Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

HarryGoldfarb
Adjunct
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Post by HarryGoldfarb »

Big disappointment indeed... after the great work done in the fourth installment, this film doesn't have an excuse for its flaws... bad timing, underused cast, no sense of rythm at all, great stuff missing... even really bad visual effects! I don't understand... Cuaron's work was a great one and Newell put the right tone on the series... this thing really doesn't work...

What amazed me the most it's that 4th book was the one I like the least while 5th book was a total reinvindication for the series. What filmmakers can do... a good one actually grabbed regular material and made it into a great film while another "vision" took great material (dark, filled with depth and character development) and made a fiasco. Still, film number 2 is the most unwatchable of the series.

After seen Gollum (and even the Dragon in the past film) how can they come with Hagrid's brother effect!? And after Narnia's centaurs (the only visual they got it right in that film) there is no reason for keeping on making this rubber-like figures! The screenplay changes were uninspired, I wasn't impressed at all by Stauton's performance. Thompson was kept on the script but then they didn't exlpain why (which I think it's quite important and central to the plot)... The relationship between the three friends is almost superficial, Luna doesn't have to do anything in the film, she was just another character (and she is very poignant in the book), when I first saw the nice art direction work recreating the fountain in the Ministry of Magic I thought "well, good, this is going to be interesting" and then at the final battle nothing happened!... Oh well, just didn't like it. A shame...
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Post by criddic3 »

anonymous wrote:I may change my mind in the long run. (But perhaps not). Suffice to say, I liked it a lot. Yes, it did feel rushed and truncated. I think an extra 10 to 20 minutes would've made this film a bit better. It's definitely not as good as The Prisoner of Azkaban but it's definitely better than The Goblet of Fire (and less said about the first two movies the better).

I thought Staunton was the standout. Personally, I hope she gets another Oscar nomination for portraying a character that's a complete opposite of her character in Vera Drake. Definitely the best supporting performance in the franchise. I can tell that she was channeling a female Dick Cheney. Seriously.

I loved the movie, but I didn't see Dick Cheney in her performance at all. But, then, why would I?

Actually I saw the opposite. Staunton's character was the one denying that there was a threat to the school, while in real life Cheney is the realist who is saying we need to be aware of the threats out there. So in reality, Dumbledore is closer to Cheney/Bush than Staunton's character, because she keeps saying there is nothing to fear while all along knowing there is and he is the one who believes Harry about Voldemort's return. Just my take on your observation/analogy.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Post by anonymous1980 »

Kloves said he was exhausted and is working on The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime but will return to write Half-Blood Prince.

As for Kreacher, they were gonna cut him out of the movie but J.K. Rowling warned them they shouldn't since he's going to be important in Book 7. (And by golly, she's right).
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I have to say that I was quite disappointed in the film. It's the fourth best film, IMO (Sorcerer's Stone is still at the bottom of the list).

I think much of this had to do with the screenwriter change. Steve Kloves isn't attributed to the film, which is sad because he's the best for the job from what has come before. Far too much that's pivotal in the book has been removed and far too much that's immaterial in the book is included. Why include Kreacher if you're then going to do nothing with the character (he's got a semi-important role in the book). There are some really awesome segments in the Hall of Mysteries, but for some reason, they're glossed over and the battle and chase is horrendously mediocre. The book does a significantly better job at establishing tension for the characters. We don't get to see nearly enough of these young wizards in action and far too little of the battle between the Order of the Death Eaters (Wasn't this movie called ORDER OF THE PHOENIX???).

I'll go into more detail in my review, but suffice it to say that I was unimpressed and don't think it's entirely Yates' fault because all of my problems were screenplay-oriented.

What happened to Kloves, anyway?




Edited By OscarGuy on 1185036419
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Franz Ferdinand
Adjunct
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Post by Franz Ferdinand »

In my shared opinion with anonymous, this stands as the second-best movie of the series: gone is the exposition of the previous movies. The story jumps into the action right away (with returning characters new viewers will be unfamiliar with) and the pace is nearly relentless, in sharp contrast to the mammoth book it was adapted from. The dark tone of the movie was done extremely well, and several sequences were some of the finest of the series. It doesn't match the flashiness of Cuaron's entry, but I think it might be more substantive than Azkaban. It might even become my favorite movie of the series, and I will almost definitely watch it again to confirm my suspicions.
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

anonymous wrote:What did the missus think, Sonic?

Oy, let's not get into that. I've already had this discussion.

You too, huh, Mister Tee?

Mister Tee, I've twice been to the bookstore during the release night of a new Harry Potter book, which is actually a real hoot and a fascinating experience for a casual observer. And I've noticed on each ocassion that the female Harry Potter readers (mostly adolescents) outnumber the males 65-35. There's clearly a 'crush' factor involved.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Sonic Youth wrote:But the real problem is this: this is the fifth installment, and THEY'RE ALL THE SAME. .
Actually, I (who, against my general inclination, became married to the book franchise) found this book the first that really broke that formula. Or, rather, the sudden actual return of Voldemort at the end of Goblet of Fire seemed to change the series' footing -- "Hogwarts in Wartime" -- and Order of the Phoenix followed different plot patterns from the previously standard "who's disguised as Voldemort this time?".

I'd certainly not be surprised to find this film feeling truncated -- the combination of longest book/shortest movie seems a prescription for that. But of course I'll wait till I see the thing to render any judgment.
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Post by anonymous1980 »

What did the missus think, Sonic?
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Staunton was cute for five minutes. Once her character was established, she was as tiresome as everyone else.

At least Gary Oldman didn't give his unhinged psycho act this time. But Oldman playing ordinary is just ordinary.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Post by anonymous1980 »

I may change my mind in the long run. (But perhaps not). Suffice to say, I liked it a lot. Yes, it did feel rushed and truncated. I think an extra 10 to 20 minutes would've made this film a bit better. It's definitely not as good as The Prisoner of Azkaban but it's definitely better than The Goblet of Fire (and less said about the first two movies the better).

I thought Staunton was the standout. Personally, I hope she gets another Oscar nomination for portraying a character that's a complete opposite of her character in Vera Drake. Definitely the best supporting performance in the franchise. I can tell that she was channeling a female Dick Cheney. Seriously.
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

This was the most friggin' tedious movie I've seen since, um... since Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. It is so dull and one-note and monotonous.

Unfortunately, I'm practically married to the franchise, so I'm obligated to see each installment. But that's part of the give-and-take of a relationship. Believe me, had life circumstances gone in another direction, I'd be living in a Potter-free universe. Okay, maybe not. I'm sure I would have read the first book, which I quite enjoyed, and that's more than I can say for books 2 and 3 (and then I gave up.) As for the movies, after semi-enjoying Prisoner of Azkeban and - much to my surprise - thoroughly enjoying Goblet of Fire, The Order of the Phoenix takes us back to the dregs the series started from. No, it's not anywhere near as juvenile as the Chris Columbus entries (partly because the Hogwart-ians are barely juveniles themselves.) But it's as lacking in wonder, or even interest.

Part of the blame has to be the adaptation. I've never read the book, and even I can tell it has been drastically reduced. Focus on the central story is so single-minded, there are none of the small diversions that give the series its charm. And the story pretty much barrels from one plot point to the next before it has time to sufficiently develop. Part of what gives this series any sense of intrigue, both in the books and the movies, is the gradual build-up. This feels like a first-draft plot outline. But the real problem is this: this is the fifth installment, and THEY'RE ALL THE SAME. It's getting to be like the TV show House. I liked House the first half dozen times I saw it, until I realised every episode were practically identical. And the same with Harry Potter. I understand many TV shows and movies operate under a formula, and I even get that some succeed because of that formula. But eventually, formulas go flat, lose their potency, etc. And the same could be said for the special effects. They've gotten so repititious, I don't even care how effective they are anymore.

I do have to give Daniel Radcliffe props. He's never going to be a great actor, probably not even a good one. But even after years of cruel adolesence, he's still a pleasant, appealing screen presence. Good actor or not, he is Harry Potter. As for everyone else, the only cast member of any interest for me was Helena Bonham Carter, who gave some refreshing punk attitude into this tired franchise.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Damien wrote:I just think it's stupid for someone to take umbrage at another person not being interested in a particular genre (especially genres that aren't aimed at adults).

Or for being interested in a particular genre.

Just sayin'.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Post by anonymous1980 »

Damien wrote:
taki15 wrote:Sounds more like some people in here are manifesting their brand of racism, movie racism.
They are too eager to dismiss a movie simply because it's a cartoon or based on a ''cildren's book'', without bothering to watch it first.

Silliest non-criddic post of the month.

And I happily dismiss new Ron Howard, Michael Bay and Sidney Lumet movies sight unseen.

It's not racism (how absurd). It's called being discriminating and knowing your own taste.

Personally, Damien, I don't feel the need to discriminate against genres. I've come to love at least one or two movies in virtually every genre and sub-genre known to man. I may prefer one over the other but when it comes to movies, i'll see it regardless of genre as long as it's good.

I do however have a prejudice towards directors. I dismiss Shawn Levy outright. I only watch Ron Howard and Michael Bay movies if it's "water-cooler"-type of movie or "morbid curiosity" type of movie (a la The Da Vinci Code or Transformers).

Slant Magazine gives it an okay review. Says it's better than Goblet of Fire but not as good as Prisoner of Azkaban. It does however, shower praises on Imelda Staunton.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Penelope wrote:But if I hear enough positive comments about a film from that genre, I'll watch it.

Which is why I saw Little Nemo, Chicken Run and The Incredibles. The first was a mediocre bore, the others were two of the most excrucuating experiences of my film-going life.

I just think it's stupid for someone to take umbrage at another person not being interested in a particular genre (especially genres that aren't aimed at adults).

I also as a general rule don't like action movies, science-fiction and that most useless of sub-genres, the gambling movie.

I love romance movies and chick flicks in general and well-done slapstick, but if someone doesn't care for those films, what's it to me?
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

movie racism? WTF is that? Is cinema now a race?

If you want to use a loaded word, please use the word "discrimination."
Post Reply

Return to “2000 - 2007”