Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

[MacGuffin]

International Trailer here.

[Ghostboy]

Yay! Now I'm finally excited about a big summer movie!

[modage]

International Trailer here.

Quicktime US Trailer here.

[Pubrick]

so i've never read the books.
i thought the first two films were kind of targeted at kids mainly.
i really liked azkaban (bought it) and enjoyed goblet (but hav forgotten it).

so this felt like the thing to do at 9:30am.
i went to the biggest screen in brisbane and got the best seat.
i knew it was rated M (which is like a hard PG-13) and conan called it dull (in the monologue).

i expected nothing more than 138mins of wholesome entertainment.
i can't believe i made another horrible decision.
so fucking boring.

i'm sure some might find the endless expositional dialogue and repetition riveting.
i don't think i stayed awake for a single whole scene from beginning to end.
so it felt like Russian Ark, with brief moments of interest in that one room.

oh and the one thing i thought would be good based on the previous film was that asian chick with a scottish accent which i thought was a genius find on the part of the casting douche (or was it in the book that harry's love interest would be so cute?) but she wasn't even cute in this and i don't understand what happened to her character nor should anyone bother explaining or you will give me narcolepsy and i also don't know who half the ppl were who fought behind harry in his new clan and furthermore the real problem is that no other character besides harry has any dimensions to speak of, in the movies at least.

*sigh*

so i spent the rest of the day reading eric brighteyes and thinking about kubrick.

[picolas]

*i suppose there's slight structure spoilage..

i thought it had a couple of good moments but structurally it was terrible. 95% preparation for 10 minutes at the end. it was as though the whole movie was a teaser for the next movie. and preparing to do battle using magic is really really hard to make interesting partly because know one actually knows how to do it. so it's a lot of "just FOCUS! people! FOCUS HARDER! NO! REALLY REALLY FOCUS! ... Good."

[Ghostboy]

Yeah, with the exception of Imelda Staunton, it was terrible.

[The Red Vine]

Easily the worst Harry Potter film yet. But a truly terrible film even as a stand alone effort.

The biggest mistake was hiring David Yates as director (and unfortunately he's doing the next one). His vision doesn't have the charm or sophistication that earlier filmmakers Chris Columbus and Alfonso Cuaron brought to the series. Instead it's too stern and tedious in it's pacing, ideas, and style. The opening sequence in particular seemed really off.

Daniel Radcliffe...I just don't think the kid can act. Particularly when he's playing an angst-ridden teen.

The only sign of life in this film is Emma Watson and Imelda Staunton.

[Gold Trumpet]

Spoilers....

Yea, this was bad. It's a shame because the series has been so good all the way through.

For me, this film felt bogged down by plot points that would set up the next parts of the series. The characters and story were less defined. I always admired the quality of the characters in the series. Most fantasy stuff bores me because they are more about bullshit worlds than they are about characters. but Harry Potter had the right focus on characters with a good enough mix of everything else to make the stories charming. There were themes under this film, but they were given lip service only. The closeness of Sirius and Potter was only given a few scenes before his untimely death.

Also the story felt short. The conflict at the beginning is everyone's insistence that Potter is making up everything up. Eventually the fellow classmates believe in Harry (with little coaxing) and then a minor battle and revelation gets everyone else to as well. The end is dissapointing considering there is a build up to really nothing much at all. The worst part is that the film focuses on Harry's darker side but with little involvement from the secondary characters who could have given the story more and made it more enjoyable. The film is suppose to be about a darker subject, but the series is an entertainment vehicle and still needs to be entertaining.

I think the series felt the need to change it up. Fans of the book were complaining about the films (which I think is dumb anyways) so a change was made. I know some fans of the book that consider this the best adaptation and I know some who consider this the worst because it is most unlike the novel. It's unfair to compare novels and films anyways. The film needs to hire the first writer.

[picolas]

The only sign of life in this film is Emma Watson

no. she's disgraceful. that was easily the worst performance in the movie. and every single delivery involved extraneous eyebrow movement.

[pumba]

The harry potter movies in general are very, very bad. They all suck (azkaban excluded). It's like they're so bad to the point where i can't enjoy the books anymore. But i still woudln't mind tastin' that hermione!

EXPECTO PETRONUM.

[grand theft sparrow]

So how many Mike Leigh vets are we up to now?

SAME SPOILERS AS GT

I sort of have to disagree with most of you.  Sort of.

