Poll

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix...good, bad or neither?

Good. Go see it.62%62% - 10
Neither, but still worth it.0%0% - 0
Neither. Wait for the DVD.0%0% - 0
Bad. Save your money.37%37% - 6
Total: 16
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6984|PNW

...or 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Three Hours Would've Been Better for Each Film So We Know What the Fard's Going On'


Disclaimer: I realize another thread about this film was made, but it sucks as much 'ballz' as it thought the film did, so here's a better one.


I am going to reiterate this often, so be prepared: the longest book has become the shortest movie.

Harry Potter and the:

1) Sorceror's Stone
Book - 309 pages
Film - 152 minutes (2 hrs, 32 mins)

2) Chamber of Secrets
Book - 256 pages
Film - 161 minutes (2 hrs, 41 mins)

3) Prisoner of Azkaban
Book - 448 pages
Film - 141 minutes (2 hrs, 21 mins)

4) Goblet of Fire
Book - 734 pages
Film - 157 minutes (2 hrs 37 mins)

5) Order of the Phoenix
Book - 896 pages
Film - 138 minutes (2 hrs 18 mins)

6) Half-Blood Prince
Book - 652 pages

7) Deathly Hallows
Book - 784 pages
Flowchart unnecessary...

I hate to be too critical, so before I go any further, you should know where I'm coming from. Movie five is based on the longest book in the series, yet is the shortest edition of the screenplays. Does this mean that David Yates is any more competent director than his predecessors? Not really. Does it mean that he or the producers aimed to please the more dullardly aspect of their audience (with the collective attention span of a bowl of onions), who will drop all memory of this film the instant any sort of Scary Movie 5 debuts? Seems likely. Or are the crew just pushed for time due to the break between films? Rushing to get the job done? Probably.

Whatever the case may be, the final product seems to have taken a hit. Plot holes dug by prequels in a noble attempt to conserve precious minutes only served to hurt audiences' understanding of what's going on to the point where only readers may be able to decipher the screenplay. Unfortunately, the people behind Order seemed to have heeded heeded the cries of those critics afflicted with ADD, who did not realize that the problem lay not in the films' length, but in the prize-winning plot points, character personalities and motives that did their best to make their way onto the screen.

Their best was not good enough. How can book three, which is half as long as Order of the Phoenix translate into a film with about the same running time as Order's screenplay? It boggles the mind.

Gone is the unfair Ministry treatment of long-term employees. Gone, the (what would've been) promising set-work for a wizard's hospital. Gone is a son's betrayal against his family. Gone are some of the more gruesome creatures, injuries and effects, no doubt cut to spare little kids any more nightmares than they will no doubt have from a film with rotten soul-sucking fiends and a bad guy with no nose. Gone is the torrential wind-down after the epic battle, which should've showed a ticked-off Harry breaking things tossing valuables around Dumbledore's office...replaced instead with a remarkably calm, face-to-face discussion with his headmaster that does nothing to enlighten the audience as to why Dumbledore avoided his favorite student when possible for an entire year. Gone from much of the entire series are bits and pieces of information that would've made each film a standalone experience.

All in the name of that precious running time.

Keeping an eye on the audience, a small fraction of them clapped at the show's conclusion, but the rest milled about and murmured questions to other film-goers as to what they just sat through, what happened during it and why. Anyone clever enough to piece this thing together in entirety without the benefit of any information from the book, particularly with the sometimes incomprehensible Britainese mercilessly spewed from the mouths of the young actors, deserves a Nobel prize for outstanding inferential achievement.

However, the movie possesses enough 'wow' special effects to satisfy. What creatures and events that made the cut were generally well-done and (mostly) faithful, and the parade of British actors was again star-studded. The music from time to time lost some of its epic flavor in favor of uplifting tunes, probably to help make this film a bit less of the depressing bit of fantasy drama than it should be.

Summary:

The attempt to shorten a Harry Potter film for the dumber portion of its audiences was conducted at an inopportune moment; that of the creation of a screenplay for the longest book of the series. The result was, for viewers, flash-card effect of pretty wizard battles, conjuring memories of the book (particularly of the parts left out) where the film should've been designed to stand on its own, no matter the length. Those unfamiliar with the books or even the other films will be hopelessly lost. However, in its desperately-short length, we can hope that enough has enough for the people helming the next film to actually cobble together a a series of bridges to span the gaps between itself and Goblet of Fire. But if Order is any indication, and the people in charge continue down its path, the series is doomed to a confused and contorted memory in ignominy.

The Good: Creature effects, transitions and set-work. Plus a regular episode of Who's Who of British Acting. The theme of championing the cause of self-defense has been preserved, which is probably the film's most notable accomplishment as far as story is concerned.

