Harry Potter and the order of the Phoenix Movie SPOILERS SPOILERS — Page 4

Singingwendy, the nose they've given Voldemort in the movie seems to match JKR's description, IMO. In GoF, it says that his nose is complete flat (like a snake's) with only slits for nostrils.

I saw it tonight. And a lot was not explained. This movie is for those who read the book and know it. So much was left out, yet, they hit all of the important parts. And that's where the problem is. It is the longest book and the shortest movie. There are things that could have been cut short to allow for things that explained what was going on. The kiss....well....went on too long! Umbridge was fantastic till the end. It just tried to be all inclusive but it was confusing. I did, however, like the battle in the arena. All of that was cut short though. And the whole possesion thing with Harry after the fight with Voldermort was a surprise. And the revelation of the prophecy was not good. It reiked of trying to save screen time. They could have easily done it the way it was done in the book. And, these kids are wizards who wear robes. They were in modern clothes at the Ministry in the movie. Not in the book. Keep them in their robes for God's sake! And wasn't the prophecy in a bottle, not an orb?
It was an ok movie. Could have been better. Just my opinion.

---

I also saw it last night. I enjoyed it a lot but like most others here, I felt that far too much was cut short (or deleted altogether) to make much sense. I finally decided that this particular book would have been better done in a television mini-series. The full story could have been told, with character development and transition, staying true to the novel and still being entertaining.

Of course that would never be done - but it's still something to think about. I mentioned this before - maybe we can look forward to a fuller version on DVD one day.

---

Amazing little tidbit, Mamie! Evanna, along with Imelda, was the highlight of the film for me.

I have to agree with Roninjoey...this film needs a second viewing. I saw it the first time and was disappointed. I saw it again tonight (somewhat begrudgingly) and loved it. The acting in this film is superb, and easily worth the price of admission alone. The gaping holes left by cut material seem smaller on second viewing, and there is less surprise that pieces are absent (I for one terribly missed Firenze, the swamp,the Pensieve, the Prophecy...lots of things)...

All in all, I think the film is admirably done, but a bit choppily edited...

And there were so many great quotes for me to impersonate ("I may vomit." "You know, I really hate children!")...

When reading this, bear in mind that I think the books are terribly written, though I have read them.

I thought all the adults were uniformly strong; people are saying they don't like actors (eg Emma Thompson) because they don't personify what people imagined int heir heads. The fact is that JK Rowling tends to write stereotypes, and these actors are uniformly making these characters into real people.... well, except Alan Rickman, who does snarky do brilliantly that I have no real qualms.

Umbridge was genius.

So was Bellatrix... I didn't find her over the top at all. I found her unbalanced, yes, but I think she was TRYING to frighten the DA, rather than actually being THAT crazy.

I could have done without Radcliffe turning into Voldemort at the end. That went on for a while.

I wanted to see Professor Lockhart and Neville's parents.

And Remus... I don't think he had a single line. This movie NEEDS to set up what happens with him next by allowing us to remember who he is!

Watson still annoys me.

Grint wasn't given enough to do (especially with that expressive face of us).

Hated Radcliffe's hair.

I enjoyed the movie very much, though, as a whole.

And my mom thinks Gary Oldman is hot.

---

Also, as someone pointed out- this film had the kids wearing way to much muggle clothing. It just ain't Harry Potter without the robes!

I don't mind the muggle clothing so much because I figure that they only wear robes for classes. In the books, JKR makes a point that most of the students have some sort of contact with muggles (either being born muggles themselves or have family members marrying them) so it's not far-fetched to think that they would wear more muggle-style clothing. I remember when POA came out and how many were complaining about the lack of uniforms, but having it pointed out how there were no uniforms in the books, just robes.

---

Was I not paying attention or did Harry's scar not appear until near the end of the movie? Somewhere in the middle of the movie I was looking for it and did not see it. And then, bango! It was there late in the movie.

---

Well I had a few cocktails before the movie! But I am sure it was not there until near the end. And the scar burned a number of times in the book.

---

"Harry being posessed by Voldemort unnecessary and irritating. "

I haven't seen the movie yet, but wasn't Harry possessed by Voldemort in the book for just a moment.

---

Renting - The fight at the end does happen in the lobby in the book. And the statue in the fountain plays a part in it which was excluded from the movie.

orange - Also in the books, it is mentioned that they "tucked their wands in their robes", etc. They had their robes on when they went to the Ministry in the book. Their robes are mentioned a lot throughout the books. I would suspect those sweaters are worn on the weekends!

---

Updated On: 7/13/07 at 03:20 PM

Poncho's might have been better! Easier to move around in! But that would have been too Ugly Betty!

---

I skimmed through most of the reviews, but I do have to say, ScottyDoesn'tKnow, I pretty much agree with a lot of what you've said. The movies are very different from the books and with only two more movies coming out, we have to accept the fact that it's going to be less and less faithful to the books and more aligned with the previous movies (despite some inconsistencies, which I think are forgivable considering they're different directors). The good news is, imho, the movies just keep getting better.

Now, I wasn't totally satisfied when I walked out of the theater. I thought some of the editing was strange and they left a lot of subplots out. But after just stepping back and reflecting, the editing was actually marvelous, different but well-done, capturing the essence of angst and darkness the fifth book had. And the subplots...well, you just had to know they would screw something up trying to condense an 870-page book into a 136-minute (give or take) movie. And with that, I thought "This was a different take on the film, but I loved it. By all means, not perfect, but mature, dark and breathtaking."

Before I start with my review, I just want to ask: Did you guys see Percy?! I nearly squealed when he showed up with the Ministry. He did not have any lines at all but I commend Yates for the nuances and subtleties in this film! Bravo! Nobody but diehard book fans would know that was him and I was thrilled-- now if only they can slip Bill and Charlie in there!

Now that I've got that out of my system...

I agree with many of you, the acting was phenomenal. You can truly see that Harry, Ron and Hermione have grown and they're not kids anymore. I thought this was so vital, and Yates did an amazing job in directing them (and props to the actors as well), because they can't continue to run into mishaps and win on luck anymore. Emma, Daniel, and Rupert were much more real in this-- like they weren't just two-dimensial characters like I got so much from the other movies (the hero, the sidekick and the overbearing smart one). They were complex, their friendship was real-- such a nice change in pace.

Imelda Staunton-- wow! What an extraordinary performance. I couldn't stand her in the book and how well that transitioned onscreen! She was torture to watch because she made her character so believable and it made my teeth clench. It was like she was born for this role. Actually, all the evil characters-- Fiennes, Isaacs, Carter-- were fantastic! Although I hate how they dressed up Voldemort in what looked like a GQ suit (I don't remember if that's how he was described in the book-- honestly, everything I remembered were NOT included in the movie and everything I had forgotten were in the movie. Funny, innit?), Fiennes was truly....creepy. Really hard to picture that man as Voldemort, but a job well-done! Isaacs was AMAZING, as usual... that man never fails to take my breath away. And Carter... my friend pointed this out, they ALWAYS cast Carter as the weird character i.e. Fight Club, Big Fish. Poor woman is type-cast but for good reason! I loved her take on Bellatrix. I loved her "I killed Sirius Black!!"

I agree Maggie Smith needs more screen time. I was nearly at the edge of my seat whenever she appeared. With the little screen time she was given, she truly impressed me. When she and Umbridge were at each other's throats (amazing chemistry), when she comforted Trelawny. And Alan Rickman... he doesn't even need to be mentioned. Clearly one of the best actors in the film and no one could do Snape better justice. CANNOT wait for him in Half-Blood Prince.

Some upsets with acting-- Dumbledore I guess was slightly better in this one, but this man just cannot replace Harris for me. I miss him so. But I guess I'm only saying he was better because he was seldom there. Almost every entrance and exit was dramatic, which was sort of amusing, laughable. It was like... "And cue- DUMBLEDORE! (dramatic music)" Lynch did an amazing job as Luna, but I did not like her interpretation of her character. I mean, it works, but it was not at all how I pictured it in the book. She was more innocent, fairy-like-- like she was from another world. The Luna I pictured was groundeda little bit more realistic, weird and can seem like she's from another planet but more sinister. I'm not sure if anybody else felt that way, but that's how I felt.

I am SO upset that Felton's talent is being wasted. He showed incredible acting in the second movie and ever since them I hoped they would show more of him (because he IS important in the next film)-- instead they made him as a joke. A two-dimensional character. I felt really sympathetic for him in the 6th book...I hope they don't have him the evil character and make everyone hate him in the movie version.

Besides acting, storyline was pretty good considering it wasn't as clean as the other storylines from previous movies. I mean, it's hard to say there was a storyline. I agree that this was more of a transitional book. The little I remember from the book wasn't portrayed as well in the movie. I remember the book being a lot of thinking, pondering, flashbacks. Now the flashback scenes were tremendously done. But, I also remember learning a lot of James Potter and his past and although we see a snippet of that going in Snape's mind, I wish there was more. But I guess you have to make some sacrifices... it just worries me because the sixth book is basically all flashback-- a majority of it is the history of Voldemort and I do not what them to downplay that as they did with James and his past.

Speaking of downplaying... boy, did they downplay Sirius's death! I mean, the dying part was great (I always loved these type of scenes), but the aftermath was...lacking. They made such a big deal about it in the book, a big deal about Cedric's death in the 4th AND 5th movie, but Sirius death was sort of like... he's DEAD, oh dear! oh no-- hey, what's going on over yonder? Let's see! But I can't say I'm too disappointed with it. I was worried because Sirius did not have a lot of character development (as far as Harry/Sirius relationship I guess) in the 3rd and 4th movie that I wasn't going to be sad when Sirius died. But they did that adequately in the 5th movie and was happy with the outcome. Not thrilled, but happy which is more than I can ask for.

Okay this review has to be "to be continued"-- my dog is sick and I have to take him to the hospital =( I'll be back with more soon.

---