reflect and represent the source material, but apparently the true life and source of magic has been lost from it.

[Chris Knipp]

"Now instead of seeing the school from the perspective of those cute little kids, we see students making out (snuggling?) everywhere in practically every scene. This leaves very little time on screen in terms of plot. " Without a plot, there is making little sense of the movie, especially when there is no context or backstory contained within the movie itself to help structure it. This is a coming of age movie and as such it is already strained with the confusing changes of being a teenager and in many ways its incumbent on the movie to be able to balance this chaos of coming of age with a more cogent message and journey through its plot that apparently is missing most of the time and pacing to make sense of it all. You seem a real devotee of the Rawlingsk series; it's a pity that you got less enjoyment out of the movie than somebody like me, who has never particularly followed Harry Potter or read more than ten pages of the books. It's not accurate to say this new Harry Potter is silmply a "coming of age movie" and it is also quite misleading to anyone who has not seen it to say it is "without a plot," meaning anything other than "coming of age." Harry Potter is a very special young man, and "the chosen one." He is hardly just a kidn coming of age. And there is a lot of very Harry-Potter stuff in this movie that you would never in a million years see in the conventional "comning of age" film.
9. "as a reflection of J. K. Rowling's complicated and thoughtful work, it (the movie) is not." As a film adaptation of the novel, it appears that this movie is only a superficial fantastical mirage and only appears to reflect and represent the source material, but apparently the true life and source of magic has been lost from it. The five other people I saw last night's movie with had all seen all the other Harry Potter movies (I've only seen three of them) and several have read all or some of the books. The idea I got from them was that the previous Harry Potter movies also have been (often) very free in their adaptations of the books.

That hasn't kept the movies, like the books, from being wildly popular.

The merits of these movies have varied. It would be misleading to readers to imply in his thread that Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is hot one of the best of them. I have a very strong impression that it is.

[Chris Knipp]

From an interview (http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/film/under-the-spell/2009/07/02/1246127624694.html) with Daniel Radcliffe:
"Most people seem to see these books as being about good and evil," Radcliffe says. "There is that but I see them more as the story of loss of innocence. It's about a kid who's gone into this world and thinks everything is magical, wonderful and amazing and then realizes that this world is darker and more dangerous than the world he has come from. " So in his terms it is a coming of age saga -- but a very special one as a striver early on against the forces of evil.

[cinemabon]

From the very beginning of the film, fans in the audience (where I saw the movie) scratched their heads (the first scene in the diner is a fabricated scene not from the novel). I began to wonder if my film-going experience is clouded by both audience and being a devotee of the books.

Looking at the film from purely a cinematic point of view, the story does have enough mix of elements to make it a very good evening's entertainment. That said, one can speculate: "Are the films for the fans of the novel, or for the fans of this cinema character, Harry Potter?"

This poses a different hypothesis. Fans of Harry Potter and magical wizardry themes could theoretically enjoy his films and have no idea how the source material played in making a basis for the screenplay. One could even argue that they provide a skeletal foundation and nothing more.

Yet, if that is the case, and we agree to accept that premise, then the fans of the novel usually come away from this experience with less. I would argue that most of the people who attend these screenings are in fact, readers of the novels. However, I would also contend they've grown to accept less, and hence are not too disappointed when the film's leave out major portions of each book.

We all love the Potter visuals... the castle, the moving pictures on the wall, the lush banquet tables, the quirky characters with their weird British accents, the monsters, the villains, the rich tapestry of detail in the background. Those are the elements that bring us in... the magical and yet dark world of Harry Potter. If the filmmakers choose to leave out major portions of the novel in trying to bring each book to the screen, then the fans either learn to accept it, or write bad reviews and whine over their Starbucks.

However, as a person who enjoys a good book, and I believe Rowlings did write six good books (I'm not a fan of the last), I would heartily invite you to read them for a true Harry Potter experience that far outweighs what is up on the screen. For in our mind's eye, do we not make better sets, better visuals, and more exciting explosions?

On this site, Cinema's the thing. Yet, in this instance, the pen is mighter than the wand.

