This question dogged me throughout the screening of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the sixth chapter in a now eight-part franchise. Grint is set up as the heartthrob of the series, and I'm thinking why? The movie certainly needed something, because, like its star Daniel Radcliffe, it feels fatigued and soul-less. I'm not sure if it needed sex appeal. In the end, I decided not. Grint is merely young. His colouring is gorgeous, but that's it.
The movie: Director, David Yates keeps the action moving rapidly, but humourlessly, and in the end, I thought rather pointlessly. Did I need to spend two hours after work shivering with cold at Lido? I don't think so. The series is now feels worn and old (or is it just me?) - but then it took off spectacularly in 2001, teeming with wondrous creatures, and an embarrassment of lavishly talented British actors. The veterans still gave terrifc performances, Allan Rickman, is wonderfully slithery as Severus Snape, Jim Broadbent is really good. I just wish there was more Maggie Smith! Better wait for the DVD compilation, and then you can skip all the dreary teenage stuff.