The Bad: In a film already knee-deep in grotesqueries, the act of sparing younger viewers (who've probably already read the thing or had it narrated to them) from a wider spectrum of Potter-world diablerie (which was on bold display in the book's edition of the 'epic battle') seems superfluous at best. At times, the lack of captions left people scratching their heads whenever one of the kids muttered something intelligible only to those who are English, live near England or have English relatives.

The Ugly: Choppy screenplay as a result of too much orphaned information, unsupported by explanations that could've been brought in from its source.

Verdict: It's still a Harry Potter movie, high production-value and all, and much more entertaining than the Star Wars prequels. See and judge for yourself. Better yet, read the books (if you haven't) and purge yourself of any sour opinions of its story-telling quality instilled by the films.


3/5

Similar Review:

java5989 (via imdb) wrote:

A great movie, yet completely surpassed by the book, 11 July 2007
7/10
Author: java5989 from United States

When I first walked into the movie, my expectations were not very high. The first two movies, I thought, were the best of the series mainly due to Richard Harris' dead-on portrayal of Dumbledore and screenplays that closely followed the original books. Though the third and fourth movies were very artistic and dramatic, I couldn't really connect to them in the way i had with the books. They glossed over many of the little things that made the Harry Potter series so magical in the first place, focusing on a select few plot lines and limiting dialog to only what was necessary to further the story.

As a result they've felt more like a collage of scenes, a series of puzzle pieces, thrown at the viewers faster than they can piece together, just leading up to a final confrontation. Pacing has certainly been an issue, leaving fans feeling disjointed, and those new to the series confused as to what exactly is going on. In this respect, Order of the Phoenix was very similar to the previous two movies. As a Hollywood film, it deserves praise, bringing this amazing world to the big screen, telling a compelling tale, and keeping the viewers glued to their seats for the duration of the movie. However, to the die hard fans of the books, you will undoubtedly be disappointed.

Many scenes that one would think invaluable to the story have been cut, replaced by the hasty filling in of plot holes. And while it pains me to ignore some of my favorite scenes from the book being left on the cutting room floor (St. Mungo's, Harry's Quibbler interview, the Quidditch fight, etc.), I realize that yes, not everything could be included in the movie. But in this watered down version of the book, there seems to be something missing. We still have all the drama and excitement, but some of the magic just seems to be gone.
More Reviews: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/harry_p … e_phoenix/ (down for me, probably due to a great number of hits)

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-07-11 21:27:04)

Andoura
Got loooollllll ?
+853|6851|Montreal, Qc, Canada
i did not saw the movie... and i will not see it

I would like to, but i have read the the first 4 books and i stooped... then movie was out... watched the 1st one and stooped.. so i don't rly remember the story from the books and all this shit

I will need to buy those books and read them again, and dwl those movies and watch them all !!!!

But i say harry potter is pretty good for all ages and i know that in the last book/movie one of the main character will die !
SoC./Omega
Member
+122|6753|Omaha, Nebraska!
nulled, I want to see it REALLY bad.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6984|PNW

Andoura wrote:

I will need to buy those books and read them again, and dwl those movies and watch them all !!!!

But i say harry potter is pretty good for all ages and i know that in the last book/movie one of the main character will die !
All the hardcovers (1-7) will be sold in a box-set for about USD$100 at Amazon. The paperbacks 1-6 are available for $25 in their box. I enjoyed reading these things as much as Lord of the Rings, despite the fact that the HP world relies more on personality than meticulously-crafted fantasy. I'm easy to please, I suppose.

SoC./Omega wrote:

nulled, I want to see it REALLY bad.
Save your vote for when you have an honest opinion.

Andoura wrote:

you think i should buy them and read all of them ??? (well up to the book #6 ?)

its worth the price ?
If you liked the first few books you read, you'll like the rest. $25's a great deal for 1-6 (if you don't feel like plugging your library or used book shop), and 7's around the corner this month.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-07-11 20:48:48)

Andoura
Got loooollllll ?
+853|6851|Montreal, Qc, Canada

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Andoura wrote:

I will need to buy those books and read them again, and dwl those movies and watch them all !!!!

But i say harry potter is pretty good for all ages and i know that in the last book/movie one of the main character will die !
All the hardcovers (1-7) will be sold in a box-set for about USD$100 at Amazon. The paperbacks 1-6 are available for $25 in their box. I enjoyed reading these things as much as Lord of the Rings, despite the fact that the HP world relies more on personality than meticulously-crafted fantasy. I'm easy to please, I suppose.

SoC./Omega wrote:

nulled, I want to see it REALLY bad.
Save your vote for when you have an honest opinion.
you think i should buy them and read all of them ??? (well up to the book #6 ?)

its worth the price ?

