Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (SPOILERS) - Page 3

Mousey Girl · 07-12-2007, 08:14 PM

We took my sister with us and saw it this afternoon. I really liked it, but... I don't know. I always feel a bit let down when my favorite parts of the books are left out of the movies.

CoasterMatt · 07-12-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

zapppop is the only person I know in the whole wide world who doesn't read the books, but loves the movies.

So I suppose you don't know me? See if you ever get invited to watch any movies here

Alex · 07-12-2007, 08:46 PM

I also have seen all four of the previous movies and have never so much as opened one of the books. I think I might actually have made this far without even touching one.

But unlike zapppop, after the first one (which I did enjoy) I have found each pretty unlikable. If I can get through this weekend without Lani bringing it up I think I'll finally be off the hook.

innerSpaceman · 07-12-2007, 08:57 PM

Sorry, CM ... didn't know that about you. Alex, likewise.

I'm surprised at your reaction to the series though, because - oddly enough - we seem to share eerily similar tastes in film.

I'm really only wild about Prisoner of Azkaban, and I kinda like the others the way I like Star Wars movies - - lotsa stuff in 'em that I like, but not very good films as such.

A great quote from a review of the new film in the L.A. Weekly that perfectly sums up why Order of the Phoenix is now my second fave HP movie:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Foundas

The darkest and most menacing of the five Potter films, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is also the only series entry outside the third, Alfonso Cuaron's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, that feels like the product of a vivid cinematic imagination and not just a slavishly faithful transposition of a runaway kid-lit best-seller.

CoasterMatt · 07-12-2007, 09:05 PM

Prisoner of Azkaban was a great film, even for a non HP reader like me.

mousepod · 07-13-2007, 08:27 PM

Count me as another HP non-reader and fan of the movie series. We saw Order at a matinée today, and other than the family that brought the crying infant into the theater, it was an entirely pleasurable experience.

While my favorite movie so far was Azkaban (I think), this was also lots of fun. I think I enjoyed this one because the "villain" for most of the piece was bureaucratic paranoia, which resonated just a bit with us newspaper readers.

Heather and I had a conversation after the movie (which we are wont to do), and it occurred to us that they really didn't mention in this flick what would happen to the world if Voldemort actually wins. Yes, I'm sure they discussed it at great length in previous films, but it seems that as a non-reader it would make sense if they would at least toss in a line or two about the dire consequences that the world would experience should Voldemort vanquish our hero.

innerSpaceman · 07-13-2007, 08:34 PM

Oh, I dunno ... is it ever mentioned ... when the villain is a dark master of magical powers?

I think it's always assumed to be a general reign of terror, with no-fair magic used as a tool of the evil regime to be ushered in under the principal baddie.

I'm not particularly familiar with fantasy literature ... but in thinking of, say, Lord of the Rings, I don't think it's ever spelled out why Sauron getting ahold of the One Ring would be a really bad idea. And it didn't need to be.

* * * * *

The HP books go into a bit of what the prior regime of Voldie was about - - mostly how his minions, the Death Eaters, were really obnoxious to the day-to-day witches and warlocks. But I don't think it was ever specified what was so bad about Voldemort himself.

Perhaps someone who actually remembers the books a few years after reading them could elaborate.

€uroMeinke · 07-13-2007, 08:39 PM

Meanwhile, I was delighted this morning listening to NPR's account of the Chinese fake Harry Potter Sequels - is that government sponsored fanfic?

innerSpaceman · 07-14-2007, 10:36 PM

Even better the second time!

A terrific Potter movie. Great performances from an amazing cast, creme of England's best and brightest actors. Some are great with amazing subtlety (e.g., Alan Rickman as Snape); others terrific with over-the-top overacting (i.e., Helena Bonham Carter's Bellatrix LaStrange).

The pacing is perfect, the entertainment value consistently high, the tone pitched particularly well. The kids were great, newcomers and old hands alike ... and held their own with, have I mentioned, the creme of England's best and brightest actors.

Even the minor complaints I at first agreed with Chernabog on have evaporated upon a second viewing. There's no choppiness. Yeah, they cut a bit of business in getting into the prophesy storage room at the mintistry, but every step of their easier arrival was shown in proper film montage.

They didn't have to say who gave the prophesy, since it was clearly Sybil Trelauny's voice intoning it in the film.

And though there wasn't much in the plot about the main threesome's friendship ... I was surprised how often it informed the film and how very many scenes involved their bond just below the main action.

It certainly doesn't hurt the film's effect on me that each member of the threesome is more attractive than they were in Goblet of Fire. Emma Watson is thankfully beautiful again (and she's legal now, isn't she??).

But Rupert Grint is a revelation. With few words and no starring moments, he comes across as a surprising presence ... and omg, whod'a thunk it - - Ronald Weasley turned out to be a very beautiful boy ... and frankly dead sexy in many of his scenes. Hubba Hubba.

If anyone had told me my new Harry Potter crush would be Ronald Weasley, I'd have said they were daft.

