Just came from a screening of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. As an avid reader of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books and a fan of the movies as well, I have to say that Half-Blood Prince is the first of the films to disappoint me.

The cast is as great as ever, including new addition Jim Broadbent (left, with Daniel Radcliffe) as potions master Horace Slughorn. (Although I wish Helena Bonham Carter would rein in her tongue-wagging, eye-rolling turn as Bellatrix Lestrange — it’s less scary witch than scary crystal meth-head.) And the movie certainly captures the bleakly ominous tone of the book, leavened with some funny moments involving raging wizard hormones.

For each Harry Potter film, decisions have been made about what to trim away — the books are always much richer and more complex. As the novels got longer, the films have had to trim more, and for Half-Blood Prince I think some of the cuts were ill-advised.

For one thing, whacking out the entire subplot that explains the film’s title seems questionable — especially when that subplot does a great deal to illuminate a major character who will be even more important in the last two films.

Also, the book’s final chapter would have made a hell of a spectacle on film, and the last scene we get instead is just weak -- and emotionally unsatisfying, given the climactic scene that precedes it.

On the other hand, watching Half-Blood Prince, which feels rather disjointed throughout, made me understand why the filmmakers decided to split the even longer Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows into two films. It may work better. Let’s hope they don’t decide to cut something like, say, "The Tale of the Three Brothers."

You can read my friend and colleague Steve Persall's review here. It's interesting to see the differences for a viewer who has read the books and one who hasn't. And I'm with him on Dumbledore's strong central role in this movie -- one thing the filmmakers definitely got right.

(Publicity photo)