Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix *spoilers*

[saintsaucey]

For Those Of You Who Don't want Spoilers. Turn Back Now. Its Your Last Warning...





















Saw The Movie at 1201 Wednesday so Sean I'm not place holding or anything like that.

Luna steals the movie.

The movie was ten times better than the last one and they changed just as much. It just some how worked this time.

Brief Synopsis.

Open with an over view of England and Zoom into a play ground in Surry. A mom is gathering up her kids to take thim home leaving one boy. Harry Potter. Along comes Duddly and his gang fresh from beating up another ten year old (This one deserved it) Duddly begins mocking Harry much to his friends bemusement but Duddly doesn't laugh when Harry pulls out his wand. the skies suddenly darken and of course Duddly blames Harry. they all runaway and Harry and Duddly duck into a tunnel where they are attact. Harry fights them off and with the help of Miss Figg manages to get Duddly home.

He receives one letter frm the minestry informing him of his expulsion. Petunia and Vernan take Duddly to the hospital to have him checked out and while they are gone here comes the order. they all fly to the orders hideout where they Moody reveals it by stamping his staff on the ground three times.

Harry gets the lowdown on whats been going on and soon its off to the ministry for his trial. he whitneses the inter department memos, Fudge and Lucius talking then has his trial. Miss Figg testifies Miss Umbridge is annoying and he is aquited. (No question about the patronus other than did he produce it willingly infront of a muggle)

At school Harry and Luna see the thestrals and later she tells him what they are and why they can see them. Filch has to keep getting taller and taller ladders to hang all of umbridge's orders and soon Hermione steps up and desides to have Harry teach them. Harry does so and right before Christmas he kisses Cho under the mistel toe. the he dreams he attacks Mr weasly and the kids leave quickly while harry tells dumbeldor to look at him and is then wisked away to occlemancy lessons. after they all get back to school they get busted when apparently Cho caves in durring an intarigation. Dumbeldor escapes when they question him and Shakelbolt thinks he has style. They all get detention and Michael Corner is crying over his scars. Fred and George comfort him while Umbridge tells Harry all bad people must be punished. The kids take their owls and Fred and George interupt them with their flight to freedom. (Fire Works and the Dragon but no swamp.) Flitwick observes it all and quickly cheers.

Harry dreams of Sirius's death and breaks into Umbridges office. She's their waiting on him and After Snape reminds Umbridge that she used the rest of the truth syrum on Cho, arry warns snape that (He's got Padfoot in the place that its hidden) Grawp and the Centars chase of umbridge and ron tricks the slytherins into eating puking pastys. they fly to the ministry on the thestrals and go right to the room of prohecies. Once Harry realizes that Sirius isn't there, Nevil finds the prophecy which Harry and the others here. Then Lucius and the death eaters show up and and a battle insues.

Sirus dies at the hands of Bellatrix who quickly jumps ship when dumbledor shows up. Dumbledor and Voldemort fight and Voldemort cuts out right as Fudge arrives and sees him. Harry tells Voldemort that he'll never have friends or love.

Back at the school Harry wonders why Luna isn't at the feast and she tells him that though they took her stuff in good fun. she must really get her things back Harry and tells the others that they have one thing that Voldemort will never have and thats it the end.

Other Highlights include the kids intro to Grawp Minerva and Deloris's attempting to stand taller than the other while discusing Harry's punishement.

A brief few scenes of Kreacher. One of the other Creevy Boy. Sirius giving harry the picture of the order. stuff like that.

All in all I really liked it. Harry still came off as a whiney little bitch and though they cut alot of it out i still enjoyed it much better than I did GOF.

Luna steals the show and Tonks is a babe.

let the talking commence and anyone who wants to give a better synopsis please do.

[Thorlief]

how long did Voldy vs Dumbledore last?

I'm happy to hear its better than GOF, which really disappointed me

[Rylon]

Wow, you and I had very different reactions to this movie. I didn't like it as much as Goblet of Fire. For me, a lot of the feel of the world that Harry inhabits was absent. That said, I didn't like the book as much as I liked the others. So, it's really a wash, expectations wise.

Still, Luna is awesome.

And Tonks is a babe.

how long did Voldy vs Dumbledore last?Dumbledore fights Tom Riddle (I only say that because Dumbledore calls "Voldy" that in the book) for several minutes. It ends with Harry being possessed by Voldermort and Harry trying to fight him off. I can't remember if that was in the book or not.

[ImpulseUCF]

Saw it last night, too. IMO, it was a much better adaptation than GOF, but still felt like a highlights reel with a plot more than its own story.

Don't get me wrong. They covered all the crucial stuff and added a fair degree of heart. I liked the directing and look/feel. It felt more British than the other ones. While they left a lot of content out, it didn't feel as hacked and chopped and ripped apart as GOF did. It was much more coherent and had a much better flow as a movie. My two biggest complaints are that they cut too much of the ambient details that define the atmosphere and feel of the Harry Potter world and that they didn't allow the film to breathe at all.

I guess the musical equivalent would be leaving space and pauses to allow the music to breathe instead of a rushed cacaphony of noise. Same thing here. A lot of potential impact didn't happen because we weren't allowed any time to let things sink in. They hit all the major scenes, but it felt more like a checklist than the well-crafted film based on only the key elements of the book that it should have been.

I was disappointed with the sequence in the ministry because all along I was hoping they were rushing through the unimportant stuff so they could spend time and focus on the big stuff, specifically this scene. It was a bit of a letdown as they rushed the entire sequence, from the initial entry and search to the duel to Sirius fate and everything. The sense of camaraderie and bonding and of the kids stepping up to face these brutal adults? All gone. Gone. Rushed through. As I said earlier, they hit all of the things on the checklist, but they were not spending any more time on it than they had to.

While not necessarily a bad thing, I was pretty surprised that the tone of the film was jarringly lighter than the book. I mean, like, a LOT. This was probably the darkest, broodiest, angstiest book, but the movie was actually very light. I wasn't hoping for Emo-Harry by any means an I am glad they toned down that part of it, but the movie felt far too light compared to the book.

I do wonder what it's like from the perspective of someone who hasn't read the books. I still think it would feel rushed, but I'm not sure.

Conclusion: All in all, a coherent if rushed and shallow adaptation of Order of the Phoenix that covered it's bases beteter than Goblet of Fire, but still felt a bit too shallow to be truly great.

[Thorlief]

Wow, you and I had very different reactions to this movie. I didn't like it as much as Goblet of Fire. For me, a lot of the feel of the world that Harry inhabits was absent. That said, I didn't like the book as much as I liked the others. So, it's really a wash, expectations wise.

Still, Luna is awesome.

And Tonks is a babe.

Dumbledore fights Tom Riddle (I only say that because Dumbledore calls "Voldy" that in the book) for sever minutes. It ends with Harry being possessed by Voldermort and Harry trying to fight him off. I can't remember if that was in the book or not.

thanks for the info, and excellent news. I sooo hoped it would last that long since imo it's the best moment in all the HP saga

[saintsaucey]

Don't get me wrong there were problems with it. There was stuff I wanted to see that I didn't get. Petunia's howler and the discussion before and afterwords being the main thing. Kreecher was left out of the majority of it. No mention of it at the end of his being involved with the death eaters. No mention of Deloris sending the dementors after harry. no madungus fletcher. no colin creevy just nigel.

And there was one thing that i thought they wasted their time on but right now i can't think of it.

[Novaya Havoc]

Are the Patil twins mega-fabulous in the movie?

[literally exaggerated]

Do we get Snape's Worst Memory? That was by far my favorite part of the book.

[Thorlief]

Do we get Snape's Worst Memory? That was by far my favorite part of the book.

I guess I can answer to this: yes, since I saw a pic of a young Snape

[saintsaucey]

Are the Patil twins mega-fabulous in the movie?

their in it but thats about it. they don't do much
as for snapes worst memory its barely seen but the scenes where harry is going through the lessons are done differently than i expected. you do see it though you don't see snape's underware just him hanging upside down

[ImpulseUCF]

Are the Patil twins <snip> in the movie?I edited your question so I can answer. Yes :)
Do we get Snape's Worst Memory? That was by far my favorite part of the book.Barely, but it's in there.

[Adam West]

I love it too.
Perhaps the first Potter movie that felt it had an actual story rather than some scenes put together without any cohesion. I agree though that we could have done with more battle scene with the kids and the Deatheaters.

