Who's seen it? Discuss please.

Just came back from the IMAX showing with my 8-year-old and we both had a fine time. The last 20 minutes or so was in 3D!

Every early review said "Dark, dark, dark..." and I was worried my Potter-fanatic son may find it a little rough. But honestly, I found parts of the previous film to be more disturbing (Voldemort's rebirth, Cedric's death, etc.). I needn't have worried. He did fine and was ecstatic following the show.

It was fun seeing previous characters like Lupin, Moody and of course, Sirius. The pacing seemed quite compressed as I'm sure it was. Could have been a 3-hour film and maybe we'll get some scenes back on the DVD. I liked it even though it seems more like a stepping stone. We don't learn much new, except the political turmoil and division caused by the Ministry, the power of the prophecy and the preamble to war. The score was invigorating - especially the broom ride through London.

Looking forward to the DVD and film 6.

Wait...They ride brooms though Londaon?!?!?!?! Oh maaaaan, now the movies is ruined for me!!! :lol:

Uh, no, not at all. Brooms? What brooms?

Well, it does say SPOILERS! :p

This was my favorite of the books, but it was also the longest. Movie #4 did a reasonably good job truncating the story without leaving me feeling cheated, I hope this one can do the same.

Many of the early responses that dissed the movie sound very much as tif they came from people who hadn't read the books in that they didn't know the stroy was going to be more mature and dramatic. "It's not fun anymore, it's not cute and fun and magic larks and Disneyesque. Why isn't it cute?" Bah. Those were the same remarks that originally met the novel.

this was the thickess of the books so far. I'm sure a lot was sacrificed for the movie.

I've noticed that the various tv stations have run "extended" version of the movies that are not available yet on DVD. I have bought the first 4 movies but I'm holding out from now on until they begin releasing the extended cuts of the movies. Perhaps they will do this after the last two films are done and are re-released on HD

This was my favorite of the books, but it was also the longest. Movie #4 did a reasonably good job truncating the story without leaving me feeling cheated, I hope this one can do the same.
alas, it doesnt. this movie has too much story to tell and to little time to do it. imt friends and i were left with the impression that they were racing to try to get as much in as they could in the proscribed time.
in the theater i saw it in, the 3-d effect was often pretty bad.

I agree with you.

My girlfriend and I walked out and we were both perplexed as to why this screen play left so much out.

Whereas the other Potter movies have a fairly good adaptation of the book, with the ability to succesfully translate it to he Big screen........this one just felt rushed and I hardly remember any talk about the Order of the Phoenix.

I think this is the worst of the bunch....hopefully the next one will be better.

I am luck, as having never read the book, I just watch the movie. I do agree it did feel rushed, and it should have been longer. It was dark, but the humor was there when needed. I liked the movie, and may see it again.

well this one was not adapted by steve kloves (sp?), who did the screenplays of 1 through 4 and 6.
the problem isnt how much was left out as what was left out vs. what was kept. also the condensation of the events was clumsily handled,

OK movie. Not great like #1 or #4. Should have been longer, with more of the story points from the book. Moody, Lupin et al were not as prominent in the movie as they were in the book. Dudleys mom wasn't thankful that Harry saved him from the dementors in the movie either!?!?!??? Overall, a C+. I'll wait til it comes on cable before watching it again.

I agree with you.

My girlfriend and I walked out and we were both perplexed as to why this screen play left so much out.

Whereas the other Potter movies have a fairly good adaptation of the book, with the ability to succesfully translate it to he Big screen........this one just felt rushed and I hardly remember any talk about the Order of the Phoenix.

I think this is the worst of the bunch....hopefully the next one will be better.

When they made the Lord of the Rings, much of the same thing happened. The books were just too thick to fit into even a 3 hour movie. Characters were dropped, some were combined, etc. The book had 5 wizards whereas the movie only had two.

This will be a continuing problem with the Potter films as the books are all two thick to properly tell the story in films as long as the Theathers require short 2 hour films so they can maximize ticket sales per day.

Beginning with this film, we should get used to the movies feeling "rushed" to try to capture most of the book's storyline. Just wait until they try to tell the story of all of the horcruxes in the 6th book. Now that's a long story.

When they made the Lord of the Rings, much of the same thing happened. The books were just too thick to fit into even a 3 hour movie. Characters were dropped, some were combined, etc. The book had 5 wizards whereas the movie only had two.

While not disagreeing with you on point, Radagast the brown had only a very minor role in the books and the remaining two wizards were hardly mentioned (if at all except in appendices or the Book of Lost Tales).

Yes the film seemed rushed, but as a fan, I still enjoyed the ride and will definitely buy the DVD.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix

Here's where my being a fan of the books makes my ability to judge the films shaky. Let me digress for a moment to explain why.

There's a moment in the last film, Goblet of Fire, in which the new Defense Against the Dark Arts instructor, "Mad-Eye" Moody, begins what appears to be a jovial spree with a spider and ends the lesson on unforgivable cruelty with an Unforgivable Curse: the Cruciatus curse, physical torture, followed by the death curse Avada Kedavra. He does this in front of the whole class, shocking them into silence...but none is more disturbed than Neville Longbottom, on whopse desk the spider met its end. It is a brilliant moment, lulling the audience and the students into a false sense of ease and then hitting them with a vicious act that is misread (by design) as tough love.

Readers will realize that singling out Longbottom with was no act of chance. Neville's parents fought against, and fell to, the Death Eaters in the first war against Voldemort. Neville's mother survives in an asylum, her mind never to return. She was tortured to the point of insanity by the Cruciatus curse.

Moments after the lesson, a deeply shaken Neville is seen looking out a tower window as a raindrop acts as a tear on the face of the stained glass figure before him. Moody, more kindly after having delivered his wake-up call, pulls Neville aside to console him privately...and for another reason we learn later.

It is a powerful sequence, and a brilliant one - the single best in the movie, I'd argue, and goes a long way toward explaining why I love the film - perhaps more than I should do. See, readers would have thought "this director, and writer Steve Kloves, are really up on this world! They know all the important touches and subtleties"...yes, well, the fact is they didn't share them with non-readers.

That's why I'm not sure I'm up to reviewing the latest film. Having read the novel and loved it, I can see around corners that are never shown in the movie. And for that, I'm able to love the film for its bulk, the many things it gets right. This is my favorite story in the saga, and the film does a remarkable job of packing the gist of a novel some eight or nine hundred pages long into a mere two hours twenty minutes. As truncated and simplified as it is, almost everything that is here is is related in some manner of fidelity. Simply, I enjoyed the film quite a lot, but...

Director Davis Yates' touch is a soft one. He doesn't wring every moment for melodrama, exhorting his actors to punch each emotion (detractors of John Williams will likely point out that his absence from the film is also an improvement on those lines). The younger actors have all grown in their craft, especially Daniel Radcliffe, and allowing them to give more subtle, nuanced, understated performances is a refreshing change. The novel is, after all, one of undercurrents looking to break surface. They fester until they must break loose.

And that's where Yates' approach also becomes a deficit for the movie, because there are moments where the drawing out of emotion is essential (not least the finale), and the director fails to make the most (or indeed much at all) of what's happening onscreen. Speaking of the finale, it not only half-heartedly delivers on the emotional impact for Harry (and not at all for the others), it further is staged without a great deal of coherence. You've got a great art design going for the Ministry of magic, the setting for what should have been a great visual spectacle as well as an emotional heartstopper, but Yates squanders it. There are vital elements of the setup that go missing that needn't have. Example: since Harry and Luna Lovegood are the only ones that can see the thestrels, how do the other students react to flying on them? Not so vital, that, but a gaping question when you don't want the audience distracted by inconsequentials. Or the portal into which a major character falls - a dramatic moment that would have had more impact had a mere few lines been retained. Did we know that only the dead can be heard from its mouth and that no one who has fallen into it has ever returned alive?

The film does have its treasures, though, in spite of the many half-revealed elements. As always, the more established older actors shine - Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, etc. - and it is a joy to watch them in characters that have grown to fit them like gloves. The romances of Cho Chang and Harry, and the slower-burning one of Ron and Hermione, anre handled with grace and maturity - you don't expect that from movies aimed at teens! Imelda Staunton is at times actually a little scary as the megalomaniacal Delores Umbridge - If her performance is a humorous one that elicits laughs, the laughs are edgy ones. There's a hint of genuine madness behind her eyes, just peeking out occasionally. There's also great amusement to be had with Filch, who finally has the run of the campus.

But most of all, this movie belongs to the students. Not just Harry, although of course he is primary. His moral compass is set swinging in the first act as currents move heedless of him, and when he finds his center again it's because he is not alone, and because he is not unique. He has become a part of a movement that matters to everyone around him as much as to himself, and it's a movement in which he can make a difference. There is a great sense of empowerment in the covert classes he teaches against Umbridge's ever-more fascistic edicts.

As said earlier, I liked this movie...but I didn't feel the deep satisfaction I had hoped to on leaving the theater. Writing this, I feel more of it now...and maybe that's less the movie than the story itself. If the movie fails to "be all it can be", it still has some of that greatness hidden within just waiting to be teased out.

I haven't read the novels, so I have the opposite experience from most people. I literally go to the movie with a blank canvas and no preconceived ideas. I think I enjoy the movies more than my wife, who has read each novel at least twice. Having said that, this was not the strongest of the movies. The characterizations weren't as deep. It was only OK.

I felt cheated that the 4th movie "Goblet of Fire" didn't do more with the Quiddich world cup set-up, portkeys etc.

Took the kidletts (14 and 11). They giggled at the climax. I was left feeling unsatisfied, like this was merely the trailer to the movie.

Voldemort played just a bit part. The main villain was the Umbridge lady who takes over Hogwarts through political scheming and remakes the place with her brand of fascism. I guess this was a statement on the real world. I was left wanting for more magical mayhem.

Harry's dad was a school bully in his day, as revealed in the scene between Snape and him when they were lads during the spiritual confrontation (whatever) between Snape and Harry. Are we supposed to be given the impression that Harry's parents were only human after all?

Loved Helena Bonham Carter's criminally insane character.

Enjoyed reading your review, Dreamer... maybe I should read the books.

What's not to like about the Potter movies? Although it does help to have read the books, you have to really consider the movies as a) an illustrated version of the bookyea or b) something totally separate.

"Order of the Phoenix" flashes by what book readers would consider critical points that need to be explained. Movie watchers merely see unanswered questions that they don't realize are important facts.

The movie makes sense and is great to watch but there are so many incidents left out that the readers would have loved to see.

Biggest missing point? Where the prophecy came from and why did Dumbledore step in when Trelawny was fired? I also missed the frequent "Ahems" from Professor Umbridge. Oh, and the whole thing about Harry's interview with the Quibbler. There are lots more missing scenes but you'll have to read the book to find them.

Jim

... maybe I should read the books.

Given your reaction to the movie, which I'd have to kinda agree with, I do hope you'll give the fifth book a shot.
Maybe the fourth, too, given the wealth of info that had to be dropped from both.
I kind of dread the impression non-readers will have of the fifth story from the film alone, so many have said they didn't understand why
it was "just filler" when they thought the big war with Voldy was coming. Read the book, and it becomes clear that year five was to the overall tale
what 1939 was to WWII - a great many frightened people unable to persuade even more who were in denial,
while the forces of (evil, or whatever you'd want to call it) carefully positioned themselves in every facet of society.
(Sounds pompous, my apologies, I don't mean to make light of WWII with the comparison.)
Seriously, that's what the film should have conveyed, and for most obviously failed. Arronax mentioned Harry's interview with a tabloid called the Quibbler:
that's a whole subplot about the power of the media. You saw how the regular, mainstream paper became an oultet for Ministry propraganda.
In the full story, Luna Lovegood's father publishes what ebcomes an underground press that gets the facts out.
Rowling balances the allegories without potentially upsetting political sensibilites of her readers.

But be aware that J.K. Rowling's prose has turned off a number of people who've tried the books.
Me, I was fine with it. All I can say is read it for the song, not the singer.


*Sigh* Now I've read the last book, it's starting to sink in there'll never be another.

So give us the dirt! (appropriately spoilered of course). Does Harry get it in the end? (either the girl or death, although I suppose it doesn't really matter...)

There are two movies to go I guess, so give us the next two chapters. Pretty please?