Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Review

This is quite a dichotomy. Do I rip the movie apart, showing everything the book had that the movie didn't, vice versa, and why the book is immensely better than its silver screen counterpart? Or do I embrace the cinematic achievement and effort of bringing the most popular book, second only to the Bible, from script to movie? Like I said, it's sort of a dichotomy. I'll try my best to be fair.

If you don't know the story already, you probably won't be seeing this movie. Basically, Harry is back for his fifth year at Hogwarts, where a new horrible teacher, a secret society, some romance, and of course the annual showdown with Voldemort and/or his counterparts, awaits. Like I said, you'd best know the story. You wouldn't care otherwise.

Okay, I'll start off by saying the acting is "loads" better. Daniel Radcliffe, while not superb, is at least more on form than the last four movies, and Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are more themselves, as portrayed by Rowling, rather than typical teenagers. Still, the movie does take liberties with the characters, having them act more, for lack of a better word, normal.

Speaking of characters, a surprising number are missing, such as the very important Mundungus, the annoying but still prevalent Zacharias Smith, Cho Chang's friend Marietta who plays a surprisingly important role, Firenze, who begins teaching Divination; there are a few. But, I will come to this point later.

Now the movie, cinematically, is actually quite well-done. There's even some hand-held camera work in the action. The magic, when it's there, is fantastic, and the visual effects are very good. Making these fantastic sequences look life-like is an achievement within itself. The final scene in the Ministry, in particular, demonstrates this in stylish fashion.

Speaking of the final battle, this scene is far and away the best part of the film. The rest of it feels slightly rushed and sort of, for lack of a better word, boring (thought the D.A. meetings are quite good). But the last battle brings it all home, sort of. The final hour sort of validates the rest of the film, though not so well as the last one. It still retains that rushed feeling.

Besides this scene, Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge steals the show. While not exactly as ugly as she probably should have been, she pretty much embodies the Umbridge from the novel. From her girlish voice to her way of keeping that annoying "I'm happy you're not happy" expression going, she really does a great job. You really end up hating her, which is the whole point of her character.

Okay. Now I'm going to drift off into the realm of "why the book is better." If you already know that, and you don't care what I have to say about it, then scroll down to the score and don't read this next part. But if you'd like to stay, I'll give my opinion on the matter.

Yes. The book is much, much better. And I know. "Everyone says that!" This is why I'm torn. I understand that this book is huge (870 pages) and we only get about 2 and half hours of movie. And I know, it's sort of geared towards children (though it's oddly PG-13), so it can't be that long. But Lord of the Rings were all over 3 hours long, and those kept many kids' interests. I don't know. I guess when you love the books, you feel EVERY detail is important, even though, it really isn't. But like I said, this series is second to the Bible in terms of popularity, so everyone knows it. The filmmakers are almost obligated to include a lot, and change little.

Still, there were a few qualms that I had. First, there was no Quidditch. Ron was not made Keeper, and it wasn't even there! Quidditch is one of the most popular aspects of the series, even having its own videogame! But alas, it is left out, I suppose to keep the darker theme of the movie. Okay, I understand. Still, that doesn't mean I didn't miss it.

Also, Dumbledore DOES look at Harry several times, even though in the book when he so much as glimpses at Harry, Harry feels the need to kill Dumbledore. This is important, though Dumbledore only explains it briefly in the film.

Man, there were a lot of changes I did not agree with. I can't name them all. The Weasley's escape, I thought, should have been much grander, more on par with the book. The spell "Levicorpus" is out of sequence, as no one knows about that until the sixth book. Harry does NOT know immediately that Sirius dies. At the end, several statues are supposed to come to Dumbledore's aid. The visit to St. Mungo's was completely cut. Occlumency does not commence the night of the attack. Harry and Cho fight at Hogsmeade. There were many more interesting rooms, including the revolving one with doors, in the Department of Mysteries. Umbridge reveals that SHE sent the Dementors on Harry at the beginning. The whole Harry becoming Voldemort at the end didn't really happen. See what I mean?

But I know, I know, does it really matter? Some, I believe, do. The Levicorpus spell is sort of important in the next book. I think the Department of Mysteries should have been fleshed out more. And Harry's possession was sort of odd. Oh, and Luna is WAY too good looking in the movie. She's supposed to look much weirder.

And cinematically there are flaws as well. A lot of times, it seems like the actors are going through the motions. And more than a couple lines are funny in a bad way. Also, the movie ends VERY abrubtly. It also ends on an awkwardly happy note. It's unpredictable, in a bad way.

So, do you think I hated it? No no, of course I didn't hate it. There was a bit wrong with it, I'll say that, but all in all, it was pretty decent. It was dark, and more mature. Always a good thing. But what with Harry not quite being alienated enough, and a few cuts I didn't agree with, I can't give it that highly recommended score. Honestly, you're going to see it anyway. But if you stick to the book, it's much better.

Oh well, maybe the Half-Blood Prince will be the definitive film...

3/5