[Aggie]

best.casting.ever!...and a huge ditto to the poster who said luna steals the movie...loved the movie and i also agree that it is a better adaptation than GoF...which is amazing given how long the book is...but the battle between the order and the deatheaters was cool as hell...helena bonham-carter has found the role she was born to play and dumbledore is the man!!...:D

[drwho]

1. I thought this movie had too many scenes where nothing happened,or the same stuff happened over and over again. I thought the training scenes were over done.

2. There was a mention that the author told them to keep the Kreach in the movie, yet when watching it I didnt hear anything called a Kreach. What is that?

3. There was too much of a turn to the darkside luke feeling in this

4. The Wizard battle at the end was just too much and messy. The camera moved so quick you couldnt see what was going on.

5. I did think Umbridge was bizarre in a cucky neighbor kind of way.

I would say this movie was okay.

[SPAfreak]

You know, just based on this movie I want Luna to end up with Harry. They had a strange sort of chemistry together on screen as opposed to the complete lack of chemistry between Harry and Cho.

Was it just me or did Luna completely lack an accent?

[SPAfreak]

2. There was a mention that the author told them to keep the Kreach in the movie, yet when watching it I didnt hear anything called a Kreach. What is that?

The Black's house elf. They mentioned his name in passing in the movie.

[ImpulseUCF]

1. I thought this movie had too many scenes where nothing happened,or the same stuff happened over and over again. I thought the training scenes were over done. Really? I thought the training sequences represented the only subplot in the entire movie that was adequately developed and properly paced. Everything else was rushed and had a cursory appearance just because it was on the "to-do" list.

I think some expansion on some scenes and a little bit of time to let things sink in and slow the pacing would have improved this dramatically. Still, much better adaptation than GOF, but still an adaptation with all of the typical flaws of that type of movie.

I don't understand why so many producers operate under the fallacy that a long movie will not be successful, particularly one based on a source material with a strong following. If nothing else, the recent comic book juggernaut franchises and Lord of the Rings have shown that an audience is more than willing to throw money at a long film as long as it is worth sitting through.

See, in LOTR, I know they left a lot of scenes out, but the scenes that made it in were well-produced, well-paced, full and developed. Nothing felt rushed by a long shot. With the latest Harry Potter movies, it seems to be the opposite. They were more concerned with squeezing the scenes in that they didn't spend the time to develop them to make sure they worked together as a movie and not just an adaptation. I think if they would just focus on making sure they've created a strong film based on some soruce material that the rest will work itself out.

[saintsaucey]

Was it just me or did Luna completely lack an accent?

She has one in interviews. the actriss is british so she should have one i just know she was great and probably the best part of the movie

[Ramona Juanita]

but the battle between the order and the deatheaters was cool as hell...helena bonham-carter has found the role she was born to play and dumbledore is the man!!...:D


I was very disappointed. They bent that baby over a barrel, if you ask me.
Now admittedly, I'm a HP book freak, so I nit-picked the whole movie. The battle mentioned above sucked, wasn't near long enough or violent enough. Bonham-Carter seemed a little blah, (which is sad, I love her), and Dumbledore was a wimp in the fight scene with Vold.
I hated what they did with Cho, and the discovery of the D.A. It completely changed her character and it will show in the next movie. So what if she was forced to tell the truth? It made her too sympathetic; unlike the teen-age girl she's supposed to be.
It seemed a little like they were trying to give Emma Watson more screen time for really no reason. But what's her name, Evanna Who'sits was wonderful. That girl got Luna down to a tee. The lady who played Umbridge was good, but I disliked how they trivalized the Ministery's involvement and interference at Hogwarts and within the Wizardy world.
Where the hell was Shacklebolt's accent??!!?
They completely left out all about St. Mungo's, and vital interaction between Neville and his parents.
Hagrid never got physically removed from Hogwarts and McGonagel wasn't attacked. The Weasley's exit from school was bland at best, although Flintwick reaction was cute, if not predictable.

And why the hell didn't they mention the damn Locket!!??!?

Ok, now for the good stuff...

The Threstrals (sp?) were cool. Not what I had pictured, but cool anyway.
The above mentioned actresses in their roles were good. Harry's anger and resentment was downplayed but ok. All in all, not the best, but not the worst.

I realize it's a lot of info to cram into the allotted time, and good book adaptions are hard to come by, but I was hoping for more and better.

[EZMOHR]

I felt that if one book should've not been cut too much, it was Order of the Phoenix....and it was cut big time. If you are nothing more than a casual follower of the Harry Potter series(ie movies only), I can see that after this movie you might just be out altogether. I'm not saying it was a bad movie, it just wasn't that good of a movie. In fact, I think Ron had like what...maybe 10 lines in the whole movie? It seems like they could've cut Ron out all together from the movie....and it would've been the same movie. That is a HUGE problem...because Ron is one of the trifecta and he had less a part in this movie than his brothers did.

I understand that you have to cut things out of the book to make a movie...and I thought Goblet of Fire and Prisoner of Azkban did a good job of that. Order of the Phoenix for all purposes and lack of a better term in the book universe was The Empire Strikes Back of the series. And the creators bungled that. It's the one were the Bad Guys take a few more notches out of the good guys, than the good guys took out of them. This did not feel like that at all. In fact, I think we got the TRUE bad guys (Voldemart, The Death Eaters) for all of what.....15 minutes all together.

Hell, with the exception of Sirius Black and him saying The Order of the Phoenix a few times....a person watching this movie might wonder why the hell this movie was called The Order of the Phoenix. They don't do crap except for the first 5 minutes of the movie and the last 10 minutes of the movie.

On the positive side, Imelda Stauten (I know I bungled that name) did a way better job as Umbridge than I thought she was gonna do. She was perfect for the part. Luna was good, and although I'm not fauning over her the way the rest of the net is right now, I think the actress did a good job as Luna. Plus, it still kills me that Jason Issacs only gets like 10 minutes of screen time in all these Harry Potter movies when he has been by FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RR the best villian in all of them. He's nailed it out of the park as Malfoy every time.

Overall, while this was probably my favorite book in the series, this will go down as the worst movie for me. Not a bad movie, just not the highlight of the series. It worries me that Yates is coming back as director for The Half Blood Prince, cause I feel that he harkened back to Chris Columbus's directing style, ie nothing flashy in a world that should be sparkling. He was a BIG step back compared to what Cuaron did in the third movie and to a smaller degree what Newell did with The Goblet of Fire.

[SPAfreak]

She has one in interviews. the actriss is british so she should have one i just know she was great and probably the best part of the movie

I'm assuming her normal speaking voice also isn't as drawn out and airy then?

[G. Wayne]

Seen all the movies, haven't read the books. All in all, I enjoyed it, putting it in maybe my top 3 for the year. Don't really have many complaints, other than trying to keep up with who's who.

Who was the other girl (not Luna) that started tagging along with the big 3 towards the end?

The OttP and Badguy battle was longer in the book?! Zounds. Struck me as incredibly well done, and a nice change of pace with the adults finally competently, um, throwing down, so to speak.

I liked the Dumbeldore/Voldemort duel too.

And yeah, shades of turning to the Dark Side for Emo-Harry.

...
Still, Luna is awesome.

And Tonks is a babe.
...

The /only/ reason I had a clue as to who Tonks was, was that I had happened to read something about her earlier in the day yesterday. But, yes, she is a babe. And probably why this will rank as my favorite of the series. :)

Luna was amusing as well.

The Black's house elf. They mentioned his name in passing in the movie.

Ah. Been wondering about that. Thanks for clearing that up.

[saintsaucey]

I'm assuming her normal speaking voice also isn't as drawn out and airy then?

actually it is


http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=luna+lovegood&search=Search

third lisiting down

apparently she is irish not english

[LtMarvel]

I enjoyed the film a lot. I'm not even sure that it deserved its PG-13 rating. I thought the film did a better job with Harry's anger than the book did.

Luna and Delores were great! So was Snape!

I missed the quiddich, but I knew it wasn't going to be there.

I didn't even recogonize Harry's cousin. These kids really have grown. Poor Radcliffe seems about a head shorter (at least) than everyone else.

I was surprised at the size of Hagrid's half brother.

There is NO extra scene after the credits, btw.

