In the book, that arch is literally "the veil" as in "beyond the veil." One co-worker remarked to me, after reading the bok, that he thought it rather silly that Sirius was killed by a metaphor. (In the book , Bellatrix did not use the Avada Kedavra spell. She just zapped him through the arch, hence pushing him beyond the veil. Gosh, it does sound kind of silly as I type it here.)

Anyhow, I recall the book going to some length to indicate that once you are beyond the veil, there is no coming back. Whether the upcoming last volume will concoct an exemption will soon be known.

Right my understanding was once you went beyond the veil you were gone. But since Harry and Luna could hear voices maybe you can communicate with them?

Can I get away with a "ditto" :?:

I actually really liked the books, though Order was certainly the most difficult to read. I was so frustrated, but I do think that was a part of the intent... to further illustrate the mood of Harry.

Like others, I felt like the book hit a lot of the big points, but missed some of the juicier bits that I loved from the book. I remember that after reading Order, I thought for sure they were going to have to do the movie in two parts. I know, expensive, but there is just so much that I know had I been charged with adapting it into a screenplay, I wouldn't know what to cut and what to keep. I really wished they could have shown more about Bellatrix. What I think they did well with was showing fantastic interpretations of scenes that I almost couldn't imagine, mostly, the climactic battle in the Department of Mystery. It was nice to see it.

It is silly. Order of the Phoenix was a terrible, frustrating, mindless, bloated, unnecessary book. I was looking on Wikipedia at an article that details the differences between the book and the movie, and it brought back memories of how maddeningly stupid OotP the book was. I'm glad they chopped most of it to make it a semi-watchable movie, but they were unfortunately stuck with the general plot.

That still doesn't excuse the sloppy filmmaking 101 stuff that they failed to do, like remember how to coherently connect scenes together (or explain the POINT of the prophecy!!! It would be like Indiana Jones racing against the Nazis for the Ark of the Covenant without ever explaining what it was or why they wanted it.) Honestly, I think this is the least enjoyable or well made of all the HP films, and certainly the worst of the books.

Looks like I might be seeing it tonight after all. So I'll be able to share my opinion, that everybody probably expects is pre-formed.

So it'll be the opinion of someone who has never read any of the books, can't remember the titles of the movies without prompting. Liked the first one and increasingly disliked each successive one. I probably couldn't name a single event from the second and third movies.

So I'm firmly in the demographic that I'm sure everybody is just dying to know what I think.

Having seen it twice now, I fail to see where scenes were not coherently connected. Your example of getting quickly to the good stuff in the Department of Mystery turns out to have had a perfectly acceptable montage of each point along the way.

Do you have any other examples?

Well, maybe - - Lord of the Rings style - they decided to save something from this story to spice up the complete boredom of the next. (Really, if you hated Order of the Phoenix, I'd like to know what you thought of Half Blood Prince.)


Wow, your entitled-to opinion really stuns me. I've talked with dozens of people about this movie, and it's at or near the top ranks with the great majority. Your opinion is completely valid ... but, to paraphrase you ... were we even watching the same movie????




All that said, did you at least think Ron Weasely was surprisingly hot??

Another one that springs to mind is the denouement of Umbridge sequence, from her office, to the forest, to back again. It was just like flip, flip, flip, they're here! They're there! It's nighttime! They're here! It's daytime! I remember other parts I pointed out stuff like that when I was watching the movie, but I'd have to see the movie again to point them out and I don't want to do that.

Haha I actually enjoyed Half-Blood Prince (as the first half of a two-parter). It could have used some editing as well, but at least it made sense and introduced elements we hadn't seen before (i.e. the horcruxes) and some fun action sequences, as well as more Snape (which is always good).

I forgot to mention Alan Rickman as Snape, who was really good in OotP! His lines were fantastic. (Umbridge: "What did he mean by that?" Snape: "No idea.")

See what is odd is that most of my Disney-netizen friends mostly enjoyed it. All of the people I went with to see the movie thought it was sort of meh. The audience I saw it with opening night was sort of meh. My brother and my parents saw it and they thought it was sort of meh. Roger Ebert was spot-on in his review (and he gave it two and a half out of four stars... I'd probably give it 2 or 2 1/2), so he thought it was sort of meh (though for somewhat different reasons than I). Hell, the people in my Lord of the Rings online guild thought it was sort of meh, and they usually like this stuff. On here and on Micechat, people seem to think it was fabulous! So I'm just as baffled as you are.

Yeah hopefully in a year or two we'll see if the curtains match the drapes. :evil:

Just gotta say my opening night crowd of Harry Potter fanatics at the Chinese was eccstatic about it, as was my opening weekend regular audience at The Bridge.

Did you like Prisoner of Azkaban? I watched it last night, and I swear that movie is a revelation! In my opinion, one of the best fantasy films of all time. Every single shot is designed like a rich illustration, comparable to Disney's Pinocchio. The compostions, the camera movements, the art direction, the effects ... everything of impeccible beauty.

I can't gush about that film enough. The story construction was tight. The trio of kids were at their cutest. The tone was charming and delightful. And much like I prefer the Monster-of-the-Week stories on The X Files, I think PoA is also the best Potter film for being the only one without Voldemort as the villain.

And now:

My Hogwarts Homo Schoolboy Crushes


:blush: My first Hogwarts Homo Crush lasted for two movies, and I daresay would still be continuing if he hadn’t graduated. But the object of my lustful affections for both The Sorcerer’s Stone and The Chamber of Secrets was none other than Gryffindor Quidditch Captain, Oliver Wood.

Oi, that face! That accent! Not to mention the implied delights of Mr. Wood’s, um, broomstick - by virtue of his last name. And lest you think that’s just silly because it’s just a fanciful Rowling name ... let me remind you that the actor’s name was, astoundingly, Jack BIGGERSTAFF.
Oh my!


:) For Prisoner of Azkaban, I formed a much more healthy and wholesome crush on Harry Potter himself. (Well, as healthy and wholesome as a crush on a 14-year old boy can be). Daniel Radcliffe blossomed into quite the cutie ... and it felt proper for once to have a crush on the hero of the series. (Hey, he’d be legal in England in just two years!)


:cool: In Goblet of Fire, the undeniable hotties were George and Fred, the Weasley twins. I didn’t have as strong a thing for these playful boys as I’d had for Potter and Wood, but something about the devilishness and hot-stuff good looks proved irresistible to many more than me alone.


:eek: Now that Order of the Phoenix has arrived, I’m aghast that my crush on Weasleys continues ... but this time it’s (gulp) Ron Weasley that I find unbelievably hot ... and I’m very bothered by that. Ron Weasley is supposed to be a gawky, dork of a sidekick. But I’m afraid he’s gone and eclipsed Harry Potter in the hotness department, and is now a fitting object of affection for the lovely Miss Emma Watson as Hermoine Granger ... if she can pry my hands off him!

What a surprising and disturbing revelation the teenage Ronald Weasley has become. That winning smile, those sparkling eyes, that wry delivery of subtle charm. Oh boy, I’ve got it bad. But why? Why!??! Ronald Weasley??!!

Oh no! The shame, the shame! I’m doomed.

Well, it didn't suck like the last three sucked. Storywise it was much more coherent than anything since the first one. That isn't to say it isn't obvious where great big swaths of exposition were cut out, just that unlike other movies those swaths aren't so important to understanding what is going on.

Only experiencing this stuff through the movies and then not being very entertained by things one signficiant problem I had was that this movie ties together strands from the previous movies and I just don't remember the details of the previous movies (partly disinterest, partly time, partly the last few movies didn't necessarily make much sense without reading the books). I was a little fuzzy, for example, on who exactly Sirius is and why Potter likes him so much. Wasn't vital, just missing.

This one goes a long way towards fixing my primary complaint about the series up to this point. Namely, I've never understood why people like the Potter character, he was simply a passive participant in the story. He never did anything, things just happened to him. He could have been an old suitcase for all it mattered up to now. But finally that is rectified and he is standing up and taking some control, or at least interest, in his fate.

Unlike the rest of you I found Imelda Staunton's performance annoying.

One question, when they flew those bird/dinosaur/horse things (already forget what they're called) from Hogwarts to London does that mean everybody but Harry and the Village of the Damned girl were flying on things they couldn't see?

Like a teenager growing into his large feet, Rupert Grint has finally grown into his extremely wide mouth. And he didn't do that whiny whimper thing that made me want to see him in pain through the previous movies. But watching him I couldn't help but think this is what he'll look like in 15-20 years: