Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Published July 30, 2007
These little vignettes are typical of the two first films, where the humor was childish and quirky, and they don't fit at all with the somber thematics of the film, much less when they're in the same scene. There is next to no humor in this Harry Potter, because Yates is unable to balance the tones appropriately. A climactic scene involving a character's death is almost ruined because of that: it looks as if put together at the last minute, the director unsure of what it should look or feel like. The whole movie at that point depends on adroit tonal changes, but he just can't handle it (Harry's chasing of Bellatrix and giving over to hate) and much of the emotional range of the ensuing duel with Voldemort is thwarted.
Yates works well with the adult actors, and the early scenes in the Ministry of Magic with Harry's trial are strong, and watching Michael Gambon and Gary Oldman in their roles is just delightful. Gambon is always a joy to watch, and his Dumbledore really comes to life as a major character — something that's difficult to imagine with Richard Harris. And just watch Oldman as he fights the Death-Eaters with a truly graceful poise. This scene is definitely the high point of the entire film, if only on a purely visual level. It's like watching the Jedi duels in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace for the first time — I know the film is horrible, but for the first time the Jedis were moving with impressive elegance and agility, and to finally watch fully accomplished wizards (not old men or apprentices) at the height of their powers is just as wonderful. Harry's "occlumency" lessons with Snape (Alan Rickman) are also a high point, although much too short. Helena Bonham Carter appears briefly as villain Bellatrix Lestrange, but so briefly it's more a cameo than a role, and I hope there's more of her in subsequent movies.
Another particularly strong moment is the montage halfway into the film that shows Dolores Umbridge's (Imelda Staunton) devious and slow overtaking of Hogwarts interspersed with Harry's lessons to the other kids of more advanced spells in order to constitute an army to fight Voldemort. This is a major stylistic and structural departure from the previous films, as Steve Kloves had never employed such a technique. It's ironic that it works well and is able to sustain some humor, but one gets the feeling that such montages, much like the overused newspaper headings that show up every so often, are facile summarizers and leave out much needed plot and character development.
- 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...