[literally exaggerated]

This was by far the best movie so far, and the one that felt the most like a self-contained story rather than a disconnected series of events cribbed from the novel (which is interesting, because the book is pretty bloated and not one of the better ones in the series, IMO). By basically slimming it down to 2 main plots: Umbridge and DA, and Voldemort, they managed to do justice to both of them rather than defusing their energy over a million different plots like the other movies.

The final battle kicked ass. The opening scene was also wonderfully shot, invoking a lot of horror-movie conventions to set up the Dementors.

[Tobias March]

She has one in interviews. the actriss is british so she should have one i just know she was great and probably the best part of the movie

Dude she's from Northern Ireland....British territory, but not an accent that's typically thought of as being 'British'.

[Dreadstar]

Who was the other girl (not Luna) that started tagging along with the big 3 towards the end?


Ginny Weasely.

That's one of the points that you'd never get if you didn't know it from the books or the previous films. But then there's a lot that they have to shorthand in these movies. They never told you who Fred and Geaorge were, either. The scene at Christmas has her getting a gift from her mother, that's all the explanation they give.

I liked the movie. Didn't love it. It was just so... vanilla.

[EZMOHR]

vanilla.


There, that was the word I was looking for. Thank You.

[saintsaucey]

Dude she's from Northern Ireland....British territory, but not an accent that's typically thought of as being 'British'.

i corrected my mistake earlier dude don't be offened by a small mistake

[literally exaggerated]

Also, I have to say I was extremely impressed by Dan Radcliffe in this one. My problem with the previous movies was always that the adults kicked ass (Rickman especially knocks Snape out of the park, and continued to do so in this movie) but the kids, who got most of the focus, sucked. Harry was wooden, Ron snivelling and irritating, Hermione a generic girl-power sidekick. But Harry actually emoted in this one, like, there were scenes in which he managed to convey significant ambiguity beyond the script. I realize thats what actors are *supposed* to do, but the fact that Dan finally did it speaks volumes as to him growing into the part and as an actor, because I've always felt previously that he was basically some kid who looked kinda like Harry reading lines. Ron was also better in this one, his role was smaller, but he was much more likeable and believable as a real person and friend to Harry. Luna was also awesome. It made the kid-focused scenes much, much more watchable.

Also, the Death Eaters were a lot scarier this time around. The scene in the department of mysteries in which they all silently appear out of the shadows in the background around the kids is excellent. I actually thought it made things much better that their fight with Dumbledore's Army was changed and cut down. In the book the kids actually kick some serious ass, so much so that it makes the Death Eater's seem pretty inneffectual. Here the kids were obviously overmatched, but through all the training they had done managed to run for a while, and even then were still all captured. There was a much greater sense of fear and danger from the villains than in any of the previous movies.

Umbridge was astonishingly good. I wanted to murder her, slowly and brutally with my bare hands and maybe some pliers, which was exactly the reaction the evoked in the book. Spot on. Bellatrix was also very good, although once Helena Bonham Carter was cast that was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

One thing I don't like about any of the movies, and it remained true here, are the hugely truncated explanations at the end. If each movie added perhaps 3 minutes of dialogue at the end to Dumbledore's explanation everything would make much more sense.

[DC/Marvelfan]

Saw it today, loved it as I do them all. The Black house Elf was a bit under used missing a big part of his story but still very well done.

the end battle was beautiful.

All in all...Four Stars.

[Rylon]

See, in LOTR, I know they left a lot of scenes out, but the scenes that made it in were well-produced, well-paced, full and developed. Nothing felt rushed by a long shot. With the latest Harry Potter movies, it seems to be the opposite. They were more concerned with squeezing the scenes in that they didn't spend the time to develop them to make sure they worked together as a movie and not just an adaptation. I think if they would just focus on making sure they've created a strong film based on some soruce material that the rest will work itself out.See, here's the thing about The Lord of the Rings, the writing style is very different form the Harry Potter books. Tolkin spends a lot of Fellowship on Middle Earth historical background. While the books themselves are, for me, dense and wordy, the plot itself is light and often subtle. Turning that style of writing into a movie is, in some ways, easier. Long descriptions are simply shots of scenery, and the more of the plots under pinnings are shown.

Rowling writes her books with a lot of plot. The books are very episodic and lots of stuff happens. Every book also has it's big mystery that takes the whole book to unravel. This might be blasphemy, but Rowling's style is much closer to Agatha Christie's than J.R.R. Tolkin. I think the reason that Christie's books translate better to movies is because they take place at a specific time and place in the real world that dosen't take long to establish. Because Rowling writes fantasy, I think it confuses the people who adapt her work.

[ImpulseUCF]

See, here's the thing about The Lord of the Rings, the writing style is very different form the Harry Potter books. Tolkin spends a lot of Fellowship on Middle Earth historical background. While the books themselves are, for me, dense and wordy, the plot itself is light and often subtle. Turning that style of writing into a movie is, in some ways, easier. Long descriptions are simply shots of scenery, and the more of the plots under pinnings are shown.

Rowling writes her books with a lot of plot. The books are very episodic and lots of stuff happens. Every book also has it's big mystery that takes the whole book to unravel. This might be blasphemy, but Rowling's style is much closer to Agatha Christie's than J.R.R. Tolkin. I think the reason that Christie's books translate better to movies is because they take place at a specific time and place in the real world that dosen't take long to establish. Because Rowling writes fantasy, I think it confuses the people who adapt her work.Well, yeah, but my point wasn't so much on the adaptation as it was on crafting a film first, with an appropriate pace, level of ambience, detail, etc. The primary goal should be the final output being a strong film that stands up on its own merits. Including as much source material as is possible should be a requirement within that overall goal IMO.

Rather than try to fit as much stuff into a movie as possible, they should have tried to make a really good movie based on this stuff. I still don't understand the rushing around, anyway. People will sit through a long movie.

[LtMarvel]

The other thing you must keep in mind is that this is part 5 of 7. You don't get a complete beginning and you don't get a complete conclusion.

[ImpulseUCF]

Well, no, of course not, but even each individual story was its own particular plot and story that fits into an overarching bigger picture. This being one part of a multi series does not mean its own, self-contained stories should not be properly developed, paced and resolved.

Like, Empire Strikes Back had a clear beginning, middle, and end. The individual scenes and stories were well-paced, complete, and did not feel rushed. A temporary immediate resolution was provided at the end while setting the stage for the overall resolution in RotJ. They didn't just rush through scenes and kill the pacing because Luke wasn't ready to kill Vader and the emperor.

[LtMarvel]

Lord of the Rings (the first one) also suffered from lack of an ending; there were alot of people in the the theater going, "That's it???"--including my wife.

[Toboe]

Watched it this morning. I loved it. I didn't care for the book much, but the movie was great. It dealt better with Harry's rage and frustration and he didn't come out as much of an idiot in the end like in the book.
I think I actually liked much more how thing were treated here than in the book. The Department of Misteries fight, Voldemort possessing Harry and how he he fight him...
Luna was awesome. I think I'm in love with that girl.
Snape was splendid was usual.
Umbridge was just perfect.
I just wish Ginny had actually spoken through the movie, and Tonks had had some more spotlight.
Although I don't get why the bothered with Kreacher if he didn't do his betrayal thing, but just showed up and did nothing...
Grawp looked kinda crappy though.
But overall, excellent movie.

[Adam West]

The other thing you must keep in mind is that this is part 5 of 7. You don't get a complete beginning and you don't get a complete conclusion.

Exactly.
This is what I think has been the biggest problem in adapting a Potter book into a movie. The Potter books is essentially one main storyline which was supported by several side stories. The thing is, without knowing how the main story ends, it would be very difficult to pick which side stories to left out. This goes for the side characters as well.

Unimportant characters in one book can end up becoming significant in later books (Kreacher was going to be cut from the 5th movie but was included because Rowling said he'll be important for the 7th books). Also things like verita serum and polyjuice potion, that come up in the 2nd book only to make appearance in the 4th and 5th book. It'll create a certain degree of confusion to regular moviegoers if they didn't follow the books.

I also agree about similarities between Rowling and Agatha Christie. I read Christie's novels before I read Potter books and love them. I always like the whodunnit storylines and for the first 4 books Rowling delivered this kind of story with great style.

[UniqueFrequency]

I just wish Ginny had actually spoken through the movie, and Tonks had had some more spotlight.


darn i was looking forward to seeing lots of Tonks!!