Azkaban is the only one that completely worked for me but this one comes closer than any of the others to that, but I think that's only because I've read the book.  I can completely see, as I did with Goblet of Fire, anyone who didn't read the book wondering what the fuck they were watching.  This is the worst of the problems I had with this movie, besides Emma Watson and her long... pauses between each sentence... as if every line she delivers without enunciating properly will result in her death.  I chalked her shitty performance in Goblet up to her adjusting to puberty but she's had plenty of time to get used to cramps and mood swings by now... she's actually gotten continually worse since the first one.

Squeezing the longest (and relatively speaking, draggiest) book of the series into the shortest running time and still making it work for the uninitiated is probably impossible, so it wasn't a bad bet for them to just make the movie for the book fans (since there's obviously enough to guarantee some decent money) and assume that everyone else will ask someone who's read the book to clear things up.

I'll give this one a pass because the feel of the movie was right, Imelda Staunton didn't disappoint, and I like that Yates takes the story (maybe a little too) seriously.  I know that's pissed off a lot of people, claiming the magic is gone from the movies, but I only ever found magic in Azkaban so... if I can't have Gilliam Cuaron back, this guy will do.  Certainly moreso than Mike Newell (not even mentioning the other one). 

There were themes under this film, but they were given lip service only. The closeness of Sirius and Potter was only given a few scenes before his untimely death.

This isn't entirely this film's fault.  As I recall, there was more of Sirius in the Goblet book than just the one scene in the Goblet movie.  So if you go solely by the movies, we only really have this movie to draw on his relationship with Harry, and I think it would have eased the burden on this one if they had managed to work him into the Goblet movie more.

The film needs to hire the first writer.

Definitely.  Steve Kloves finally got it right with Azkaban and then he left.  I just re-read that book this week for the first time since 1999, so it was a shock to me how many changes were made for the movie, but some of those changes worked better than how they played in the book; whether that was Cuaron's influence or Kloves', I don't know but this new screenwriter seems to want to just cut things out as opposed to condensing them.  Apparently, he wanted to exclude a specific character from this movie but Rowling said no because said character would figure heavily in book 7.

[Gold Trumpet]

More spoilers...

There were themes under this film, but they were given lip service only. The closeness of Sirius and Potter was only given a few scenes before his untimely death.

This isn't entirely this film's fault.  As I recall, there was more of Sirius in the Goblet book than just the one scene in the Goblet movie.  So if you go solely by the movies, we only really have this movie to draw on his relationship with Harry, and I think it would have eased the burden on this one if they had managed to work him into the Goblet movie more.

Good insight, but if a new director entered this film knowing that an earlier film had skimped on showing the relationship between Potter and Sirius, his responsibility would be to promote the bond between them in the film where Sirius actually dies. Maybe the novel didn't have much between them but the filmmakers should have added more to the screenplay.

[polkablues]

Granted, it was still a Harry Potter film, so adjust all expectations accordingly (which is to say, down), but compared to the incomprehensible, style-less mess that was "Goblet of Fire", at least this one was comprehensible and stylish.

Here's a question, though: is it something inherent in the material that mandates all climactic scenes have to be awkwardly staged in bland settings, or was that a stylistic choice by each director?  Last time, we got people glaring magically at each other in a vacant lot, this time, we got people pointing colorfully at each other in an empty room.  The final acts of these movies tend to be about as cinematic as a game of bingo, minus the dramatic intensity.

[grand theft sparrow]

BOOK 5 AND MOVIE 5 SPOILERS

More spoilers...

There were themes under this film, but they were given lip service only. The closeness of Sirius and Potter was only given a few scenes before his untimely death.

This isn't entirely this film's fault.  As I recall, there was more of Sirius in the Goblet book than just the one scene in the Goblet movie.  So if you go solely by the movies, we only really have this movie to draw on his relationship with Harry, and I think it would have eased the burden on this one if they had managed to work him into the Goblet movie more.

Good insight, but if a new director entered this film knowing that an earlier film had skimped on showing the relationship between Potter and Sirius, his responsibility would be to promote the bond between them in the film where Sirius actually dies. Maybe the novel didn't have much between them but the filmmakers should have added more to the screenplay.

