Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

(update of a previous post - original is here)

Data
Title: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Year: 2009
Length: 153 minutes
Director: David Yates
Writer: Steve Kloves, based on the novel by J.K. Rowling
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson
Music: Nicholas Hooper
Oscars: nominations for Best Cinematography and Best Visual Effects
I saw it: in the theater, July 2009; on video (have on DVD), yesterday
Synopsis: the headmaster of the school for wizards uses a celebrity student to get information about an evil wizard from a teacher

My reaction
Concept:
Story:
Characters: Could have been outstandingly great if it had focussed on Snape and Malfoy instead of Harry.
Dialog:
Pacing: Its climax is the strongest part of the books, but thanks to the way this movie's edited, I was bored through the whole thing. If it had been a half hour longer and taken the time necessary to draw in the audience, it might have felt two hours long. Instead, it's like watching one giant montage scene and feels four hours long.
Cinematography:
Special effects/design:
Acting:
Music:
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay, ). It's constantly just missing what it could have been. Frustrating. And what's with the attack on the Weasley house? It has no connection or relevence to anything else in the movie. Is it just there to demonstrate how Death Eater attacks don't result in anyone getting hurt?
Objective Rating (Average):