[Novaya Havoc]

It worries me that Yates is coming back as director for The Half Blood Prince

It worried me that HP6 is getting a full-length film, PERIOD. It's all just angst, angst, angst, making out, angst, FLASHBACK FLASHBACK PENSEIVE PLOT DEVICE, and oh, Dumbledore dies at the end.

HP6 is going to be a heinous film.

[saintsaucey]

It worried me that HP6 is getting a full-length film, PERIOD. It's all just angst, angst, angst, making out, angst, FLASHBACK FLASHBACK PENSEIVE PLOT DEVICE, and oh, Dumbledore dies at the end.

HP6 is going to be a heinous film.

what the fuck dumbledore dies i totally had no idea you've just ruined the next movie for me.....






















































































Nah just kidding I've read all the books todate and have will have the newest one started in 175 hours. thats right i've done the math

[JoeK32880]

But seriously, spoilers for Harry Potter 6 (or 7) in a thread about the 5th movie are totally lame.

I still have a few chapters left in book 6, Dumbledore isn't dead yet. Unfortunately that was already spoiled for me, but I feel bad for anyone who didn't want to know that.

[ImpulseUCF]

The other thing you must keep in mind is that this is part 5 of 7. You don't get a complete beginning and you don't get a complete conclusion.
This is what I think has been the biggest problem in adapting a Potter book into a movie. The Potter books is essentially one main storyline which was supported by several side stories. The thing is, without knowing how the main story ends, it would be very difficult to pick which side stories to left out. This goes for the side characters as well.I disagree. The biggest problem has been they rushed the scenes they did decide to keep, leaving a movie that is not only missing a lot of the source material, but is also rushed, shallow and choppy on its own accord. Personally, I don't mind if they remove a lot of material as long as what they keep is handled beautifully. I just don't think that's happened yet. They're trying to fit in as much as they can and obviously can never fit it all, but they also were busy tying to do that and didn't bother making a great standalone movie. Great movie or flawless adaptation? Pick one! They committed to neither, an d I think the movies have suffered for it.

[Toboe]

darn i was looking forward to seeing lots of Tonks!!

Me too! But she just shows up at begining and is all like hey I'm tonks, I hate my name and I can change my hair color, bye!
Oh and the ministry in the end but doesn't do much...

And well, I think the third movie kinda got away with being a great stand alone movie, although not what one would call a flawless adaptation.

[Ring Slinger]

Reading through the comments here, I'm surprised and actually dismayed at the number of people who are trying to discuss the movie as it relates to the book (and the entire series, as well) who haven't actually READ the books. What's that about? Alongside a lot of painfully abysmal spelling, some of you are trying to talk about characters and getting their names wrong and plot points you have no clue about. If you don't know what you're talking about then don't talk.

That said, I'm going to say the movie is BETTER than the book. Before I go on, I think everyone should read the books to get a better appreciation of movie and it's overall context (don't forget, we've had 6 books-- almost 7-- and only 5 films; certain things in the film foreshadow things to come). My biggest reason that the movie is better than the book is because with the film I actually enjoyed the story of what has always been my LEAST favorite book in the series. ORDER OF THE PHOENIX has always felt like a weak link to me, but the film condensed the many extra plot threads to get to the heart of what's happening. Most importantly, I detest Harry's portrayal and characterization in Book 5, but the film makes him sympathetic once again.

Luna Lovegood steals the show-- plain and simple.

The many sidelong glances and slight frowns on Ginny's face as she sees Harry getting closer to Cho were priceless; excellent job of foreshadowing of the relationship to come.

I really wanted to see the Christmas scene at St. Mungo's where Harry and friends run into Neville visiting his incapacitated parents; the film loses some real power by not throwing this emotional punch.

I have not cared for Michael Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore at all-- it's always felt like he's trying to be too different from Richard Harris' portrayal of the character in the first two films to make the role his own. Unfortunately, Harris' Dumbledore was a dead-on interpretation of the character from the books, so Gambon's Dumbledore suffers. In particular, where Dumbledore is always three steps ahead of Umbridge in the book, Gambon's Dumbledore is weak and we do not feel like he's really in control of what's happening at Hogwarts.

The scene in which Fred and George Weasley comfort a young boy who has been subjected to Umbridge's brand of punishment is a nice, film-original touch. It's only a very brief moment, but it adds nice depth to the characters.

Again, I have to say the film is great. It's the first of the five that I may go back and see again in the theater (instead of just waiting for the DVD). I give it a solid "A" (or definitely an E, possibly even an O, in the world of Harry Potter).

[ImpulseUCF]

I'm glad to hear that you liked it. I wish I agreed, but I don't. I don't think it was handled well as a film, but I can't really determine if that lies outside of my knowledge of the book. It felt *to me* like it was a rushed, shallow film, but I'm not sure if it really was. Stupid bias...

[Haydn C]

I'm glad to hear that you liked it. I wish I agreed, but I don't. I don't think it was handled well as a film, but I can't really determine if that lies outside of my knowledge of the book. It felt *to me* like it was a rushed, shallow film, but I'm not sure if it really was. Stupid bias...

No I agree, it did feel rushed, but having read the book I understand why it seems like that and I think appreciate, (not sure that's the right word) why they had to snip so much and rush so much.
As an accompanyment to the book I really enjoyed it, as a stand alone film it doesn't work that well.

[Ryan K]

My dissapointment with this movie was the same as with the last.

It seems to me as the movies adapt the longer books, they're forced to just throw exposition and plot at the screen and cram it all in there and as a result lose too much of the charm of the books. They lose character moments, they lose little bits of information, they lose, the jokes, and whimsy.

I'm definately not the most objectivevoice when it comes to these films, but this film (like the last film) felt like it had a horrible pace. It jumped from one scene to the next without clear indications of passage of time, plenty of scenes were unclear, and overall I just felt the film felt rushed to cram in as much plot as they could but didn't stop to make sure everything was making sense. Subplots like Mr. Weasley being attacked, Grawp, occlumency lessons, and others were left in, but rushed (or in the case of Grawp - for no reason).

As I said I'm not very objective, and maybe the reson some of these things felt rushed or the pace felt off to me was because my mind knows the blanks that they film leaves.

Let me say I did enjoy a couple things. Luna was excellent, as was Imelda Staunton. At this point these films basically just exist as highlights for me rather than as actual films. Its fun to see some moments and characters pulled off as well as I'd like, and the rest of it just melts away from my mind and I resume to my personal interpretations from the books.

Oh, and Gambon is still a terrible Dumbledore.

[Nate Grey]

JUST got back from seeing it. Loved it. Think I might like it a little bit better than the last one. The Dumbledore/Voldemort fight alone was worth the price of admission.

[Legato]

JUST got back from seeing it. Loved it. Think I might like it a little bit better than the last one. The Dumbledore/Voldemort fight alone was worth the price of admission.

That was practically the reason why I went to see it. I like the Battle in The Department of Ministries and Luna was portrayed pretty well on film.

My one gripe is that Sirius death wasn't really excecuted well enough as I felt the book handled it pretty well.

Im getting the feeling, when it comes to Harry Potter pairings, it's pretty obvious that Hollywood is keen on setting up Harry and Hermione as a couple. Which makes me interested in how Half Blood Prince will turn out.

[JoeK32880]

Im getting the feeling, when it comes to Harry Potter pairings, it's pretty obvious that Hollywood is keen on setting up Harry and Hermione as a couple. Which makes me interested in how Half Blood Prince will turn out.

I didn't get that feeling at all. In fact, it seemed like they were nudging Ron and Hermione together more, and there were definate allusions to Harry and his book 6 girlfriend getting together in this one.

[handOFfate]

POSITIVES:
-Excellent beginning. The atmosphere was creepy and dark and the dementor attack was well-done.
-Radcliffe turns in by far his best performance. I always found him to be stiff but he loosens up and shows plenty of angst without overdoing it (which the book did).
-Luna stole every scene she was in. Perfect casting, but most of the casting in the Harry Potter series has been pretty solid.
-Great battle scene between Dumbledore and Voldemort, although its sequencing was different than the book version. You really got the feeling that those two were in a class of their own power-wise.
-I was a bit worried about Umbridge at first, but Staunton did an outstanding job portraying the heartless bitch. She is by far the most despicable character in the Harry Potter series.
-Most of the bit characters do well. Rickman did great work again, especially considering his lack of screen time. Jason Isaacs turns in another solid performance.
-The relationship between Sirius and Harry is well-portrayed, thanks mainly to the always-reliable Oldman.
-Tonks is totally hot.