Very fair point but I have a feeling it might not have been the director's choice.  There have been a lot of movies longer than 2:30 that have been "underperforming" and since the last Potter movie to be released in the summer was also the lowest grossing one, there was probably pressure from Warner Bros. to make it short and sweet.  I have a feeling they were intending to have a 2:30-2:45 movie most of the others, in which case there could, or at least should, have been more written in with Sirius.  There was more in the book than made it on screen, including Sirius treating Harry as Harry's father instead of a child he is guardian to (which would have come in handy when Sirius mistakenly says, "Good one, James!" in the final battle).  But I think the director might have been under orders to "cut out the talky stuff and focus on the action."  Of course, this is all speculation but it wouldn't surprise me.

And they changed the nature of Sirius' death for the movie, simply to cut down on explanations.  That archway that they fought next to was an archway to, presumably, the world of the dead.  Bellatrix simply hit him with something that knocked him into the archway.  Making her use the Death Curse on him kind of defeats the purpose of the archway being there in the movie.  It now just becomes something to keep the room from being just a wide open space as polka pointed out every climactic battle takes place in.  But this is the problem with how this writer is condensing the story. 

[MacGuffin]

Harry Potter and the Four Directors
By MANOHLA DARGIS and A. O. SCOTT; New York Times

IN "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," which started sneaking into theaters Tuesday night, Harry enters his fifth and most tumultuous year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

In the six years since the release of the first movie, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," J. K. Rowling's schoolboy wizard, his classmates, teachers and enemies have passed through the hands of four directors — Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuarón, Mike Newell and David Yates — each of whom has brought a distinctive style and sensibility. The stories have become darker and more thematically complex, and the young actors playing Harry, Ron and Hermione — Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson — have matured along with their characters. In the previous film, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," Harry confronted death when one of his schoolmates was killed. And now, in "Order of the Phoenix," Harry finally discovers that girls are an altogether different kind of chamber of secrets.

The technologies that help create fantasy-action filmmaking have also developed with astonishing rapidity, opening up new possibilities for broomstick-assisted flight and computer-generated monsters. From the candles that float above the Hogwarts dining room to the foreboding winged horses called Thestrals that soar through "Order of the Phoenix," the verisimilitude of the magical worlds in "Harry Potter" justify special-effects innovations in a way that few big-budgeted film fantasies do.

All of which makes the series a fascinating case study. Looking at the five movies side by side, you can see how the material lends itself to diverse film genres and styles, from breezy children's movie to ominous political thriller, and how very dissimilar directors approach, sidestep and conquer similar material. You can also relish young actors learning to master their craft alongside veterans like Michael Gambon and Maggie Smith making mischievous use of their mastery. Somewhere in Britain there might still be a lord or a dame looking for work, but with two more Harry Potter films on the way, not for long.

Shape-Shifting: High Jinks to Horror to Political Intrigue

Just as the "Harry Potter" books may have spurred children to reach for more adult fare, the films may be accomplishing much the same in the cinematic realm, initiating them into the pleasures of more genres. The first two movies, directed by Chris Columbus ("Mrs. Doubtfire," "Home Alone"), played much like kiddie comedies, with plenty of mild gross-out humor and schoolboy antics (like the mishap-strewn joy ride taken by Ron and Harry in "Chamber of Secrets"). But by the third film, "The Prisoner of Azkaban," directed by Alfonso Cuarón, the tone and color palette have shifted, the bright, flat lighting giving way to a somber and dangerous feel, evocative of horror films.

With the latest film, David Yates — who directed the British mini-series "State of Play" — introduces elements of the political thriller. A political crisis has enveloped the wizarding world in "Order of the Phoenix," as officials refuse to believe that the Dark Lord has returned. Portrayed in the wizard-world tabloids as a liar, perhaps even deranged, Harry finds himself confronting a shadowy conspiracy.

Time's Arrow, With a Wave of the Wand

Looking back on the early films, the most striking thing about the actors playing Harry, Ron and Hermione is how young they look. But over the years, their talents have blossomed as their roles have become increasingly complex.

Emma Watson's Hermione, who has evolved from nerdy know-it-all into a smart, sophisticated young woman (albeit with an angry streak, as seen above left), is one of the few role models for girls (and women) in the boy-dominated fantasy movie genre. Rupert Grint's Ron, Harry's faithful sidekick, is a little more static, but this actor's range has filled out even if his character hasn't changed as much as the others. And Daniel Radcliffe's Harry has had to confront difficult emotions, even as the moral and physical challenges he faces become more perilous.

The relationships among the three friends are not always easy or harmonious. Yet despite the tribulations of adolescence, Harry, Ron and Hermione have thus far remained inseparable.