[tabuno]

Cinemabon's comments are interesting in that they presume that perhaps this movie is about Harry Potter - the character and less so the book and thus implies that the movie is less of an achievement for the readers. However, I have another parallel observation from a non-reader of the book on which this movie is based. I had though perhaps that readers of the source material would find this movie actually more entertaining and enjoyable than non-readers because they at least would have some basic plot outlines from the book that were incorporated into the movie yet not really explained or shown in the movie which would allow those readers to be able to comprehend what was going on in the movie and find much more connections and continuity in the movie. For a non-reader, I found the movie hard to follow, a seeming series of almost haphazard scenes that had some but not intimate connection with the other. It for this reason I felt that this movie was designed more for readers than non-readers, dependent more on those who have a good familiarity of the movies that came before and likely the one to come next.

[Chris Knipp]

As a non-reader I found it cuts both ways. I was not upset by lacks in the film because of its selective adaptation of the book. But as a non-reader of Harry Potter books I am as lost as I was with the LOTR trilogy, great films obviously but best understood by Tolkien readers.

As a reader of English literature I've often been troubled by film adaptations. It's hard to do a classic modern or older, without giving the books' devotees a sense that much has been lost or misinterpreted. That varies of course and some adaptations are great, often when quite free. Two that come to mind are Tony Richardson's dashing and brilliant Tom Jones and Kubrick's striking Clockwork Orange. Both are great and audacious films in their own right that evoke their book sources with great insight.

One can't know for sure what the audiences' reactions to the new Harry Potter are. We're talking about millions of people here. Millions of them are probably happy. It's a beautiful, engaging movie. Some, perhaps very numerous too, may not be. Many read some of the books and see some of the movies. Or all the books and some of the movies. Or any combination thereof. I had a good time with this one, and the audience, whether satisfied or dis- I know not, was raptly attentive. American movie crowds at popular commercial screenings aren't usually that way and I appreciated that. The sense of devotion to both the books and the films is something to observe. People are delighted and having great fun and J.K. Rowling, once on the Dole, is very, very rich.

[tabuno]

The one film that I've both read the novel and the movie that it was adapted from (I haven't done this a lot) and found what I felt was a perfect adaptation, if I haven't already mentioned it is PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK (1975), and my all-time favorite movie. It's worth a mention here again, since the topic of adaptations has come up.

[cinemabon]

I think Tab and Chris may be onto something. I agree with you Tab that as a reader, I tend to "fill in the gaps," and probably do unconciously as I watch the film.

As to adaptations, the film that sticks out in my mind, Chris, is "Random Harvest." In this instance, Mervyn LeRoy (Gypsy, Mr. Roberts, Wizard of Oz, etc) has screenwriter Claudine West change the James Hilton (Goodbye Mr. Chips, Mrs. Miniver, etc) by dropping two other storylines to concentrate only on the two main characters, mostly to take a very complex novel and simplify it for the sake of brevity. While still lengthy (2hrs plus), the romance novel works on the screen in a condensed fashion as one long continual suspense (when will he recognize her?). "Random Harvest" is one prime example where a filmmaker took a very famous popular novel and probably made it better on the screen. Of course, it helps when you have people like Greer Garson and Ronald Coleman in the leads. The same case can be made for "The Devil wears Prada," where a great actress like Meryl Streep can put so much into a part, that for readers, the novel comes to life in a way they may not have envisioned.

Finally, the central Rowling's character, Harry Potter, is the attraction. Harry battles the villain. Harry suspects certain plots. Harry works with Dumbledore. Harry finds a girl and so on. We've watched Harry grown up on the screen. To say that some other element is more than Harry would be to deny the main subject. ("After all, you are the chosen one," a line never really explained in the movie, although they do mention it as a headline in the newspaper. It actually comes from something Potter conjures on his own, that he is the only person who can destroy Voldemort.) Harry is in the opening shot and the closing. As you will find in the final two films, Harry is actually everything, not Hogwarts, Griffindore, the professors or his pals. When everyone else starts dying off in the witch battles that follow, the series leads up to the inevitable end, the face off between Harry and Voldemort. Only an old curmudgeon would reveal that secret... but of course, you probably know the end of that PG film anyway. The villain always wins... doesn't he?

[Chris Knipp]

Cinemabon, you're being being very diplomatic, or malleable, in coming around on the way the adaptation favors Harry and his youthful development over other parts of the story. This all fits into a very interesting subject and an endless one of literary adaptations. There have been some extensive discussions of these: I found a great one online in connection with Jane Austen's novels and the movies based on them. Cinematic and literary forms are so different (though some novels are obviously cinematic or ideal for adaptations, and others the reverse). In general though films are visually rich and can have tremendous emotional impact, much has to be cut out to make many novels into movies. So "screen adaptation" frequently means first of all a paring-down.

The Devil Wears Prada wasn't much of a novel really, just a thinly veiled memoir of a young woman's short time in the service of Anna Wintour of Vogue magazine. I read it and it's lousy, so not only did Streep make the movie something special, but the movie made the material appreciably better than it was on the page.

I hope the villain doesn't win.

[tabuno]

From Cinemabon's description, it sounds like that last two movies may be something to really look forward to even though I had problems with the newest movie.

[oscar jubis]

I just want to register my having enjoyed Potter 6. The cast, the sets, the engaging story threads, the wonderfully somber, portentuous ending...The addition of the magnificent Jim Broadbent to the cast and all that business with those liquid memories and the one that Prof. Slughorn tampers with out of a feeling of personal shame, etc. etc. Hard to find fault with it as a non-reader of the books. I don't know about the people in cinemabon's opening night audience but IMdb users rate Potter 6 as the best of the series at 7.80 out of 10 based on thousands of votes. My favorite is Azkaban, which rates second at 7.70. Critics like Azkaban and Goblet best (metacritic of 81) but Potter 6 is only slightly below at 78 out of 100.

[tabuno]

I agree with Oscar in part and disagree in part. The cast continues to develop, especially the brief scene with Wesley twins in a delightful duet comic monologue in the shop. The set designs were lucious. Taken singularly, the story threads were engaging. And the entire movie was more "somber" with inserts of comic relief. I especially agree that Jim Broadbent was a wonderful addition to the movie.

However, the beginning scenes in England seemed somehow detached and removed from reality and the special effects somehow not spot on, especially compared to the current crop of action movies out this summer. The cast of actors now older still never really hit their stride in their roles as teenagers and the struggle between the innocent younger children version of earlier movies doesn't seem to easily evolve into an older version of themselves in this movie. The jarring transformation of these older versions of these characters don't seem to really fit with earlier movies, and it's almost as if we're seeing two different series of movies in parallel universes. The "liquid memories" for me were not as effective as the normally shot recollected photographic scenes from other movies and just seemed more for style sake and pushing the envelope to meeting the appetites of the movie-going public.

To be honest, I sort of gave up on Harry Potter movies about two movies back and found myself more engrossed in the NARIA series instead where I found myself faced with even more personal character conflicts and storyline, along with the sweeping elegance of the epic quality of the movies that I could identify with than the corresponding POTTER movies that came out.

[cinemabon]

Tab, we discussed this earlier. The problem is one of continuity. Every Harry Potter book opens at the house of his Aunt Petunia. As explained in this novel, the reason was that the aunt helped to replenish the spell that protected Harry. To suddenly find him having coffee and flirting with a hot busty waitress is a jolt for many fans who still picture Harry as an innocent young boy and not some streetwise punk with a rigid wand.

Harry is thrust into action because the end of this novel marks the end of Hogwarts as we know it. Rowlings eases us into that gradually, so that by the end of the novel, we are prepared for "Harry on his own" so to speak.

The disconnect for many people with this film is to thrust a story line on the audience without any explanation. This is the way it is because we say so.

I tend to agree with you on this part of the film.

I'm glad you enjoyed the pix, Oscar. It's always fun to go to Hogwarts because of things like the Quidditch match (they're always exciting) and magical classrooms (when we see students do silly things). On the other hand, we had this other aspect, this darker side, more adult, sophisticated, where Harry no longer goes to Hagrid or some professor for advice. He walks around the castle on his own. I found this disconnect from the previous films and the novel to be disconcerting. That is my criticism, and probably the fact the screen writers diminished the passing of Dumbledore (drawn out in the novel with more impact on the characters).

[tabuno]

Perhaps it's the weakness of threatrical film that storylines that continue for a number of movies and years cannot successfully reveal the authenticity of human development and include sufficient detail to plot and narrative as the medium of television serials which can continue and evolve on a weekly basis for up to half a year. The success and cult status of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER was due in part to the scriptwriters being able to continue incremental human coming of age in segments that felt real and natural without large gaps week after week.