Harry Potter and the order of the Phoenix Movie SPOILERS SPOILERS

[harris007]

Posted: 7/10/07 at 4:25pm

Anyone else going to a Midnight show of this tonight? and if so what did ya think?

[mominator]

Posted: 7/10/07 at 4:33pm

BGG is heading to one tonight.

[harris007]

Posted: 7/10/07 at 11:20pm

bumps,

[broadway86]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 2:49am

Just got back, and I'm slightly disappointed.

***Possible Spoilers***

Radcliffe and Watson do their best work yet, with Rickman, Oldman, and Gambon offering strong support. The character of Ron is practically unrecognizable. I can't recall him having more than 15-20 lines. Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson, and Robbie Coltrane, sadly, do next to nothing. Bonham Carter was... interesting, but she was let down by a screenplay that didn't allow her to do much. Evanna Lynch comes out of nowhere, and is a delight as Luna. Imelda Staunton is so good, it's frightening to watch.

That said, the movie doesn't flow very well from scene to scene. The editing is very awkward at several points, and there is a severe lack of momentum that hurts the narrative in the long run. Speaking of which, it doesn't seem like David Yates knows how to properly shoot an action sequence. There were about three major set pieces, and throughout all of them, I was staring at the screen, trying to decipher what I was watching. Someone tell me I'm not crazy. It could have been the projectionist, but I doubt it...

There are also very few of the gentle, human touches that graced Azkaban and Goblet. Granted, they had a lot to accomplish in a little time, but it's still a problem. Also, from the previous entry to this one, the color palette seems to have been scrubbed down from vibrant blue and greens, to drab browns and grays. It was definitely the least enjoyable of the series for me to actually watch.

In my eyes, the fourth one still reigns supreme. It took many liberties, yes, but the themes, atmosphere, suspense, and magic was still intact. AND, although many things were cut/changed, it didn't feel like something was missing. Very little of that can be said for this one. Updated On: 7/11/07 at 02:49 AM

[justagirl2]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 3:04am

Hrm. While I'm much too tired to begin analyzing the editing and direction, I will say that Imelda Staunton was phenomenal...she portrayed the character to a T. I also loved Alan Rickman, as always, and thought that Helena Bonham Carter was fabulously crazy. I'll return later with more substantial thoughts!

[harris007]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 3:08am

i agree with the above as well, and i wish there was more of helena, side note, the chick who plays tonks IS HOT

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 3:10am

I agree that things didn't flow extremely well...it was very rushed. Lots were cut. I feel this movie was shorter than the others and wouldn't have suffered from a bit of an extension.

However...one thing Yates knows how to do is direct his actors. This is the movie that truly made Radcliffe an actor in my eyes...he makes strides in this film. Same with Watson, Rickman, Oldman and Gambon. I also agree that Staunton is a true force. She made my blood boil with hatred for the character, just the way the book did. Same with Helena Bonham Carter. We don't see much of Bellatrix, but what we do see is truly chilling and remarkable.

Smith, Thompson and Coltrane are indeed wonderful in whatever snippets they find themselves in.

If anything, this movie captures the audience from the moment it starts. I spent the entire time on the edge of my seat.

While I think the movie could have been better, I find this to be the best of the series. It has its faults but, in my opinion, the positives outweigh the negatives.

[harris007]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 3:11am

agreed but none of the movie will be the book. they have to cut somethings, not as bad as the 3rd one however

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 3:21am

God, I just got back. It was awful. It seemed to be trying to please people who loved the book AND cut down on running time in the same breath, which of course, will never work.

One of the reasons the books are so delightful is the sheer detail in storytelling. Despite having a ton of incomplete storylines, this movie slashed down this world to the bare bones, and broke a few in the process.

Despite all of my criticism, I LOVED that girl who played Luna. Staunton is also fabulous.

[scott68]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 3:24am

I thought it was incredibly well-acted, but one of the least-faithful adaptations and most choppy movies so far. Imelda Staunton was brilliant, as was Evanna Lynch (as Luna Lovegood). None of the usual standouts had much to do, but no one really dropped the ball.

The effects were stunning, but the plot itself was just... confusing. I saw the movie with a friend's younger brother, who hadn't read the book, and until we talked about it afterwards he legitimately thought he had fallen asleep in the middle and "missed" the plot that simply wasn't there. All in all far from my least favorite of the Potter movies thus far, and in fact probably my second-favorite. But absolutely a huge step down from the fourth, which has been the only one that I thought actually worked both as an adaptation of the book and as a standalone movie.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 3:25am

Who did Staunton and Bonham play?

[broadway86]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 3:26am

But absolutely a huge step down from the fourth, which has been the only one that I thought actually worked both as an adaptation of the book and as a standalone movie.

I feel the exact same way.

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 3:31am

Staunton was Professor Umbridge and Carter was one of the Death Eaters, Bellatrix Lestrange.

Every time Carter came onscreen, for some reason, I started hearing Mrs. Lovett's songs, which were entirely inconvienient for her few moments.

I really don't think Yates had anything to do with the movie being so damned bad. Screenwriter's fault 100%...

Edited for... me forgeting half of what I was going to say.

Updated On: 7/11/07 at 03:31 AM

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 3:32am

Sondheim Geek, that was EXACTLY what I told my friend.

If there was any doubt in my mind that Carter couldn't play Lovett, her performance in this movie has all but wiped it away.

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 3:37am

It was so uneven and weirdly edited! I was really disappointed. Staunton was great. Loved Evanna Lynch - so perfect for the role. She reminded me of a little Irish Carol Kane. I adore Alan Rickman. Emma Thompson and Maggie Smith, along with many other supporting cast members, have next to nothing to do other than look outraged/sad/intense, but that's to be expected with so many characters running around. I loathe Helena Bonham Slutbag as a person so it's impossible for me to respect her performances, but she sure does look crazy. Good work from Radcliffe, but I actually like him live better. He has such amazing skin! Okay, that sounded vaguely creepy.

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 3:37am

I totally agree with you. She can pull off Lovett easily..

God damnit, why on earth do they bother casting all of these veterans if they don't DO anything? They should have given Alan Rickman more screentime.. to start.. and even Maggie Smith! Her character was hilarious in this book... she did nothing here.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 3:58am

The acting was by far the best in the series, all of them were fantastic. Most of what I feel has already been said thus far but Staunton, Carter, and Lynch were standouts.

I feel the 4th installment is still the best film of all 5 thus far, but this had such a high entertainment factor for those who read the books and understood what was going on.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 4:14am

I don't understand the complaining about the adult actors not getting much to do... I'd say Bellatrix Lestrange gets more in focus in the movie than she does in book 5, and how much screentime did Alan Rickman need?! It isn't Professor Snape and the Order of the Phoenix. The story is about the kids, there are plenty of other movies where Maggie Smith gets most of the screen time. I would have liked more Tonks but she has more to do in the next one.

I don't have much perspective about how confusing the story is. I found it perfectly easy to follow, but then again, I'm an expert.

I agree that the editing is jarring but I do wonder if it isn't intentional. The director seems to be trying to put us off our guard. Sometimes it's just bad though.

The only real misstep as far as the translation from the book to screen is in missing some key moments--primarily Neville in the hospital (this is one of JK Rowling's best scenes and it would have not hurt to include another three minutes to give Neville his greatest moment so far instead of a hokey speech). Also, I think the fight in the ministry could have been a bit scarier and more dangerous for the kids.

Last, why didn't Dumbledore explain all of the details of the prophecy? They'd better remember in the next movie. I doubt they will.

All in all I think David Yates may leave out some of those moments that delighted us in the books (chocolate frogs and whatnot) but he cares more about the relationships and histories of the characters than any other of the directors. He actually bothers with some of the subtleties, which I really liked.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 4:15am

I was not as thrilled with the movie's outcome as I'd hoped. Order of the Phoenix is actually my favorite book, so I was more excited for this than any of the previous movies, but it didn't meet my expectations. I know some aspects had to be cut for time, but to me it seemed like really important details for the overall plot (for the series, not the book) were left out completely only to allow for lengthy montages to show off the special effects of them flying over London (twice) or the DA meetings or Dumbledore's fight with Voldemort.

