HP: OotP movie review...
So I've just read the first review of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
The film itself is a solid, occasionally spectacular, wizarding romp which struggles unsuccessfully to give us the thrills and fun we have not already had in previous instalments. It is far crueler than its predecessors and begins to introduce properly the idea that we are no longer in an amusing magical playground, but are en route to an epic confrontation with real victims.
The main story at this stage in the cycle is Harry and Dumbledore’s quest to persuade an increasingly paranoid and uncomfortable wizarding world that its unspeakably vile nemesis, Voldemort (played by Ralph Fiennes), has returned. The acting skills of Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) and Emma Watson (Hermione) have improved, but not enough to truly flesh out the characters and provide the narrative depth this transitional, plot-advancing film needs. They have got “angry” and “determined” down pat at this point, but struggle somewhat on the more nuanced grimaces. Harry’s bellowing cod-psychoanalysis of Voldemort is jarringly awful.
Of the adult actors, Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge - Dumbledore’s usurper at Hogwarts - is exquisitely dislikable. Helena Bonham Carter as the villainous Bellatrix Lestrange is a shining but underused talent.
The director, David Yates, has inserted some lovely touches, including the Weasley twins’ explosive transfer from the world of academia to the world of retail. But overall there is a shortage of those joyful little glimpses of the wizarding world’s furniture that punctuated and perked up the previous films.
The fifth - and longest - book on which the film is based plays a crucial but faintly turgid role in the saga. Much is explained, much is left hanging and there is nothing like the pace of action that readers had grown accustomed to in earlier episodes (especially The Goblet of Fire). The book pulled this off because it was tantalising in what it didn’t tell us. The film, meanwhile, a necessary digest of the 800-page book, leaves us faintly annoyed that the true denouement of the cycle is now two movies distant.
The chief problem, though, cannot be blamed on the film but on the near universal Potter-literacy of its prospective audience. Most Potter fans are now laser-focused on the release of the climactic seventh book in three weeks’ time and its promise to resolve the countless loose-ends . As the waiting for the final book grows unbearable, there are moments when this otherwise enjoyable film, though nicely made and through no fault of its own, feels like a chore.
The film itself is a solid, occasionally spectacular, wizarding romp which struggles unsuccessfully to give us the thrills and fun we have not already had in previous instalments. It is far crueler than its predecessors and begins to introduce properly the idea that we are no longer in an amusing magical playground, but are en route to an epic confrontation with real victims.
The main story at this stage in the cycle is Harry and Dumbledore’s quest to persuade an increasingly paranoid and uncomfortable wizarding world that its unspeakably vile nemesis, Voldemort (played by Ralph Fiennes), has returned. The acting skills of Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) and Emma Watson (Hermione) have improved, but not enough to truly flesh out the characters and provide the narrative depth this transitional, plot-advancing film needs. They have got “angry” and “determined” down pat at this point, but struggle somewhat on the more nuanced grimaces. Harry’s bellowing cod-psychoanalysis of Voldemort is jarringly awful.
Of the adult actors, Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge - Dumbledore’s usurper at Hogwarts - is exquisitely dislikable. Helena Bonham Carter as the villainous Bellatrix Lestrange is a shining but underused talent.
The director, David Yates, has inserted some lovely touches, including the Weasley twins’ explosive transfer from the world of academia to the world of retail. But overall there is a shortage of those joyful little glimpses of the wizarding world’s furniture that punctuated and perked up the previous films.
The fifth - and longest - book on which the film is based plays a crucial but faintly turgid role in the saga. Much is explained, much is left hanging and there is nothing like the pace of action that readers had grown accustomed to in earlier episodes (especially The Goblet of Fire). The book pulled this off because it was tantalising in what it didn’t tell us. The film, meanwhile, a necessary digest of the 800-page book, leaves us faintly annoyed that the true denouement of the cycle is now two movies distant.
The chief problem, though, cannot be blamed on the film but on the near universal Potter-literacy of its prospective audience. Most Potter fans are now laser-focused on the release of the climactic seventh book in three weeks’ time and its promise to resolve the countless loose-ends . As the waiting for the final book grows unbearable, there are moments when this otherwise enjoyable film, though nicely made and through no fault of its own, feels like a chore.