A fantastic Harry Potter Movie! I am soooo pleased!

Prudence · 07-14-2007, 10:56 PM

Rupert is hotter in this movie?! Aw, man, and I have to wait until Friday to see it.

07-12-2007, 08:14 PM	#21
Mousey Girl Just Me Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In The Flagon With The Dragon Posts: 2,437	We took my sister with us and saw it this afternoon. I really liked it, but... I don't know. I always feel a bit let down when my favorite parts of the books are left out of the movies.
	Submit to Quotes

07-12-2007, 08:46 PM	#23
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I also have seen all four of the previous movies and have never so much as opened one of the books. I think I might actually have made this far without even touching one. But unlike zapppop, after the first one (which I did enjoy) I have found each pretty unlikable. If I can get through this weekend without Lani bringing it up I think I'll finally be off the hook.
	Submit to Quotes

07-12-2007, 09:05 PM	#25
CoasterMatt BRAAAAAAAINS! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: One Step Beyond... Posts: 8,802	Prisoner of Azkaban was a great film, even for a non HP reader like me. __________________ Do you like my photography? Visit photosbymatt.tumblr.com to purchase prints!
	Submit to Quotes

07-13-2007, 08:27 PM	#26
mousepod You broke your Ramadar! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,635	Count me as another HP non-reader and fan of the movie series. We saw Order at a matinée today, and other than the family that brought the crying infant into the theater, it was an entirely pleasurable experience. While my favorite movie so far was Azkaban (I think), this was also lots of fun. I think I enjoyed this one because the "villain" for most of the piece was bureaucratic paranoia, which resonated just a bit with us newspaper readers. Heather and I had a conversation after the movie (which we are wont to do), and it occurred to us that they really didn't mention in this flick what would happen to the world if Voldemort actually wins. Yes, I'm sure they discussed it at great length in previous films, but it seems that as a non-reader it would make sense if they would at least toss in a line or two about the dire consequences that the world would experience should Voldemort vanquish our hero. __________________ "Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
	Submit to Quotes

07-13-2007, 08:34 PM	#27
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Oh, I dunno ... is it ever mentioned ... when the villain is a dark master of magical powers? I think it's always assumed to be a general reign of terror, with no-fair magic used as a tool of the evil regime to be ushered in under the principal baddie. I'm not particularly familiar with fantasy literature ... but in thinking of, say, Lord of the Rings, I don't think it's ever spelled out why Sauron getting ahold of the One Ring would be a really bad idea. And it didn't need to be. * * * * * The HP books go into a bit of what the prior regime of Voldie was about - - mostly how his minions, the Death Eaters, were really obnoxious to the day-to-day witches and warlocks. But I don't think it was ever specified what was so bad about Voldemort himself. Perhaps someone who actually remembers the books a few years after reading them could elaborate.
	Submit to Quotes

07-13-2007, 08:39 PM	#28
€uroMeinke L'Hédoniste Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: A.S.C.O.T. Posts: 8,671	Meanwhile, I was delighted this morning listening to NPR's account of the Chinese fake Harry Potter Sequels - is that government sponsored fanfic? __________________ I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance. Friedrich Nietzsche
	Submit to Quotes

07-14-2007, 10:36 PM	#29
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Even better the second time! A terrific Potter movie. Great performances from an amazing cast, creme of England's best and brightest actors. Some are great with amazing subtlety (e.g., Alan Rickman as Snape); others terrific with over-the-top overacting (i.e., Helena Bonham Carter's Bellatrix LaStrange). The pacing is perfect, the entertainment value consistently high, the tone pitched particularly well. The kids were great, newcomers and old hands alike ... and held their own with, have I mentioned, the creme of England's best and brightest actors. Even the minor complaints I at first agreed with Chernabog on have evaporated upon a second viewing. There's no choppiness. Yeah, they cut a bit of business in getting into the prophesy storage room at the mintistry, but every step of their easier arrival was shown in proper film montage. They didn't have to say who gave the prophesy, since it was clearly Sybil Trelauny's voice intoning it in the film. And though there wasn't much in the plot about the main threesome's friendship ... I was surprised how often it informed the film and how very many scenes involved their bond just below the main action. It certainly doesn't hurt the film's effect on me that each member of the threesome is more attractive than they were in Goblet of Fire. Emma Watson is thankfully beautiful again (and she's legal now, isn't she??). But Rupert Grint is a revelation. With few words and no starring moments, he comes across as a surprising presence ... and omg, whod'a thunk it - - Ronald Weasley turned out to be a very beautiful boy ... and frankly dead sexy in many of his scenes. Hubba Hubba. If anyone had told me my new Harry Potter crush would be Ronald Weasley, I'd have said they were daft. A fantastic Harry Potter Movie! I am soooo pleased!
	Submit to Quotes

07-14-2007, 10:56 PM	#30
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	Rupert is hotter in this movie?! Aw, man, and I have to wait until Friday to see it. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes