Simon Dillon reviews the film

The new Harry Potter film is finally upon us, having been delayed by half a year due to studio pressure to guarantee Warner Brothers a 2009 smash hit. Whilst no masterpiece, it's for the most part a reasonably satisfying adaptation of the novel.

The plot primarily concerns Harry and Dumbledore's investigations into Voldemort's past in an effort to discover how he can be destroyed. In the meantime, Death Eaters are causing mayhem across both Magical and Muggle communities. At Hogwarts, Harry finds an old potions text book with notes from the mysterious "Half Blood Prince", whose advice proves very useful. There's also a subplot involving Draco Malfoy, who has been given a deadly task by Voldemort. Additionally, those teenage hormones trigger an increased focus on the various love stories (Harry/Ginny, Ron/Hermoine), to amusing comic effect.

If that plot summary made no sense to you whatsoever, then don't bother seeing the film. Half Blood Prince makes no concessions to the uninitiated which is fair enough since jumping in at film six would be silly. Steven Kloves' screenplay plays a little looser with the novel than usual, which is refreshing. Events are reordered (though my favourite moments are all still present - including the wonderfully silly giant spider burial scene) and he makes a decent stab at cinematic reinvention (the opening attack in London for instance). That said some of his adaptation choices are questionable. For example, in a critical moment at the end of the book, Harry is unable to intervene in the action. In the film, he is able to intervene, and still doesn't. Fans of the book will also be disappointed by the underuse of evil werewolf Fenrir Greyback.

David Yates directs with a certain amount of flair, matching the look he gave Order of the Phoenix (the best of the Potter films to date). Cast regulars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Maggie Smith, Timothy Spall, Helena Bonham Carter, David Thewlis, Julie Walters and Robbie Coltrane are mostly solid, and Tom Felton (Malfoy) has actually improved considerably. Newcomer Jim Broadbent is the best of the bunch for my money as Professor Slughorn. Also on the plus side, Alan Rickman's Snape (the most interesting character in the entire saga) is finally allowed to come to the fore after being unfairly sidelined for five films. However, Michael Gambon still feels completely wrong as Dumbledore (if only they had cast Peter O'Toole). On a technical level, the visual effects, sound effects and so forth are all up to scratch. Nicholas Hooper provides a decent music score, but I wish they'd bring back John Williams.

With every Harry Potter review I write, I am obliged to state my position on the franchise in general. Regular readers are already aware of my opinion, so please bear with me.

Essentially I have no great problem with the novels and films purely as stories. Good and evil are clearly presented, and the fantasy magic contained therein bears no resemblance to real life witchcraft. However, on the other hand it is true to say that the wider Harry Potter media is a cause for concern (fan websites with links to genuinely occult material for example), and on that basis it is entirely valid to question whether impressionable minds could develop an interest in real witchcraft as a result of reading or watching. Of course, witches and wizards in children's tales are nothing new, but Harry Potter is unique because witchcraft (albeit fantasy witchcraft) underpins the entire story in that it is taught to an entire society from childhood. That's a far cry from, say, Merlin's shenanigans in the Arthur legends or the Wicked Witch of the West. I'm all for stories that empower children (the novels of Arthur Ransom, Enid Blyton, CS Lewis, Roald Dahl and films like ET), but what they are empowered with is what is at question here.

That said, I don't advocate the ban-it burn-it approach either. I prefer intelligent discussion and, where children are concerned, parental guidance. In some cases (depending on the age/temperament of the child), banning things like Harry Potter is counter productive and it can lead to a "forbidden fruit" problem where they become obsessively curious. Reading the books and/or watching the films with them whilst explaining the Christian position on witchcraft is sometimes a better approach.

With regards to this specific instalment, there is actually a lot less witchcraft than usual and as ever a lot of cardinal virtues are extolled. Courage, loyalty, self sacrifice, honesty and so forth are all clearly praised whilst cowardice, betrayal, selfishness and dishonesty are clearly condemned. To give the Potter saga due credit, it is actually a very pro-family story, with (SPOILER WARNINGS FOR THE FINAL BOOK) characters pretty much marrying whoever their first serious boyfriend/girlfriends are, then assuming very traditional husband/wife roles. Families are almost always close (Percy's falling out with the other Weasleys is ultimately resolved positively), and there's not a whiff of pre-marital sex, adultery, or divorce in the magic community, even amongst the villains.

So, in final analysis, as far as this film is concerned it's a decent enough adaptation. Not as good as the book, and not as good as the last Potter film, but still an entertaining watch.