Last edited by Andoura (2007-07-11 20:46:24)

MorbiD.ShoT
Stormin' through the party
+322|6808
I saw it and I thought that it was an alright movie in relation to the first 4.  It is true, the movie (although over 2 hours long) seemed a bit rushed; thrown together sort-of hastily and left me unsatisfied at the end.  I read all of the books, finished #6 in a day, but this movie just didn't cut it.  They changed some stuff around from the book and altogether pushed a variety of scenes at the audience that only the readers would know what was happening.

They did not do a very good job explaining most things.

Although the part where they were in the "Prophecy Room" with all those glowing balls falling looked amazing!  So real!
agent146
Member
+127|6599|Jesus Land aka Canada
well....as i said on that "thread that sucked major ballz": i wish i was harry potter. so when the time comes and i meant Voldermort....i pull out my glock18c and wax him off the planet for killing my parent  .....but that defeats the purpose of "magic" and "harry potter"
Jestar
Shifty's Home Number: 02 9662 8432
+373|6953

I like how in the Movie it was Cho who told Umbridge about the Dark Art's Club, when in the book, it was actually her friend.
Or how they shortened the entire Chapter Long Story about Hagrid's adventure with the giants into 2 lines.

The effects were nice.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6984|PNW

agent146 wrote:

well....as i said on that "thread that sucked major ballz": i wish i was harry potter. so when the time comes and i meant Voldermort....i pull out my glock18c and wax him off the planet for killing my parent  .....but that defeats the purpose of "magic" and "harry potter"
You brought up a good point. If Muggles are getting killed off by magically-engineered 'accidents', wouldn't it be cool if some joined the final battle and shot the shit out of the smug dark wizards? Harry Potter could run in with a shotgun in one hand and a wand in the other, Terminator/Willow style!

Jestar12345 wrote:

The effects were nice.
Therein lies a condensed, critical summary of all five films.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-07-11 21:03:10)

genius_man16
Platinum Star whore
+365|6890|Middle of nowhere

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Verdict: It's still a Harry Potter movie, high production-value and all, and much more entertaining than the Star Wars prequels.
Personally i strongly disagree, the Star Wars prequels (especially I) were amazing, although special-effects ridden, but then again, i'm a Star Wars nerd to the eXtreme, so whatever

it was an alright movie, but needed to be at least an hour longer
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6984|PNW

genius_man16 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Verdict: It's still a Harry Potter movie, high production-value and all, and much more entertaining than the Star Wars prequels.
Personally i strongly disagree, the Star Wars prequels (especially I) were amazing, although special-effects ridden, but then again, i'm a Star Wars nerd to the eXtreme, so whatever

it was an alright movie, but needed to be at least an hour longer
Well, "which is better" arguments are often unwinnable, so I won't pursue that any further. But I agree with the running length, as hinted by my rantish review. I was thinking that three hours bare minimum would've done it for each film, but forgot to type it out as a simple statement. [edit]Updated OP[/edit]

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-07-11 21:27:45)

Jello.01
Member
+46|6821|DFW, Texas
I liked the movie. It did seem a little short, but I think it got the plot out well enough. I felt the total bitch aspect of Umbridge. I couldn't help the laughter when I saw all the cats on the wall in Umbridge's office, I was wondering where all the lolcat captions were .The last hour  (I think) of the movie was awesome. The events leading up to the final battle scene were amazing. The music gave me a tingling/chilling feeling depending on the scenes, though it might have been due to the movie theaters incredible 30,000 watt speaker system. You could literally feel the bass inside your chest, and the highs tingling on your skin, all throughout the high and low points of the film. The visual effects were terrific as usual. I thought the actress that played Luna was cute, I liked her more the Hermoine (I'm 16 btw, so it's not as creepy ).

I read the book maybe 2-3 years ago, and I felt like the movie got the meat of it. I haven't read the sixth one yet because the internet ruined it for me Damn YOUUUUU...... Though, I do intend to read the last one, and disconnect myself from the internet until I'm done with it, which is going to be hard.

Overall, I felt just a little empty leaving the movie theater, but I was thoroughly enjoyed. Even though the movie left out some parts, those parts did not mean much to the plot, and the guy that hasn't read any of the books, but watches the movies would not have questioned why so-and-so happened. It's one of those films you should see just in case your friends ever talk of it, and you can actually talk about it instead of laughing at the stuff you don't know, then being embarrassed about it.

I give it a 4/5.

I was 15 feet or less from the big screen because my friends and I didn't get there earlier enough to choose better seats, so that might have limited my experience. When I was outside, I told my friends how I would hit Luna like the fist of an angry god. They lolled, then said Hermoine was way hotter, I pointed out the huge forehead thing, but let them win, since the bangs covers the forehead most of the time. But just now my friend just messaged me a .gif of a picture of Hermoine on the Letterman show (?), it was a little creepy (pedo-ish).

Anyway, that last paragraph probably was not necessary at all , but all in all, you should see the movie.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard