Tuesday, July 10, 2007
For most kids, one's teenage years are scary and uncomfortable. For the title character in "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," things are a bit more serious. Besides the usual teen problems like burgeoning sexuality, post-pubescent alienation, and low self-esteem, Harry has an evil madman out to murder him.
The supernatural element disguises the metaphor for growing up ever so slightly. It is, of course, the central conceit of J.K. Rowling's sprawling books, and as the number of pages gets higher, the movies are having a tougher time squeezing them all into one cohesive narrative. The last film, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" was a mess, and the fifth installment in this increasingly predictable series has just slightly more focus.
Rarely has a movie been so dependent dramatically on an event that happened in the film before it, but new director David Yates is constantly referencing the fateful night when Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) barely escaped a brush with the nasty Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). The politically-motivated Ministry of Magic and virtually everyone in the movie refuses to believe Harry when he tells them the vicious killer of his parents has returned. Never mind Harry's track record of successes or the unique heritage he possesses.
Since we saw Voldemort return in "Goblet of Fire," we know Harry's not lying. Why would he? It is rather an annoying device to have him trying to convince people of what the audience already knows to be true throughout the entire film. This part of the script, adapted by series newcomer Michael Goldenberg, is a stiff. Are we really supposed to believe that his mentor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) would abandon him for an entire school year because of this issue? We are not fooled, although the screenplay would want us to be. We know there's something else at play, and it's a tedious wait with little payoff when Dumbledore's reasoning is finally revealed.
Movie
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix **
The fifth entry in the increasingly predictable "Harry Potter" series is appropriately dark in tone, but it hinges too much on an annoying "boy who cried wolf" device that stunts its drama. Imelda Staunton is perfectly sadistic and funny, but the film fails by asking us too often to buy into something we know is not true.
More successful dramatically is the ever-increasing Orwellian nightmare that is happening at Hogwarts. The new Defence of the Dark Arts teacher is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Dolores Umbridge (played by a catty Imelda Staunton, who steals the show) receives increasing power at the school and is soon enacting strict authoritarian tenets well into the hundreds. In one of the movie's best visual motifs, the walls lose all their wonderful moving paintings, and must make way for framed edicts that are soon too many even for an enormous castle.
Umbridge is all fake courtesy and curt attitude a smiling sadist whose enjoyment while literally torturing the school kids is barely disguised. She takes away the children's rights, spies on them, and organizes them against each other. Like the best fascist leaders, she has an unwavering moral superiority that gets her through the "tough decisions" she must make while running a tight ship. Staunton makes this fiendishness very funny, eliciting laughs in the most unlikely of moments.
Some of Harry's classmates slowly come to believe him, and he starts training a small army of kids who are ready to fight Voldemort if need be. This offers some relief from an otherwise stagnant main thread. There is also the secret organization known as the Order of the Phoenix, and Harry's first (and highly anticipated) kiss, which, although devoid of sparks, is interesting enough because of how twisted it isÂit may stem from survivor's guilt on both parties.
As Sirius Black, Gary Oldman is the biggest disappointment. His warmth towards Harry is obvious, but he gets little opportunity to expand his character beyond winking a lot to show his Godson he'll always be on his side.
Definitely the darkest film of the series, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" portrays our little wizard at the height of his unpopularity, ostracized by peers and press alike. For a moment, I was worried he would get all emo like Spider-Man, with a swoop of matted hair, long bangs and eyeliner.
The anti-Potter behavior was not explained very well, and perhaps it makes more sense in the nearly 900-page book. But the frustration that arose from the stubborn Ministry's hard line was also shared by Potter fans at the screening I saw. When, in a crucial moment, Ministry head Cornelius Fudge (Robert Hardy) realized he'd been wrong the entire film about Potter, the whole crowd yelled, at the same time, "Duh!"
For too much of "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," I felt exactly the same way.
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
jen82 (anonymous) says...
You should get someone to review this movie who understand the plotline. This review has got a lot of the facts wrong. Most people seeing the movie will have read the books, and those I know who haven't still understood it as it's written. This reviewer doesn't even make an attempt, regardless of the review of the movie itself.
July 11, 2007 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Eric_Melin (Eric Melin) says...
What facts, specifically, did I get wrong?
My point was that the story, as presented, was dramatically inert and frustrating to watch. Not frustrating in a challenging way either. Movies are different than books, and you shouldn't need to read the book first to enjoy the movie. That means the movie has failed.
July 11, 2007 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ihatejohntravolta (anonymous) says...
jen,
i've never read any of the potter books but i've seen all of the movies, including this one. i think that the movies miss a lot of the details, large and small, of the book. i had to get a friend to explain a lot of what happened in this movie because you really can't understand a lot of it from the movie. seeing as eric is a movie reviewer....and the movies miss a lot of the details, you can't fault eric for missing those points. i thought it was a good movie but i was confused when i left the theatre.
July 11, 2007 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crazyleaflady (anonymous) says...
I find it amusing that the reviewer says "perhaps it makes more sense in the nearly 900-page book." Although the reviewer may not have intended it that way, the tone of that line implies that reading the book is too much effort.
ihatejohntravolta and Eric have good points-indeed, the movie should be able to stand alone--but I too would like to hear from someone who has read the books, since that's the category into which I (and jen and others) fall.
July 12, 2007 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Eric_Melin (Eric Melin) says...
crazyleaflady-
I was trying to point how much they would have had to cut out to even make the film, not making a comment that 900 pgs was too long. My co-host at Scene-Stealers.com has read the book and he totally disagreed with me. Here's a link to our video review of the movie:
http://www.scene-stealers.com/video-r...
July 12, 2007 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
maclothier (anonymous) says...
Perhaps it's the constant referencing of the books without actually having read them which is the issue here. It's one thing to review a film while removing it from its original literary context. It's another to constantly reference the film's novel origins without actually having read the novel. Perhaps the plot DOES make more sense in the book. Perhaps it doesn't. But if you haven't read the book, then bringing the text up repeatedly in a review doesn't contribute to the critique of the film.
As a sidenote, and in partial defense of the review, it is a bit strange that the characters in the novels haven't quite caught on to the repetitive nature of their lives. Just once I want a character at Hogwarts to ask Harry at the beginning of the school year how Harry thinks Voldemort is going to try and kill him this term.
July 12, 2007 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crazyleaflady (anonymous) says...
I think maclothier is absolutely right. Add that to the title of this review and you'll understand a bit better why the review might grate on those who've read the book.
I just saw this yesterday. All plot critiques Eric has made are just as relevant for the novel; they are by no means a function of the movie, and indeed the screenwriter has done a fantastic job, in my opinion, of streamlining the rather verbose book (Rowling has needed a bolder editor for the last 2 or 3 novels) and of capturing Harry's teen angst without resorting to the constant yelling (rendered in the text in all caps) of the novel. The movie is visually darker and much more contemporary in feel than the first movies, and I would agree with Eric that Staunton's turn as Umbridge is quite effective.
As for relying on past movies...perhaps I'm easier on this movie because I sat through the befuddling Pirates of the Caribbean movie, which made me turn to my companion and ask "remind me--who/what/why....?" every 5 minutes for 3 hours. This movie, on the other hand, seems perfectly clear.
I think fans of the earlier movies will enjoy this very much.
July 13, 2007 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
altheasus (Althea Schnacke) says...
I read "Harry has an evil madam out to murder him" instead of "madman". Maybe that would spice up the franchise?
July 13, 2007 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says...
Well, althea, I'm sure that there are several fanfic authors out there who have work in that very vein that they'd *love* to show you. I would advise you to stay far, far away from them.
July 16, 2007 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )