Harry Potter et l'Ordre du Phénix

Why do Harry Potter movies give me, but not the children, nightmares? I've been wondering this for the past few years. Today, watching Movie No. 5, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Warner Bros., 2007), I got my answer. Simply: Harry's world is the real world. As Harry and his friends mature, the line between the world of wizardry, magic, and Hogwarts and the world of self-centered, manipulative, cruel adults thins to the point of almost magical invisibility.

Fantasy literature has since the beginning of time been about mediating and making sense of the real world; Harry Potter is part of this tradition.

Indeed, one of the movie's first big special effects embodies this idea. As the movie opens, Harry is the subject of a smear campaign that Valdemore has cooked up because darkness works tirelessly to triumph over the light; when his friends come to rescue him from the suburban horror show known as his adoptive family, they take him to the headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix, a place that doesn't exist until a row of Georgian homes stretches out to reveal it. It's there, but the neighbors are unaware of it. They have no idea their building grew a house that the wizards and witches of the world can solve an internal problem. Such is life; how seldom do we know the inner workings, the coping mechanisms, the interior life of the people around us? In The Order of the Phoenix, Harry Potter again does battle with evil to bring home the theme that when you fight, you fight well with and for your friends and to the death if necessary. Truth and goodness--call if love, if you want--are worth the trouble. The Gothic idiom of Harry Potter brilliantly takes the challenges Harry faces out of the present on one level even though these are very clearly 21st century characters facing contemporary challenges. Alongside the power of goodness over evil theme is the theme of the power of the imagination to find solutions to problems that are the same in every generation: politics, power games, jealousy, stupidity, growing up.

Always in Harry Potter is the clear distinction between the good guys and the bad ones right alongside the good kids and the annoying kids, who could very well become evil people if they so choose. They are tragic because they don't understand the long-range consequences of their petty cruelties--but then, as we learn in this movie, even the good kids are capable of petty cruelties that break souls. Always there is Snape, the middling Hogwarts employee who is not clearly good but not clearly bad but capable of both (until fate forces his hand in Book 6).

J.K. Rowling doesn't let anybody off of the hook of responsibility for their choices. But she does present the internal struggle for goodness and justice for the mess that it can be. Just as the Gothic world of Hogwarts helps Harry and his friends mediate the real world, so Rowling helps her readers see the world for what it is. This is a world that can give me nightmares, though not my daughter and my nephews. Perhaps because all they really need is an honest story.

So many great parts were skipped over, rushed with ridiculous cliché transition scenes, or simply changed because, apparently, it's impossible to include everything. But what can anyone reasonably expect?

I went into this expecting exactly what I saw, it's still just a tad annoying hearing people talk about how impossible it would be to follow the book. It's not impossible at all. Look at the matrix 2&3, look at pirates of the caribbean 2&3, look at LOTR (it's all one continuous story). Lots of "stories" have had to be split up into multiple films and they all worked great. It's just a tad short-sighted to say it wouldn't work with a harry potter film. I think a lot of what people enjoy is looking at the wizard world, seeing cool looking spells, and generally learning more about everything to do with the harry potter universe. You don't get much of that when a 26 hour read is condensed into a 2.5 hour film. I personally would love to see more of the "boring" parts of the book simply because it's interesting seeing a high-budget Hollywood interpretation of what was in the book. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't be the least bit disappointed if the film-makers simply came out and said "this book is too long to put into a single film with out leaving out a lot of the book and changing a lot of other parts, so we're releasing it in two films." It's completely understandable. It's an 800 page book! LOTR books were only 400-600 pages and the films were considerably longer than any of the harry potter films.

Overall, it was a decent enough movie though. Great special effects, good enough acting (I wouldn't go so far as to say it was amazing). I'd say it's basically a standard high-budget film. Entertaining to watch, well worth my $10 so I could come and complain how it was nothing like the book :)

Overall, not a bad film, especially the opening sequence which'll have you quivering behind the seat in front! Great effects as always.

For me, Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge completely steals the show. Her character was fantastically well observed - the odd little hysterical titters of laughter she gave had superb comedic timing. Helena Bonham Carter had a star turn too as Belatrix - she's completely bonkers and HBC totally did her justice! Loved it!

For me, both their successes stood out conspicuously when compared to the horrendously awkward acting from the younger members of the cast. Sorry(!) but there were so many cringe worthy moments (especially the more intimate ones) where you kept begging the director to cut away from the acting. Tighter editing could have prevented these distracting moments from constantly reminding me I was watching actors on a set.

Hermione (Emma Watson), Luna (Evanna Lynch) , and Cho (Katie Leung) were the main culprits, with Daniel Radcliff not falling far behind. Okay, I know they're supposed to be awkward teenagers in the story, but hey! My suspicion is that these poor kids feel so caught up in the huge franchise that is HP that the pressure to perform must be enormous. Couple that with the screenplay's stilted dialogue, and being surrounded by what must have been a huge crew with them all staring at you, it's hardly a surprise that a few cracks were shown. Still, you'd have thought the editing might have been able to get around it.

These cringes aside, I enjoyed the film. Also, a huge congrats to all those involved in the hard work that obviously went into the post production too.

After his fourth traumatic year at Hogwarts that ended with a showdown with the franchise's very own Mr Bad, Lord Voldemort, it doesn't seem too much for Harry Potter to be asking for a peaceful Summer. However, he doesn't get such a wish – from the opening scene in which Harry and his despised cousin Dudley have close encounters of the life-threatening kind with two dementors in an underground passage, it is clear that Voldemort has unfinished business with the scarred lad, and that he has every intention of finishing it. Plus, nearly everyone in Harry's school believe him to be a liar, Professor Dumbledore refuses to look him in the eye, his friends don't understand him, and, on top of that, Harry must grapple with the skills required in mastering his first kiss. My, my, aren't teenage lives complicated?!

A word of warning. This is not a film for the uninitiated. If "patronum", "Avada Kedavra" and "ministry of Magic" sound like code to you, then best avoid watching this. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix makes no attempt to guide the newbies along the story (and rightly so, because any attempt at that would detract from the film and patronize its viewers). To fully comprehend the plot, you must have seen the four previous films as well as read the book from which this film is based.

The film itself is a wonderful jumble of goods, bads, and uglies. There is plenty to enjoy here, starting with the flawless turn from Imelda Staunton as the sadistic Dolores Umbridge. The woman who we are so used to seeing in roles as the sweet old lady, whether it be in Shakespeare in Love, or her Oscar-nominated turn in Vera Drake, her performance here is a shock and a half. Kitted out from head to toe in pink and sporting a sugary air, we soon find that Umbridge, whose methods of punishment include using quills that protract blood on her students, is anything but sweet. Staunton captures Umbridge's ruthless oiliness perfectly; never before has evil been such fun to watch.

Rupert Grint is also a joy. His ginger hair, large blue eyes, bumbling demeanour and spot-on comedy timing make him the true star of the show, and every scene that he features in benefits as a result of his appearance. Simply put, he is Godly. Sadly, the other two teen stars are nowhere near as good as Grint; Radcliffe, who gave an adequate performance in the West End's Equus, is back to his shoddy self here with an array of overreaching facial expressions and laughable deliveries of his lines. He is most embarrassing of all in the lead-up to kissing Cho Chang, in which everyone in my cinema was collapsing with laughter at his "performance." But it gets even worst, for Emma Watson, aspiring Cambridge student, World Peace Representative (probably) and general object of annoyance to average, frumpy teenage girls such as myself, gave a performance that was so awful, it damn near lost me the will to live. She just couldn't portray any of her emotions convincingly, and just settled for saying the lines that were written for her. Whereas Hermione was one of my favourite characters in the book due to her kindness, knowledge and appreciation for others' feelings, Emma's presentation of Hermione makes her insufferable and punch-worthy. It ain't good.

