Kieran Layton

A & E Editor

There might be no greater crime against fans of a beloved… Kieran Layton

A & E Editor

There might be no greater crime against fans of a beloved literary series than making a movie adaptation that does not stay faithful to the source material.

Even more heinous to “Harry Potter” fans, however, might be having a film adaptation made without a hint of magic that’s — prepare yourself — dreadfully dull.

“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” the sixth book and film in the series, never stuck out as a particularly filmable book. There is too much penultimate exposition leading up to the epic seventh book, with the bulk of the action occurring during the majestic “Battle for Hogwarts” in the book’s finale.

The movie is no different.

There is no cohesive plot to discuss — rather, the film feels like a series of only loosely connected events leading up to the heart-wrenching ending over which fans will be sure to shed many a tear. This presents a challenge for director David Yates, who translated the plot-heavy fifth book on screen two years ago.

For his second attempt at a “Harry Potter” flick, Yates succeeds in making a sumptuously shot, pleasantly well-acted and artfully designed film.

What he fails at, however, is establishing any sense of pacing, but Yates is not completely to blame.

Steve Kloves’ script dwells so much on the adolescent horniness that plagues the book, and then, as if he and Yates collaboratively realized the severely sagging middle section of the film, they add a scene that is almost completely taken from their own imaginations.

The scene is perfunctory, perhaps even appropriate, but then Kloves really drops the ball with the ending.

What was a tense, heart-pounding series of events in the book, complete with an outstanding battle scene with the halls of Hogwarts crumbling around the beloved characters, has been — without spoiling anything — significantly altered.

This might be a mere cry of outrage from a die-hard “Harry Potter” fanatic, but from a narrative standpoint, so many glossed-over subplots, simplified explanations and blatant logical omissions make it hard to imagine that someone who hasn’t read the book would have a full grasp of what’s happening, let alone become engrossed in the story.

Glaring omissions aside, the actors we have all come to know and love tackle the influx of teenage hormones with grace, and even in scenes played for cheap, over-the-top laughs, they never dip into tacky “The CW” program territory. All of the talk and snogging grow wearisome fairly quickly, though.

And though it might be a product of my own mind, influenced by the announcement of Dumbledore’s homosexuality, I am pretty sure I noticed a subtle increase of flippant flamboyancy to Michael Gambon’s take on the role.

Ultimately, “Half-Blood Prince” is not a bad film — just a very disappointing one.

I was outraged to see the surely unnecessary changes, and when the movie ended, it not only made me simultaneously excited and wary for the seventh book adaptations — a two-part film — but it made me wish

Yates had taken more time on this installment.

If only he had created a worthy “Half-Blood Prince” instead of a half-boiled snoozefest.

Grade: C+