Some edits were more understandable, like the oft-maligned "cleaning of Grimmauld Place" segment (*ahem* sweetestsiren ), but they seemed to take out more side plots than necessary. They show Fred and George selling their candies, they show them dramatically leaving school- why not include the side comment about their joke shop? Speaking of them leaving school, I also didn't like that it was altered to show them interrupting the OWLs. They could have still used them as the distraction when they went to use the fireplace in Umbridge's office. It didn't seem like there was a logical reason to cut or alter so many of the things that were.

I really bothered me that some things weren't consistent between the movies. The special effects used for Sirius talking to Harry through the fire were completely different in this movie than the fourth one. I actually liked the newer effect better, but I still think it should have remained consistent. The Death Eaters costumes were also different in Goblet of Fire- I thought they were scarier in Goblet of Fire than they were in this one.

The part that bugged me the most was that Sirius and Harry didn't have anywhere near as much time or contact to make the visible connection they did in the book. That one moment in the room with the family tree didn't seem enough for me to people to understand how traumatizing and upsetting it was for Harry to watch him die. Sad, but I didn't have anywhere near the same reaction to as I did to the book.

If there was any doubt in my mind that Carter couldn't play Lovett, her performance in this movie has all but wiped it away.
I thought the same thing when I saw the clips of her in some special on the movie. She's going to be amazing.

Updated On: 7/11/07 at 04:15 AM

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 4:22am

The death eaters costumes constantly make me laugh. The last movie was KKK, this one was Darth Vader. Make up your mind what you're going to rip off!

[C is for Company]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 4:29am

I agree that those costumes in the 4th were quite jarring: imagine seeing the black hooded KKK men doing the Wizard of Oz chants from the castle guards on your way home at night?

The only thing I can think of to explain the differences between the effects of the fire was that in the 4th there really wasn't much of a flame for him to come through so he was alive in the coals rather than projected into the fire? I don't know, but I preferred the latter used.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 4:36am

Wasn't that how the death eaters were dressed at the end of the fourth movie? They had the funny masks that turned into smoke on?

To be fair, they forgot to have Harry give Fred and George the money from winning the tournament at the end of book four so chances are they are leaving this subplot out entirely--but they also have Fred and George comment that "their futures lay outside the world of academics" and they show them experimenting and pawning their wares off on the kids so they make many references to the imminent joke shop.

Also, Harry and Sirius have two lengthy scenes together in the flesh, several emotional heart tugging meetings, and Sirius has a just in the nick of time appearance. Their relationship is the heart of the movie and I don't think it's been shorted at all. You just knew what was going to happen.

They made a mistake in not showing us how trapped Sirius felt though. Also, they didn't have Kreacher send Harry running off after Sirius. The full tragedy of his death hasn't been exploited.

Oh yeah, and I wish they had finished their OWLs too.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 5:00am

SPOILERS ABOUND.

Goblet of Fire is actually the second to last favorite of mine. I actually have major problems with all of the films (I'm actually one of those who go into the thought that these films are just other artists' way of interpreting the books, so I tend to try to tolerate more and forgive more than if I kept comparing them to the books).

I always ranked them this way:

1. Prisoner of Azkaban

Pros: They got the atmosphere correct (much more natural look with more natural acting and nuances missing in the first two films), new Dumbledore was a lot more hippy (the way he is in the book), very cinematic to the point where I feel this has the most replay value. Cuaron is clearly more talented than Chris Columbus in that not only did the atmosphere and feeling seem right, but he got the subtext of many of the scenes and not have wooden actors reciting dialogue.

Cons: Butchered adapation. If only they kept the explanation as it was in the book (more or less) the movie would have had a lot less of a divide in fandom. They built up Hermione by totally missing the point of Hermione being on a verge of a nervous breakdown with the whole time-turner ordeal and making her too good to be true. Also, the continuing to dumb Ron down to build up Hermione.

2. Sorcerer's Stone

Pros: Did a great job laying the foundation and introducing us to the world and the characters. Admirable adaptation that is mostly true to the spirit.

Cons: Very wooden and cold at times. Too much of a golden Disney look to Hogwarts. Also, not a very British feel.

3. Goblet of Fire

Pros: Very fun film with hint of a more teenage/adolescent feel. The action scenes done very well. The scene where Harry meets Voldemoret, I felt, was great and I loved how it showed how serious Cedric's death was.

Cons: Too abrupt which is to be expected considering that book 4 has the most action in it than any other book thus far. Sacrifices character development and real underlying subtext of the scenes for action and CGI. Dumbledore takes a VERY wrong turn here and they decide to make him too much of a stern boarding school headmaster who actually physically assaults Harry in one scene.

4. Chamber of Secrets

Pros: Continues on the path of movie 1.

Cons: Chris Columbus shot a VERY awkward movie. The scenes were done horrible with him not even asking more from his child actors. Also, that last action scene was so awkwardly done that it's laughable. Did not understand the main theme of book 2 which was that the wizarding world, like our world, has a serious problem with prejudice and discrimination with tension that can lead to very violent results. That whole mudblood scene where Draco calls Hermione a mudblood for the first time illustrates that perfectly. The way it's staged in the book, it is a VERY big deal for those who grew up in that world and everybody reacts in a very surprised horror. In the movie, Draco says it and no reaction except for "eat slugs" from Ron. Also beginning of building Hermione up and dumbing Ron down.

Now on to book 5

I have to say that I don't understand the complaints about Ron not being there in this film. IMO, this film was the first one since Sorcerer's Stone to get Ron's character right from the book. THey've been dumbing him down since movie 2 and giving all of his best lines to Hermione and butchering his character to the point where people are forgetting what he gives to Harry in terms of support. I absolutely loved how they finally showed little snippets of why Ron was a Gryffindor.

Emma Watson, for the first time since Sorcerer's Stone did not annoy me at all. From movies 2-4 she overacted and chewed up the scenery. The directors and Steve Kloves (the previous screenwriter for movies 1-4) tried making Hermione way too smart and strong (SUPER!Hermione) compared to how she is in the books, and I am for one GLAD that they toned her down a lot for this film. I felt that Hermione was a real person. Very smart and capable, but not so amazing and extraordinary that she becomes the central heroine of the story.

We also got the feel of being angry at Harry for being so angry that we had in the book. I thought it was VERY impressive, and I thought the film looked GORGEOUS. Also, that last scene, I thought was done very well. The way it kept teetering and looking like something was always hiding. Then that last battle with Dumbledore and Voldemort...it built up so well.

I also felt they did do great human touches in this film. Like when the twins comfort the boy after Umbridge's punishment and the Harry/Ron/Hermione have a lot of little moments together that adds to the feeling that they really are close friends.

My complaints would be that I wish we had a lot more McGonagall scenes. McGonagall is a much stronger character in this book than the movie would portray, and she has great banter with Umbridge that we don't see in the film.

Also, the twins leaving scene left much to be desired, and I wish they did the OWLS the way they were done in the book. In the book, Harry, for the first time, has a good time doing a good potion because he no longer has the pressure of Snape waiting for him to fail. I thought that scene in the book was an important message that JKR was showing.

Also, Helena Bonham Carter overdid Bellatrix, IMO. She did her Tim Burton shtick and failed to play a real person. Bellatrix was crazed to be sure, but she was also sane enough to know what she was doing.

Dumbledore was better here than he was in Goblet of Fire, but still not completely right. He was way too self-conscious, IMO.

I'll add more later when I rewatch it to give a much more coherent review than this half-assed one.

Updated On: 7/11/07 at 05:00 AM

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 6:50am

Some edits were more understandable, like the oft-maligned "cleaning of Grimmauld Place" segment (*ahem* sweetestsiren)

Heh! Fun shoutout, but I dare say that many people probably agree. Order of the Phoenix is one of my favorites in the series as well, but I don't think there's any denying that Rowling's editors rather dropped the ball on that one (which I believe she admitted when saying that she made more of an effort to edit herself for Half-Blood Prince). So I think it's the movie that probably could have used the most trimming, but it doesn't sound from these reviews like they made great choices about what they were. One of my only complaints about Goblet of Fire was that we're subjected to a 10 minute dragon challenge scene when that time could easily and more successfully been used for character development or simply to break up the rushed feel (e.g. Cuaron's lovely Whomping Willow interludes). In any case, I haven't seen the OotP yet, but it doesn't look like my expectations should be as high as they were based on the trailer.

And y'all actually doubted that Helena Bonham Carter could play Mrs. Lovett?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/11/07 at 7:00am

i was totally not ready for the extended sequence of hermione on the sybian...but it was hot.