The two "actors" aside, my main other foible with this film was how it cut/altered some very important details of the book. For example, in the book, it is Kreacher who betrays Sirius and puts him in danger. The appearance of Snape's past as a hated and bullied student is also poorly put together and left to linger rather than properly dealt with. The Cho Chang storyline is pitiful, whereas in the book, we had been led to see that she wasn't all that she had cracked up to be as a person, in the film, she is the sketchiest of sketches and written off practically before she has begun. In terms of 2007 releases, only Pirates of the Caribbean III had more plot holes than this.

That said, I had a huge amount of fun in the 2 and a half hours that this film played, with three newcomers to this movie, Yates (director), Michael Goldenberg (screenwriter) and Hooper (composer). The direction was apt, not perfect, but acceptable. The score was acceptable. The visual effects were stunning, especially in the climactic finale between Dumbeldore's Army and Voldemort's Deatheaters, led by Jason Isaacs, where an entire storeroom containing shelved globes containing prophecies, one of which concerns Harry. It is here that Helena Bonham Carter emerges as Bellatrix Lestrange, one of the final and greatest joys of the film. Laughing manically and sporting long hair greasier than a Professor Snape-Cristiano Ronaldo mixup, she makes the most of her limited screen time to deliver one of the best performances in all the Harry Potter movies. Utterly haunting.

Thus, verily I say, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is a worthwhile outing. If you can put up with the abomination commonly known as "Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson trying to act", as well as the slightly pretentious over-editing of Harry's dream sequences, not to mention the ten thousand odd plot holes, then you should venture out to the cinema to see this. Not capital film-making, but, as I'm yet to see Ratatouille and The Simpsons movie, about as good as you'll get this Summer from the cinema.

I actually was lucky enough to see this at a sneak preview on Monday. The "experience" was lousy, but the film was good...IF you take it as a separate entity from the series of books. If you separate the film from the book, you won't be disappointed.

For the negative...there were, of course, MANY things that were omitted from the film. As a huge fan of the books, I still must be realistic. I knew there would be a lot of information left out. There were a few things that I felt could have made the story richer if they had been included, but I won't go into detail so I don't give away any of the film's changes. There were a few changes that made me frown at times, but as the story played out, it did make the film flow well. One of their worst casting decisions, Michael Gambon, was actually tolerable in this one, for the most part. I am NOT a fan of his portrayal of Dumbledore, but I guess he worked for this film simply because, for the majority of the story, he is supposed to be acting somewhat aloof towards Harry. That worked for him. I miss the subtlety that Richard Harris brought to that role, and, while he wasn't dreadful in this one, I still believe that there are countless other well known actors in the UK that could have done this role better justice. There wasn't enough Molly or Hagrid for me though. I love both of those characters.

On a positive note, the special effects were very well done. The thestrals were marvelous--eerie, but strangely peaceful creatures. Evanna Lynch could not have been more spot on as Luna. Her voice, mannerisms and demeanor were amazing. My only complaint about her was that she wasn't on screen enough. :o) Imelda Staunton, as Umbridge, and Helena Bonham Carter, as Bella, have to be two of the BEST casting decisions that they have with regard to these films. They were SO incredible. I was actually quite impressed with Dan, Rupert and Emma as well. They have come quite far in their acting abilities. They have finally achieved the art of saying a lot without necessarily opening their mouths. The scene in the common room following the kiss between Harry and Cho was hysterical. Kreacher and Grawp were great additions to the films. Fred and George's exit was very well done, albeit slightly different. The film, if taken by itself, was really good. Unfortunately, it's a lot different from the book. But, as I'm doing a film review and not a comparison, I'll give it 8 out of 10, because I was highly entertained.

Our "sneak preview" was interrupted in the middle due to a problem with the film, and I think we still missed some of it. We lined up 3 hours before the movie was supposed to begin, it started late, it was interrupted in the middle for over 30 minutes, we were wanded for metal and electronics every time we went in or out...I think we'll just wait until opening week next time. It's crowded, but a lot less trouble.

We are actually going to see it again.