Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Published July 30, 2007
J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the longest book in the series (a word count of 255,000) and its film adaptation is the shortest (138 minutes). For the first time, a new writer has been called in, Michael Goldenberg, replacing Steve Kloves (who will be coming back for the next installment).
It's hard to credit someone in the Harry Potter series, since there have been four directors, two screenwriters, and one fairly inconsistent novelist, but one can notice that Order of the Phoenix departs in very serious ways from its predecessors. Now that we have Goldenberg as a point of comparison, it becomes clear that Kloves' scripts were very faithful to the original novels, and in the case of Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire, solid, nuanced, and with the right amount of characterization and excellent pacing. None of these qualities are in this film.
It's painfully noticeable that new director David Yates doesn't have much of an idea of what to do with Harry Potter. Whereas Alfonso Cuarón was carefully chosen as the director of Prisoner of Azkaban because of his A Little Princess, Yates had only a couple of political TV dramas to his name. Probably the producers felt that the political aspect of Order of the Phoenix required a more politically and socially oriented director. Actually, one would be hard-pressed to find a more unsuitable option. He does a passable job most of the time, because he takes his cues from Columbus and Newell, mostly, and in that way ends up making the same mistakes they did and some new ones. The film is at its weakest when the tone is dynamic: if a scene requires a change of tone, it's always clumsy. Order of the Phoenix being the darkest and most serious of the series so far, practically every attempt at humor falls short.
A couple of early scenes illustrate this well. Harry goes to Grimmauld Place to find his friends and is nervous with Ron and Hermione because, as always, he's the last to know bad things are happening. The tension here is lukewarm and the actors are stiff — to make matters worse, within a second, the Weasley twins magically appear and the tone changes awkwardly from anxious to comic. Cut to a lighthearted little sequence in which they try to eavesdrop (literally) on the Order's meeting, and right after, one that begins with Nymphadora Tonks (what a name!) shaping part of her face to resemble a pig and a duck, desperate for attention. Two seconds later the tone changes again to one of uneasiness: it's much too quick and unsubtle, and therefore neither tone succeeds.
- Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
- Published: July 30, 2007
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Adventure, Video: Family, Video: Fantasy
- Writer: Joe Sdicht
- Joe Sdicht's BC Writer page
- Joe Sdicht's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I thought the acting in OOTP was fantastic - and the trio has really improved. Michael Gambon will never make an even passable Dumbledore. Obviously you and I did not see the same movie!!
I agree with Megan. Your comment about Tonks doesn't quite make sense. It was clear from the movie that Tonks was making faces to make Ginny and Hermione laugh.
As far as your comment on the over-use of magic in the film...er, it's a fantasy genre. Magic plays a huge role in these stories. Granted, I also felt that the Grawp subplot was unnecessary and way too convienient a deus ex machina, but magical elements will always play a big part in these films.
Megan and Kaonashi, as to Tonks' grimaces, you guys may be right. I only wanted to say that it felt completely out of place in that scene. As for the over-use of magic, it's not really magic that I'm against, only magic that is just childish or inconsequential, like what Tonks was doing, or the Weasley brothers' eavesdropping: it's fine when it fits well with the tone of the movie and the scene., something I don't think Yates pulled off.
Grawp was completely unecessary, being that Umbridge is taken by centaurs. The story doesn't need him at all, and I really didn't want to see the kids going into the forest at night once more with Hagrid to see a monster. It happens in HP1, HP2, HP4 and this one. It's even more repetitive than having to begin every time with the Dursleys.
As for the over-use of magic, it's not really magic that I'm against, only magic that is just childish or inconsequential, like what Tonks was doing, or the Weasley brothers' eavesdropping: it's fine when it fits well with the tone of the movie and the scene., something I don't think Yates pulled off.
The thing is that Tonks making faces at the table and the Weasley twins eavesdropping are in the book. I think the reason they seemed out of place in the movie was because there wasn't enough of an explanation for them.
In the book you find out that Tonks, being one of the youngest adult witches, has a silly sense of humor and gets along really well with Ginny and Hermione. She often jokes around with the girls. Meanwhile, the twins were eavesdropping not just for their benefit but because all the children wanted to know what was being discussed by the Order of the Phoenix. They were frustrated about being kept in the dark and being treated like children and wanted to be included in whatever plans they were forming.
"Goldenberg at least had the decency of omitting Quidditch altogether. Yay."
I think Quidditch was one of the high points of the other movies. It offered us an interesting distraction from Harry's dilemmas and problems and gave us a reminder of the magical world where the story is set. The lack of Quidditch in OOTP is a weak point.
Also, I think the Weasley twins' departure from Hogwarts should have been a much more humorous scene. In the book, that was one of my favorite parts, especially when one of the twins told Peeves to "Give [Umbridge] hell from us!" and Peeves saluted them.
Umbridge, though not at all how I pictured her, did well in her role; however, the dislike between her and McGonagall should have been far more pronounced. Whenever they were together in the book, McGonagall's clear authority over Umbridge was most satisfying; however, only Snape displayed his hatred for Umbridge in the movie.
Finally, what happened to Harry publishing his description of the night Voldemort came back in the Quibbler? This was an important plot point in the book, and the movie would have done better to include it.
However, the movie would probably be about 10 hours long if it included all of the things I would like it to include, so I'll just let it be.
Kaonashi:
thanks for bringing all this about Tonks to my attention. The movies end up being dense sometimes if you don't know the backstory!
Corina:
the overtly "serious" tone they took in OOTP would nullify Quidditch as distraction altogether, and it'd stick out like sore thumb, I think. I guess it was for the best that they omitted it. I liked it very much in Prisoner of Azkaban where it was not about the game at all, but it provided an excuse for Harry getting close to the dementors, it was a very tense and gripping scene.
I'm really sorry that the humor in OOTP doesn't really work - like you pointed out, the Weasley twins' departure from Hogwarts could've been better handled.
Joe
A communist review of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix at Maoist Information Web Site.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/66985)
"Cut to a lighthearted little sequence in which they try to eavesdrop (literally) on the Order's meeting, and right after, one that begins with Nymphadora Tonks (what a name!) shaping part of her face to resemble a pig and a duck, desperate for attention."
Tonks metamorphs because she's desperate for attention? Okay...