NEGATIVES:
-The movie cut out two of the most important scenes in the book: the visit to St. Mungros and the full version of Snape's memory. Both of them carry a powerful impact and have an effect on the next chapter.
-I know that its a ridiculously long book, but the film still felt rushed.
-Wayy too much Hermione in this one and Ron suffers as a result. The filmmakers are clearly very fond of Watson (probably because of her looks) and she gets too many lines at the expense of other characters. Also Watson fails to capture a lot of Hermione's insecurities.
-Wayy too little Ron. The movie could have been done without him, which is really bad.
-Important characters get practically no screentime. Hagrid, Lupin, Tonks, Moody, Ginny, the twins, Fudge, Kreecher, Draco, and Minerva barely have a few lines each.
-I hated that they switched swamp for fireworks in the twin's departure scene.
-Grawp looked terrible. Very fake and far too large.
-Michael Gambon is a fine actor, but he just doesn't do it for me in this film. His Dumbledore is just too rough compared to Richard Harris, who was so faithful to the books that he made it impossible for anyone else to follow.

Overall I thought it was one of the weaker films. I didn't enjoy it as much as the last two. Does anybody else think its wrong that Luna is way prettier than Ginny?

[EternaL-Bender]

Overall I thought it was one of the weaker films. I didn't enjoy it as much as the last two. Does anybody else think its wrong that Luna is way prettier than Ginny?

No, I think she is just perfect and fine. <3 Maybe it's the Mega Luna fan in me but I seriously think she be more perfect for Harry then Ginny. They would have a unique chemistry together imo.

Luna skipping down the hall in that one scene was awesome. :P

[Legato]

POSITIVES:
-Excellent beginning. The atmosphere was creepy and dark and the dementor attack was well-done.
-Radcliffe turns in by far his best performance. I always found him to be stiff but he loosens up and shows plenty of angst without overdoing it (which the book did).
-Luna stole every scene she was in. Perfect casting, but most of the casting in the Harry Potter series has been pretty solid.
-Great battle scene between Dumbledore and Voldemort, although its sequencing was different than the book version. You really got the feeling that those two were in a class of their own power-wise.
-I was a bit worried about Umbridge at first, but Staunton did an outstanding job portraying the heartless bitch. She is by far the most despicable character in the Harry Potter series.
-Most of the bit characters do well. Rickman did great work again, especially considering his lack of screen time. Jason Isaacs turns in another solid performance.
-The relationship between Sirius and Harry is well-portrayed, thanks mainly to the always-reliable Oldman.
-Tonks is totally hot.

NEGATIVES:
-The movie cut out two of the most important scenes in the book: the visit to St. Mungros and the full version of Snape's memory. Both of them carry a powerful impact and have an effect on the next chapter.
-I know that its a ridiculously long book, but the film still felt rushed.
-Wayy too much Hermione in this one and Ron suffers as a result. The filmmakers are clearly very fond of Watson (probably because of her looks) and she gets too many lines at the expense of other characters. Also Watson fails to capture a lot of Hermione's insecurities.
-Wayy too little Ron. The movie could have been done without him, which is really bad.
-Important characters get practically no screentime. Hagrid, Lupin, Tonks, Moody, Ginny, the twins, Fudge, Kreecher, Draco, and Minerva barely have a few lines each.
-I hated that they switched swamp for fireworks in the twin's departure scene.
-Grawp looked terrible. Very fake and far too large.
-Michael Gambon is a fine actor, but he just doesn't do it for me in this film. His Dumbledore is just too rough compared to Richard Harris, who was so faithful to the books that he made it impossible for anyone else to follow.

Overall I thought it was one of the weaker films. I didn't enjoy it as much as the last two. Does anybody else think its wrong that Luna is way prettier than Ginny?


Im wondering when are they going to introduce Draco's mother into the films? I just hope that they wont cut out the scene involving her and Snape since since that was one of the important factors that lead towards Snape killing Dumbledor at the end of Half Blood Prince since it involves Snape's promise he made concerning Draco. Speaking of Draco Im surprised about the lack of screentime that he got in this movie when compared to the othermovies.

Thare were moments when I wonder if Richard Harris were still alive Im sure he would have made that fight between Dumbledor and Voldemort look awesome.

Ron is too much of a comic relief to whare he is made to be pretty usless amongst the Trio, Neville and Luna had their moments of glory in the film while Ron was just plain thare for the laughs.

Dumbledor's exit when the Ministry was about to arrest him was pretty badass. Not as good as The Twins, Fred and George, exit though.

When I got out of the theaters while the movie was suppose to be over two hours it didn't really felt like a two hour movie to me.

[anthony!]

Why all the Dumbledore hating?

He's been great in the previous films, and his escape from Hogwarts was pretty awesome. I like how Gambon plays him as rough around the edges, fallible and sort of dirty. If anything I only wished he had given us some more emotion during the duel and at the standard "Dumbledore explains everything"-scene at the end.

Richard Harris was great, but I felt a little too Santa Claus-ish. That might be how he's played in the books, but I find the film version more interesting than your standard mentor characters.

I haven't read the books, and I'm glad I haven't. This way I've been able to enjoy these last three films as lean fantasy films and not much else. This first two films are mediocre at best- even if you haven't read the books you can just feel that they are doing a scene by scene recreation of the book and not making an actual film. Thats sort of Chris Columbus' M.O.

[Ryan K]

I hate Gambon's interpretation of Dumbledore.

Dumbledore does not scream. Dumbledore does not get agitated. Dumbledore does not throw Harry Potter against tables (in GoF). Dumbledore does not plead with Fudge to listen to reason.

Dumbledore in the book is always portrayed as a very laid back man. He is so powerful there is no need for him to raise his voice. He is always right and doesn't have time for people who are wrong.

Harris' interpretation in the first two film are absolutely perfect in my opinion. I can't read any of the books without hearing his soft voice for the character.

I understand Gambon didn't want to ape Harris, but that doesn't mean she should be playing a completely different character.

[Legato]

I believe the majority of the hate is due to the bias of the fact that Gambon was chosen because the original actor who played Dumbledor passed on. If you look at the majority of the comments Richard Harris name usually comes up.

[Nate Grey]

I hate Gambon's interpretation of Dumbledore.

Dumbledore does not scream. Dumbledore does not get agitated. Dumbledore does not throw Harry Potter against tables (in GoF). Dumbledore does not plead with Fudge to listen to reason.

Dumbledore in the book is always portrayed as a very laid back man. He is so powerful there is no need for him to raise his voice. He is always right and doesn't have time for people who are wrong.

Harris' interpretation in the first two film are absolutely perfect in my opinion. I can't read any of the books without hearing his soft voice for the character.

I understand Gambon didn't want to ape Harris, but that doesn't mean she should be playing a completely different character.

Then it sounds like your problem is really with the director. He's the one who would allow Gambon's scream, for instance, to go to print instead of telling him to play the scene low-key or just entirely different. He's the one allowing ALL the stuff you mentioned. Gambon isn't doing this on his own, he's following directions.

I believe the majority of the hate is due to the bias of the fact that Gambon was chosen because the original actor who played Dumbledor passed on. If you look at the majority of the comments Richard Harris name usually comes up.

I haven't had a problem with Gambon personally, and I loved the first two movies. But Harris passed away. He didn't quit, they didn't recast him just because, he passed away. The intensity I keep hearing with the Gambon hatred makes me wonder if people understand that. The people in charge of the franchise had to do something or just leave Dumbledore out the subsequent films altogether. And while no one is perfect, and comparisons and criticism are inevitable, its that intensity of criticisim that's kinda jarring. Perhaps its a sitaution that makes people angry and with no one to turn it to Gambon is the eary target?

[Ryan K]

Then it sounds like your problem is really with the director. He's the one who would allow Gambon's scream, for instance, to go to print instead of telling him to play the scene low-key or just entirely different. He's the one allowing ALL the stuff you mentioned. Gambon isn't doing this on his own, he's following directions.

He's also had 3 different directors. Some of it is Gambon and his own personal interpretation

And of course I know and everybody knows Dumbledore had to be recast. I just don't believe they found the right person to cast.

[Nate Grey]

He's also had 3 different directors. Some of it is Gambon and his own personal interpretation

Some of it, sure, but not most of it. If three different directors had him act like that, three different directors have no problem with it or else they would have had him do scenes differently.

[Ryan K]

Some of it, sure, but not most of it. If three different directors had him act like that, three different directors have no problem with it or else they would have had him do scenes differently.

I think you're greatly dismissing the actor's responsibilities and craft. Directors don't sit there and tell them how to do everything, especially a professional like Gambon. True, the directors probably asked for different takes on scenes, "little tighter here, little more angry there", etc. And it is true that those director's for whatever reason chose to include takes with Gambon as a louder, angrier Dumbledore. But we don't know how different all the takes were.

One of the two variables in this equation has changed in 3 consecutive films and the result, in my opinion, has remained the same. Gambon is just not suitable for this role in my opinion.

[Nate Grey]

I think you're greatly dismissing the actor's responsibilities and craft.

And I think you're assuming actors have complete autonomy when they don't.

Directors don't sit there and tell them how to do everything, especially a professional like Gambon.

They can tell them the proper inflection, can't they?

True, the directors probably asked for different takes on scenes, "little tighter here, little more angry there", etc. And it is true that those director's for whatever reason chose to include takes with Gambon as a louder, angrier Dumbledore. But we don't know how different all the takes were.

Or if there were different takes at all and the directors were pleased with what they're getting from Gambon.

One of the two variables in this equation has changed in 3 consecutive films and the result, in my opinion, has remained the same. Gambon is just not suitable for this role in my opinion.

Then that's the director and casting director to blame. I'm not seeing a problem, you do, but I was just wondering why you're blaming Gambon primarily if not solely.

[blackdragon6]

i liked it as i expected,no real complaints about it.transformers still kicked its ass though.....

[blackdragon6]

3. There was too much of a turn to the darkside luke feeling in this

.
LMAO i was thinking Anakin Skywalker myself :p ,but i'm glad somebody else noticed it too.i was expecting Anakin to show up and warn harry about the power of the darkside.

[Ryan K]

And I think you're assuming actors have complete autonomy when they don't.

That's not true and I have said I believe the directors do have roles in how the interpretation is crafted, but yes I believe the responsibility is primarily on Gambon and I believe he has failed to deliver.

I don't see what's so difficult to comprehend here.

[twilight]

-Not enough David Thewlis
-Not enough Gary Oldman
-Not enough Alan Rickman
-Not enough Maggie Smith
-No exploring the other rooms of the Department of Mysteries
-No Sirius giving Harry the "communication" mirror
-The stone archway didn't have a veil hanging from it

Apart from that I thought it was pretty solid and I think I like it the best of all the films so far.

[kmeyers]

Pretty much everything was how I imagined it while reading the books. Even with the obvious, and necessary cuts, it still worked for me.

This is easily my favorite Potter movie.

I do miss the development of the Order, and their members, because I love Remus, Tonks, Sirius, Moody, etc...And I always love Snape. There was just so much that HAD to be dealt with in this movie. Hey, I wish the movie could have been 3 hours long.

That said, I totally loved it. Not perfect, but I had a damn good time. The 2 hours went by way too quickly.

[Atom_basher]

why are people spoiling plot points for the 6th movie, not ALL of us have read the books, ok, i KNOW dumbledore dies, but now i know how, THANK YOU

[Davideaux]

I think it was an average movie. As someone who hasn't read the books, I felt like a lot was glossed over and that I'd get better a feeling for the events by reading the book. Every one of the movies has been this way, but this one more so.

It seems like there was no progression with Ron and Hermione's characters. They were there to backup Harry and no more. I had no appreciation for Sirius Black's death, which I think should have made me sad but didn't. I'm not crazy for Hagrid, but I did sort of miss the oaf. He got all of 5 minutes and spouted one cryptic line about coming storms. With every Potter movie, a new character is introduced, while this is cool, I think everyone else suffers by it. Even the newer characters, it seems get short-shrifted. For instance, Bonham-Carter's character was in and out; she made an impact but it left me wanting to see more of her.

I did like the mood of the movie. I thought the elements with the Ministry were fun. Radcliffe played his role very well. I like seeing these major British actors have fun; any chance Bernard Hill will show up?

Not a bad movie, but I preferred the previous one.

[Ring Slinger]

I like seeing these major British actors have fun; any chance Bernard Hill will show up?

Hill would be an excellent choice for the role of Rufus Scrimgeour in the sixth film!

[Tobias March]

Hill would be an excellent choice for the role of Rufus Scrimgeour in the sixth film!

Hasn't J. K. been embarassed on live tv into offering that role to Bob Hoskins? It was someone like that.

[Ring Slinger]

Hoskins as Scrimgeor is just a bad idea. I could see him pulling off Slughorn, though.

[Perry Holley]

Umbridge was astonishingly good. I wanted to murder her, slowly and brutally with my bare hands and maybe some pliers, which was exactly the reaction the evoked in the book. If you locked me in a room with Voldemort and Umbridge, and gave me a gun with two bullets... I would shoot Umbridge twice.



(A friend of mine and I like to joke that Book 7 will end with Voldy killing Umbridge, after which Potter and Voldy shake hands, and they part as friends... ;) )

[GremlinClr]

It was ok I guess. I just have a really hard time separating the movies from the books. I can't help but have a constant stream of "It didn't happen like that in the book" going in my head.

As usual this movie went by as if the script was simply a cliff notes version of the book with as many extra characters parts given to a few to compress things even more.

The movies simply don't live up to the books. Umbridge, Luna and Bellatrix were quite good though.

[Slam_Bradley]

Oh, and Gambon is still a terrible Dumbledore.



I will most definitely agree with this.

[ultramandingo]

-Not enough David Thewlis
-Not enough Gary Oldman
-Not enough Alan Rickman
-Not enough Maggie Smith
-No exploring the other rooms of the Department of Mysteries
-No Sirius giving Harry the "communication" mirror
-The stone archway didn't have a veil hanging from it
.

.........wonder if they filmed some of that stuff for the dvd ? figure they dont need to put everything in the movies since poeple who didnt bother to read the book , wont know any better.

[GRAVEKID]

I sure hope so!

[scottv]

I also thought that Luna was really good. I think she was dead on from the book but other than that I was extremely disappointed in this movie. I was actually looking forward to it thinking that it couldn't get much worse than 3 or 4... or stray from the book any more but they found a way. I am not saying that they should recreate the book on screen word for word but I think that they changed little things that didn't need to be changed. From the very beginning Duddly confronting Harry in front of his friends in stead they could have just shown them walking by and then Harry following them until the others left and then surprise Duddly by the alley. And why wasn't Harry's patronus the full stag. There were just little things that they could have done to make it more like the book. Then there were so many things changed in the Department of Mysteries. Also what happened with Cho and Harry... nothing. Why was Cho the one to have told about the D.A.? But I think the thing that annoyed me the most was the fact that Umbridge was able to break into the room of requirement and catch them all and then use the blood pen on them all. The only reason that nothing was done about it when she was using it on Harry was because she didn't want to give her the pleasure of knowing she was getting to him. I doubt that all of the other kids would feel the same way and they would tell their parents and when it was found out what she was doing to kids then it wouldn't matter how much Fudge wanted her at the school he wouldn't jeopardize his office for her. Wow I think this is the longest reply I have ever put on here. So in summary I did not like this movie.

[JoeK32880]

why are people spoiling plot points for the 6th movie, not ALL of us have read the books, ok, i KNOW dumbledore dies, but now i know how, THANK YOU

That's what I said a couple days ago. I have no idea why people are doing this.

[ImpulseUCF]

It was ok I guess. I just have a really hard time separating the movies from the books. I can't help but have a constant stream of "It didn't happen like that in the book" going in my head.

As usual this movie went by as if the script was simply a cliff notes version of the book with as many extra characters parts given to a few to compress things even more.

The movies simply don't live up to the books. Umbridge, Luna and Bellatrix were quite good though.That's it. You got it. You summed it up perfectly.

It feels more like an acted version of the Cliff's notes than a Harry Potter movie or an adaptation of a book.

