Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: 4 stars out of 5
Just got back from the movie. I enjoyed it, which is saying something considering this was by FAR my least favorite book in the series. My first big complaint about the book was that it needed a better editor to go through and trim out a lot of unnecessary elaboration and blather. The second complaint was that Harry was such a sourpuss. Both of these faults were remedied in the movie.
In the book, it just seemed like Harry was a sullen teen; in the movie, he seemed to be in mourning for Cedric. The point was also clarified that the isolation Harry felt was partially a tactic of Voldemort. It reminded me that this is the way depression works, as well -- when we believe we are different, unlike anyone else, and that no one else understands us, then the depression has won.
In the book, it just seemed like Harry was a sullen teen; in the movie, he seemed to be in mourning for Cedric. The point was also clarified that the isolation Harry felt was partially a tactic of Voldemort. It reminded me that this is the way depression works, as well -- when we believe we are different, unlike anyone else, and that no one else understands us, then the depression has won.
Some of the points in the book were trimmed down, while others were cut entirely (I owe thanks to The Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter for jogging my memory here).
Some of the most notable reductions: development of the characters from the Order of the Phoenix, especially Tonks; the O.W.L. exams; the importance of the giants and the centaurs.
On to the complete cuts. I wished the "howler" sent to Aunt Petunia in the book would have appeared in the movie. Ron and Hermione being named prefects was cut. There is no Quiddich in the movie, which is surprising because it has been obligatory in all prior movies, if only for its visual splendor. Consequently, the whole debacle with Ron being named keeper, his poor performance, and the Slytherin/Gryffindor rivalry is also cut. The Quibbler (the rag owned by Luna's father) is never mentioned, nor is Harry's interview with Rita Skeeter in an attempt to exonerate him. Firenze's appointment in place of Trelawney doesn't happen. The awkward scene with Harry and Cho in Hogsmeade doesn't happen, thank God! (in fact, there is only one brief scene in Hogsmeade at all!)
The battle scene in the Department of Mysteries was cut almost TOO much -- I really wasn't moved by it as much as I expected to be, and CERTAINLY not as much as when I read the book. Maybe it was because I knew what was going to happen because I knew the book, but I think it was simply cut too short.
Delores Umbridge was every bit as hässlich in the movie as she was in the book. Very much like I pictured her. Her study with the wall of kitty-cat plates was PRICELESS!
Luna Lovegood is not at ALL the way I pictured her. However, I think the young actress who played her did a better job with the character than I anticipated. She actually made the character seem real, and not just an air-headed flower-child, as she comes across in the book.
They "fixed" the way Sirius talked to Harry through the fire in this movie. It's now much more the way I imagined it (a face appears in the flames) rather than the way it was in the last movie (the embers arrange themselves into a face-like shape). That made me happy, because it really bugged me in the last movie, probably more than it should have.
There are some really amazing visual moments, especially some of the Weasley brothers' tricks, the D.A. practices and the Room of Requirement, and (of course) the battle scene.
I'll probably see the movie one more time in the theatre when I'm a little more awake (it took a full bottle of coke and giant box of dots to keep me going through the whole movie). It definitely feels like a "middle" movie, where the plot is furthered but not tied up in any way. The characters are good, but appear older than they're supposed to (Harry's supposed to be 14, but Daniel Radcliffe DEFINITELY looks 16-17 in the film). I think because so much had to be cut, a lot of the depth of the book was lost, and consequently, the connection to the story. I wasn't moved as much as I was with the other movies. Regardless, it's worth seeing if you're a fan of the series.
In the book, it just seemed like Harry was a sullen teen; in the movie, he seemed to be in mourning for Cedric. The point was also clarified that the isolation Harry felt was partially a tactic of Voldemort. It reminded me that this is the way depression works, as well -- when we believe we are different, unlike anyone else, and that no one else understands us, then the depression has won.
In the book, it just seemed like Harry was a sullen teen; in the movie, he seemed to be in mourning for Cedric. The point was also clarified that the isolation Harry felt was partially a tactic of Voldemort. It reminded me that this is the way depression works, as well -- when we believe we are different, unlike anyone else, and that no one else understands us, then the depression has won.
Some of the points in the book were trimmed down, while others were cut entirely (I owe thanks to The Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter for jogging my memory here).
Some of the most notable reductions: development of the characters from the Order of the Phoenix, especially Tonks; the O.W.L. exams; the importance of the giants and the centaurs.
On to the complete cuts. I wished the "howler" sent to Aunt Petunia in the book would have appeared in the movie. Ron and Hermione being named prefects was cut. There is no Quiddich in the movie, which is surprising because it has been obligatory in all prior movies, if only for its visual splendor. Consequently, the whole debacle with Ron being named keeper, his poor performance, and the Slytherin/Gryffindor rivalry is also cut. The Quibbler (the rag owned by Luna's father) is never mentioned, nor is Harry's interview with Rita Skeeter in an attempt to exonerate him. Firenze's appointment in place of Trelawney doesn't happen. The awkward scene with Harry and Cho in Hogsmeade doesn't happen, thank God! (in fact, there is only one brief scene in Hogsmeade at all!)
The battle scene in the Department of Mysteries was cut almost TOO much -- I really wasn't moved by it as much as I expected to be, and CERTAINLY not as much as when I read the book. Maybe it was because I knew what was going to happen because I knew the book, but I think it was simply cut too short.
Delores Umbridge was every bit as hässlich in the movie as she was in the book. Very much like I pictured her. Her study with the wall of kitty-cat plates was PRICELESS!
Luna Lovegood is not at ALL the way I pictured her. However, I think the young actress who played her did a better job with the character than I anticipated. She actually made the character seem real, and not just an air-headed flower-child, as she comes across in the book.
They "fixed" the way Sirius talked to Harry through the fire in this movie. It's now much more the way I imagined it (a face appears in the flames) rather than the way it was in the last movie (the embers arrange themselves into a face-like shape). That made me happy, because it really bugged me in the last movie, probably more than it should have.
There are some really amazing visual moments, especially some of the Weasley brothers' tricks, the D.A. practices and the Room of Requirement, and (of course) the battle scene.
I'll probably see the movie one more time in the theatre when I'm a little more awake (it took a full bottle of coke and giant box of dots to keep me going through the whole movie). It definitely feels like a "middle" movie, where the plot is furthered but not tied up in any way. The characters are good, but appear older than they're supposed to (Harry's supposed to be 14, but Daniel Radcliffe DEFINITELY looks 16-17 in the film). I think because so much had to be cut, a lot of the depth of the book was lost, and consequently, the connection to the story. I wasn't moved as much as I was with the other movies. Regardless, it's worth seeing if you're a fan of the series.