POTTER! (said, enthusiastically in an overly pronounced English accent)

To get down to the REAL nitty gritty, having done with all that independent, minor production guff (PAH), I will continue hastily to give my two cents on the latest addition to the Harry Potter franchise, entitled 'Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince'.

Even as I write, this latest instalment of the bespectacled wizz-kid adventures has grossed close to $405 million, a fairly impressive sum, and as such my thoughts on the film are rendered almost entirely inocuous. However, as someone who has never read a page, a sentence, even a word of one of the Potter books, I am intrigued as to how my take on the fast darkening procedings might differ from someone who has.

Now I must confess that I'm not entirely devoid of Potter experience. I'm not a rosey-cheeked Potter virgin as I have seen, and indeed enjoyed, the films that have been released so far, and I am glad to see it doing so well because lest we forget, Harry Potter is about as homegrown a blockbusting franchise as we in 'The Kingdom' are ever likely to find. Directed for the most part by British directors, this one (as was the last and will be the final two to come) by the brilliant television helmsman David Yates, performed by a stunning repertoire of British stage and screen actors, and shot for the most part in British studios and by a largely British crew, it is a wonderful advertisement for the amazing concentration of talent that this little island has and will continue to produce, and especially in a summer in which we are pelted with unforgiveable star-spangled tripe the likes of Transformers, Fast And Furious, Angels and Demons and Terminator: Salvation.

And I am happy to report that The Half Blood Prince is already a sturdy competitor for the blockbuster of the year award (an award that does not exist, because there are not enough viable candidates of sufficient quality. And because I have absolutely no authority on the matter...). It is long, but necessarily so, as it ambitiously marries the larger-than-life story of Voldemort's past, his relationship with Dumbledore and the emergence of the evil within, with a far more human story of teenage angst and tangled, hormone-fuelled romance.

It is a morbid, often harrowing tale, and there is a question to be asked as to whether the recent success of similarly blackened films like The Dark Knight, Quantum of Solace and to some extent Spiderman, suggests that the way to an audience's heart now leads along the path of darkness (something I'm sure Dumbledore would shed a hairy tear about). Yet Yates, cleverly, has balanced the horror elements of this film with some brilliantly funny scenes of romantic mishaps and teenage tomfoolery. It is a reminder that Harry, involved in his quest, has been plucked from normality, and challenged to face the evil that exists both within himself and around the corner. And face it he does.

The central theme of this film, it seems, is choice, or free will. It is a theologian's dream that so often in the story there is talk of choice and control, both of oneself and of others. Ignoring for a moment potions that can force love to be directed at its creator, or the idea of liquid luck, a magical juice that brings guaranteed success to its drinker, it is of course Harry's actions that pose the biggest questions, and more specifically the demand by Dumbledore that Harry not to come to his aide, even if he be in serious peril (a concept that returns with magnificent force at the film's climax, but has left many devotees hugely unhappy). It is an intriguing idea that Harry might be beginning to act consciously rather than automatically, as his actions until now have, for the most part, been driven by necessity. Until now, Harry has functioned with perfect moral order, the very definition of 'doing the right thing'. But in The Half Blood Prince the question is raised of whether Harry values more his own actions, or the wants of his mentor. Is it preferable, the film seems to ask, to be able to act on free will and suffer the consequences of your decisions, than work under the control of others and therefore be without responsibility? And what then does it mean to refuse to act, even though you are well within your means?

Overall, though, it was a hugely enjoyable film, taken with a pinch of salt and an open mind, and despite some cringe-worthy crowd scenes of children cheering (always a thron in my side for some reason) and the return, if just for one scene, of the insufferable ginger tag team, the Weasley twins (now built as some sort of hideous duo of Mr Magorium impersonators), there is more than enough to applaud in this film. It is, I would like to highlight, absolutely beautiful. Wonderfully soft, as though painted with oils, and a feast of design and effects, it really is a treat on the eyes. Along with this, the performances of Alan Rickman as the dastardly Snape and Jim Broadbent as Professor Horace Slughorn are hugely engaging, and the children themselves have emerged as very decent actors indeed, especially Rupert Grint as Ron. All in all it is a successful outing, and I am hungry, as I often am, for more of the special one.