[The Real Nemo]

Speaking as someone who hasn't read the books I'd say this is probably my favorite Harry Potter movie so far. If I had to rate the five of them based on how much I enjoyed them it would go something like...

1. Order of the Phoenix

2. Goblet of Fire

3. Sorceror's (Philosopher's) Stone

4. Chamber of Secrets

5. Prisoner of Azkaban

[scottv]

Speaking as someone who hasn't read the books I'd say this is probably my favorite Harry Potter movie so far. If I had to rate the five of them based on how much I enjoyed them it would go something like...

1. Order of the Phoenix

2. Goblet of Fire

3. Sorceror's (Philosopher's) Stone

4. Chamber of Secrets

5. Prisoner of Azkaban

I think that had I not read the books then that would probably be the order for me as well. I think that this movie had a lot of good action and had a good story. I think that the problem is that the movies seem to be targeting people who have not read to the books more and more. For anyone that have enjoyed the movies but have not read the books I would highly suggest it. I think that you will still enjoy the movies but I think you will get so much more out of them and they are quick reads and really well written.

[LtMarvel]

The movies simply don't live up to the books. Isn't that always the case?

[scottv]

Isn't that always the case?

I think that the first two movies followed the books really well.

[BoosterBronze]

-Not enough David Thewlis
-Not enough Gary Oldman
-Not enough Alan Rickman
-Not enough Maggie Smith
-No exploring the other rooms of the Department of Mysteries
-No Sirius giving Harry the "communication" mirror
-The stone archway didn't have a veil hanging from it
.

Yeah, that lack of a veil ruined it for me too.


No wait... I don't know what the hell you're talking about? What veil, and why was it important?

[Karl J Barnes]

I,also, one of those who hasn't read any of the novels,but have enjoyed the movies immensely. They aren't Oscar caliber(but then again what is these days) movie making, but still I enjoyed the movie for itself.

I've enjoyed watching Harry grow as a person and learn lessons in each movie. I'm actually excited to see the sixth and seventh movie in this series.

[kmeyers]

I,also, one of those who hasn't read any of the novels,but have enjoyed the movies immensely. They aren't Oscar caliber(but then again what is these days) movie making, but still I enjoyed the movie for itself.

I've enjoyed watching Harry grow as a person and learn lessons in each movie. I'm actually excited to see the sixth and seventh movie in this series.

I really enjoy the movies for what they are. They can only fit so much into a two hour movie, so I can totally understand the highlight reel movie criticisms.

I think the movies are great, but I love the books. If you enjoy the movies, and haven't read the books, I highly recommend doing so.

[LtMarvel]

You can skip book 2...I felt it was a rerun of the first without all the setting up.

[kmeyers]

You can skip book 2...I felt it was a rerun of the first without all the setting up.

Bullocks, you nutter!

[twilight]

Yeah, that lack of a veil ruined it for me too.


No wait... I don't know what the hell you're talking about? What veil, and why was it important?

I know it's not really important but in the books the archway was always described as a roughly assembled stone structure with a tattered veil hanging from it.

[Adam West]

I really enjoy the movies for what they are. They can only fit so much into a two hour movie, so I can totally understand the highlight reel movie criticisms.

I think the movies are great, but I love the books. If you enjoy the movies, and haven't read the books, I highly recommend doing so.

Can I just said spot on ?

I love the books and Order of the Phoenix is my favorite of the six books, and I have no problem with the way they changed the story in the movies. As I said before, this is actually the first Potter movie that are flowing and seem like an actual story than the previous four. I don't really like Columbus' take on Potter because I think he tried too hard to make it similar to the books. Movies should have space to take their own interpretation while still got the spirit of the adaptated material. Otherwise it'll be a boring movie, which I found the PS and CoS movie was.

On another note, I've been trying to get my pre-teen niece to read the books but she's not interested. She said she already watched the movies so she doesn't need to read the book again :rolleyes:

[LtMarvel]

Bullocks, you nutter!
Which of the first two books had Harry and those meddling kids discover and thwart (what's left of) Voldemart's plans at Hogwarts?

[titanfan]

I haven't read the books yet (ordered them and about to start--I just wanted the 7th to be out first).

This was actually my least favorite movie. It seemed way too fast and there didn't seem to be any character development with any of the main characters other than Harry. (I liked the Luna character, but she reminded me of Paolo and Nikki from LOST, we've never seen her before and all of a sudden she's everywhere)

The best thing about this movie was that there was only a little bit of Hagrid, who I can't stand.

It was still a good movie, it just felt very rushed, like Spiderman 3.

[kmeyers]

Which of the first two books had Harry and those meddling kids discover and thwart (what's left of) Voldemort's plans at Hogwarts?

I was just messing with you. Both of them have that, but they're two totally different plans. If you really want to break it down, all of the books have to do with his plans to come back to power.

[literally exaggerated]

I was just messing with you. Both of them have that, but they're two totally different plans. If you really want to break it down, all of the books have to do with his plans to come back to power.

No significant events in PoA were directly a result of Voldemort's plotting, though the events of that book obviously had a huge impact on the series.

[xnef1025]

No significant events in PoA were directly a result of Voldemort's plotting, though the events of that book obviously had a huge impact on the series.
I never thought of it until I read your post, but it's all the fault of the Weasley's winning that vacation. If Ron's family had never had that picture in the paper with Scabbers, Sirius wouldn't have had the motivation to finally break free of Azkaban. If Sirius doesn't leave Azkaban, Wormtail never stops being Scabbers and never goes looking for Voldemort in the jungle so V can plot the events of GoF.

[The Real Nemo]

Dude she's from Northern Ireland....British territory, but not an accent that's typically thought of as being 'British'.
According to Wikipedia she's from Ireland, her county is on the border of Nothern Ireland but not actually in it.

[kmeyers]

According to Wikipedia she's from Ireland, her county is on the border of Nothern Ireland but not actually in it.

I saw an interview with her, and she actually talks the same way as she does in the movie. She really IS Luna Lovegood!

The casting directors put out a call to fans to come try out for that part. They said they had a few people that they were considering to "act" Luna Lovegood, but they wanted someone who really was Luna. They found her alright.

[reta-winter soldier]

really great movie( well for a hp movie). the best so far, far better than the horrifying goblet of fire and average prisoner of azcaban. The cuts they made for the movie were acceptable, excelent characterizations by all of them except gambon.
Very nice action, to little ron, they should have put the secret keeper spell in it( it's kind of important).
and for all you people who havent read the books but only judge on the movies, read the books NOW

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

you know considering that i don't read the books,this is the first potter film that made it seem like i should probably read the book instead to find out more info.i didn't get that feeling from the other films.this film gave off a x-men 3 vibe (which is NOT a complement).

[ultramandingo]

you know considering that i don't read the books,this is the first potter film that made it seem like i should probably read the book instead to find out more info.

...........imagine if you got all your comic book info from hollywood . would you ever pick up a funny book ? sure mabey ghost world or american splendor , but that lameo super hero crap?

[Conn Seanery]

...........imagine if you got all your comic book info from hollywood . would you ever pick up a funny book ? sure mabey ghost world or american splendor , but that lameo super hero crap?
Now imagine you're a kid, and nowhere near as cynical.

[ultramandingo]

Now imagine you're a kid, and nowhere near as cynical.

.....if i were a kid nowa days and had to pay 2.99 for a 20 page comic id be pretty cynical - or id shoplift

[ultramandingo]

......plus " un cynical "kids need need to get library cards , not be hanging out in multiplexis and comic book shops - crawling with wierdos and freeks

[handOFfate]

Gambon seems to be the glaring exception to the usually excellent casting of characters. Rowling seems to be pleased with most of the casting choices and its easy to see why; most of them are very faithful to their book counterparts.
-Harry and Ron are spot on. Hermione is a little too pretty and confident, but she still has great chemistry with the males.
-I can't imagine anyone other than Alan Rickman playing Snape now.
-As annoying as he can be sometimes, Robbie Coltrane is a very faithful Hagrid. Speaking in that weird accent must be a bitch, too.
-I had my doubts about Oldman as Sirius Black at first because he has played primarily villains. But he proved me wrong and played the role very well. His chemistry with Harry is also good, which is very important.
-Maggie Smith has been very underutilized, which is a shame for an actress of her talents.

Richard Harris was an outstanding Dumbledore and still the one I picture when I read the books. He captured the gentle nature and subtle wit perfectly. Without changing the character's actions Gambon has managed to take the character in a different direction that just doesn't suit the story. His Dumbledore is just... cold. He lacks the emotional connection with Harry that stands out at you in the books.

[handOFfate]

Now that I think about it, Gambon isn't the only one. I really don't care for Brendan Gleason as Mad-Eye Moody. He isn't anywhere near as intimidating as he should be

[Fish Sauce]

Now that I think about it, Gambon isn't the only one. I really don't care for Brendan Gleason as Mad-Eye Moody. He isn't anywhere near as intimidating as he should be

I always pictured Moody as basically Ganon from Zelda, so I don't much care for the look in the movies.

[GremlinClr]

Richard Harris was an outstanding Dumbledore and still the one I picture when I read the books. He captured the gentle nature and subtle wit perfectly. Without changing the character's actions Gambon has managed to take the character in a different direction that just doesn't suit the story. His Dumbledore is just... cold. He lacks the emotional connection with Harry that stands out at you in the books.

I know what you mean. My favorite scene in the entire series was at the end of book 5 in Dumbledores office with him explaining the curse to Harry right after Sirius died. It was such a powerful, emotional scene becuase Dumbledore cared for Harry so much and with Gambon it comes off so cold and distant.

I miss Richard Harris.

[Jmacq1]

Gambon does indeeds seem to be a sticking point for a lot of Potter fans. Admittedly, I haven't read the books, but there's definitely a huge shift in how Dumbledore is portrayed between the two different actors.

I can understand that perhaps Gambon wanted to make sure his Dumbledore was "different" so as not to just seem like "Richard Harris lite" but it's a combination of detachment and an overly forceful forceful manner that seems to make him lose a lot of the magic of the Dumbledore character (no pun intended). As one of my friends (who has read the books) commented, "He's too aggressive."

I did like him in the Voldemort vs. Dumbledore fight, though, and I think he plays the serious aspects of Dumbledore's character well. It's the lighter things that he lacks. The sense of humor...the genuine sense of compassion and warmth. He seems more like a detached and authoritarian figure than a paternal one. He does seem quite commanding and charismatic in his own way...just not quite the way I picture Dumbledore (at least not unless it's needed).

I guess for me the ideal Dumbledore would have Gambon's "oomph" when it came to the serious side of things, but Harris' warmth and wit when it comes to the more quiet moments.

[literally exaggerated]

I guess for me the ideal Dumbledore would have Gambon's "oomph" when it came to the serious side of things, but Harris' warmth and wit when it comes to the more quiet moments.

In other words, Ian McKellan, though I understand why they wanted to steer clear of casting the most famous wizard actor in the world in another bearded wizardly mentor role so soon after LotR.

[Jmacq1]

In other words, Ian McKellan, though I understand why they wanted to steer clear of casting the most famous wizard actor in the world in another bearded wizardly mentor role so soon after LotR.

Heh, I was actually thinking of him when I typed that passage, yes. But yes, IIRC (and I could be wrong) he was offered the part after Harris died but turned it down for the above-stated reason? (And possibly due to conflicts with the X-Men movies as well).

[Schornforce]

I have to agree with the majority when it comes to Gambon Dumbledore. I didn't mind him in Prisoner of Azkaban, but really didn't like the way the character was portrayed in Goblet of Fire or Order of the Phoenix.

He's lost his light, airy whimsy. One of the things that struck me most in the books was that although Dumbledore is a bit dotty and highly whimsical and lighthearted, if the situation calls for it, he exudes tremendous power and ferocious authority. In Gambon's performances, he tries to do the latter all the time, which makes it far, far less impressive in regards to the character.

I also kind of agree with Mad-Eye Moody as his portrayal in the films is just not at all what I pictured him as, but he doesn't bother me. The only movie HP character that does that is Gambon Dumbledore.

I will say I enjoyed Umbridge and Luna a great deal, though. I was pleasantly surprised at this, too as I thought Umbridge didn't look nearly 'toad-like' enough.

Another complaint is I would've liked to see Trelawny become rather hysterical instead of merely being a bit sad. Hogwarts is really the only place she has and I would've felt more emotion for her if she were as broken down as in the book.

I did enjoy the movie, though, and liked some of the added touches and understand the need to remove things. I just hope they aren't painting themselves into a corner and are forced to fill the last movie with an hour of material needed to have it tie the story up and still make sense.

[Ryan K]

Dumbledore didn't tell Harry that Trelawney made the prophecy in the movie did he?

Cause that comes back in play in book 6.

[Schornforce]

Nope. Not a word in regards to Trelawny's prophecy. It would also explain (at least partly) why Dumbledore insisted Trelawny stay at Hogwarts when she's such a horrible teacher.

I don't think it would be too hard to bring up in the next movie, though.

[Jmacq1]

You could see Trelawny's face in the prophecy globe when it "spoke" though.

[Ring Slinger]

I went and saw the movie again yesterday (killing time until midnight tonight!) and still feel Gambon just doesn't get Dumbledore, but it may not be entirely his fault. For me, the scene that really shows that Gambon's got it all wrong is his confrontation with Umbridge over the firing of Trelawney. In the film, Gambon's expression and resultant anger ("Don't you all have studying to do?!") conveys that he is intimidated by Umbridge and what she can do to him and Hogwarts. In the book, however, Dumbledore is in complete control and always has the upper hand, particularly when he announces he already has a replacement for Trelawney so that Umbridge can't appoint one of her ministry cronies: Firenze the centaur. By removing Firenze from the film (and poorly handling the centaur sub-plot overall), Dumbledore's character is weakened because he doesn't have as much control. In the book, the reader smiles and cheers when Dumbledore appoints Firenze because it shows he's still three moves ahead of Umbridge and the ministry; in the films, Gambon's Dumbledore has never portrayed that level of confidence and control.

[Voncaster]

I saw this movie last night and thought it was good but not great. I'm probably going to sound harsh, because I think this movie could have been great but wasn't.

I think my basic problem with the movie is the quick pasing. If Lord of the Rings can be given 3 hours per installment, why can't Harry Potter? I realize there is always a tention between attention spans and wanting to be faithful to the book. But for me there was just too little time for character development in the ensamble cast. An extra 15-30 minutes would have bennefitted the movie greatly in my mind.

I loved the way they handled Sirius Black and Harry's relationship in this movie. Without a doubt every scene with Gary Oldman was great. But Ron and Hermione were given next to nothing to do. Their role seemed to consist of reminding Harry that he won't go it alone. The movie had more quality time with Luna than Harry's two best friends. When Prizoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire seemed to flesh out Ron and Hermione, this movie seemed like reverse progress with respect to them. My favorite chapter in the book, where Harry finds out that his Dad bullied Snape, was nothing more than a 20 second jump cut montage. I was really disappoined with that one.

Again I realize a movie can not be a litteral translation of the text. But I think they can do a better job identifying which scenes deserve time and which ones don't. Find some time to slow the whole ordeal down and let the characters develop. If Lord of the Rings can have 3 hours per installment and be a commercial success so can Harry Potter.

One more positive and negative.
Helena Bohnam Carter as Bellatrix was fantastic.
Portraying the death eaters and the order as Black Smoke Fighting White smoke was weak.

[Ryan K]

Was it ever mentioned in the films that Sirius' nickname was Padfoot?

I seem to recall them skipping over that part in the Prisoner of Azkaban film, yet they reference it in this film.

[Adam West]

Was it ever mentioned in the films that Sirius' nickname was Padfoot?

I seem to recall them skipping over that part in the Prisoner of Azkaban film, yet they reference it in this film.

IIRC, Mad-Eye called Sirius Padfoot when he strode along, in his Animagus form, to accompany Harry to the Hogwarts Express.

[Brian "Vash" Ashby]

yeah they skipped the whole mauraders thing

which was silly

because when first saw the stag o' light i had no idea why harry would think his father was bambi

[slam]

I liked this particular movie for it's streamlining. The book was seriously overstuffed and could probably have used some editing.

Luna Lovegood looked like Mirna from the Amazing Race. Could not get that out of my head. Gah.

[xnef1025]

yeah they skipped the whole mauraders thing

which was silly

because when first saw the stag o' light i had no idea why harry would think his father was bambi
Am I the only one that can't see the stag in movie Harry's patronus? It always just looks like a flying silver bowl to me.