Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix


fileunderFound in Harry Potter
Sort by: Oldest  •  Newest  •  User
admin
view 
avatar

ruthers, that's why I'm saying that whole scene was very weird. I KNOW that all that crazy stuff is required to get into the ministry, and then all of a sudden it's like "we're in the sky" POP "we're in the department of mysteries!". I bet you they actually filmed the scenes of them breaking in, but they left them on the cutting room floor. They didn't even have to go into such detail but just show SOMETHING. Having no transition at all just made things very jarring and poorly constructed.

I do hope there's a director's cut of the movie as I imagine a lot of things were cut to get the overall time down to a "sellable" range (HP movies tend to be pretty long).

And the third movie is so awesome with the whole time travel bit, I loved that. I've heard that each book gets better, so the 5th movie obviously had the most potential to be the best, but the poor film-making ruined its chances unfortunately. It's still a good movie though, and I'm sure I'll be watching it again.

moderator
view 
avatar
I liked the fourth the best. The third one had way to much stuff with the werewolf chasing after Harry in it. The climax(es) in the books were when Harry learns Scabbers is Wormtail and then when he fights the dementors. I know that doesn't necessarily make for a good movie, but I came to the theater to see Harry Potter III, not Return of the Werewolf III. I still need to see five though.
moderator
view 
avatar

I downloaded it off of bitTorrent, and watched it yesterday, and I thought that it was pretty good. The beginning was way to rushed, and there were some things I would have liked to see included that were left out. About half way through the movie it really picked uo, and the end was awesome, but I liked the duel between Dumbledore and Voldemore more in the book, with the way Dumbledore bewitched the Fountain of Magical Brethren. They left out Ron becomeing a prefect, all the Quidditich stuff, which really helped develope Ginny, a lot of stuff about Grimmauld place (the locket, Regulus, some KReacher stuff, anyone?), and more people escaped Azkaban than just Bellatrix who vaguely reminded me of Calypso from Pirates 3.

 

 

member
view 
avatar

I agree with you dialupinternetuser. I was listening to Mugglecast (a Harry Potter podcast), and they were talking about how they left out WAY too much Kreacher stuff because he becomes quite important in HP6 and 7! And there hasn't really been any quidditch in the movies for a while, which is rather disappointing (maybe the special effects are too expensive?). However, the locket & Regulus Black comes into the story in Half Blood Prince, although Sirius does mention his brother Regulus in book 5.

The main thing that I've been disappointed with the movies is how they NEVER introduced Bill or Charlie Weasley! What are they going to do in movie 6 when Bill and Fleur are engaged? Argh.

admin
view 
avatar
Exactly. Even though I've never read the book I could just tell that A LOT of stuff was cut from the movie. In the other movies stuff was cut but the story and everything was still coherent and quite enjoyable. But with Order of the Phoenix I think they went too far and took out too much.
member
view 
avatar
The original movie was over three hours from what I hear. But they cut it to make aorund 2 hours and thirty minutes I think. They did leave out some important stuff I agree. What are they going to do in Movie 7 when they are looking for the locket? Kreacher was going to be cut if it wasn't for J.K. Rowling. Still though this was my favorite movie of the five, and my favorite movie of the summer, sorry Transformers! But the movies are more enjoyable I think if you read the books. I even played the game on Wii!
member
view 
avatar

I've seen all the HP movies and I am actually not keen on them. I love the books and the whole fantasy stuff there but the movies are not my cup of tea. Maybe because everybody imagines the world of Harry and Dumbledor in a different way and this is why I was disappointed after I watched the movie. Does that make sense? 

admin
view 
avatar

I've only watched the first movie, yet I've read all the books, I think that says something. I'm not against the movies, per se, I'm just not that excited by them. So yes, that makes sense.

member
view 
avatar

Unfortunately as with most book to movie adaptations the producers and writers either have to completely rewrite the story, or cut out unimportant scenes due to serious time constraints. 600-800 page books will always include more detail, and more character I think, than any movie ever will. It has improved now that the movie industry is starting to accept 3+ hour movies a little more; mind you most people won't sit still for 2.

Cue in the Harry Potter series. I love the books, as strange as that seems to most older folks and young adults, it includes a lot more in-depth material than most anything else these days. I think the greatest thing JK Rowling did with the series is center around the idea of death later on. Most parents sometimes shelter their kids too much about certain ideals, and I think subtle ideas such as the ones in the Harry Potter series provide a better understanding for the younger generations.

The movies are getting better, but I personally don't like them. The main character of the entire series who plays Harry Potter, Daniel Radcliffe, I must say is a terrible actor. Does anyone else notice? It seems like he is trying much too hard to act in so many places, that he just ends up over-acting the scenes and ruins them. The supporting actors are certainly not the greatest around but their acting is more solid than Daniel's. I find it hard to stay focused on a center character in a movie, that I really can tell is faking every emotion. I mean provided as the series goes along he does get better and better but...

The worst is when he has his little Voldemort induced mind attacks or when he gets angry. The kid just sucks in his breath harder and harder and opens his eyes wide...I mean, a squirrel could do that. Am I the only one around that thinks they should have cast a better Potter?

 

 

This post was edited by BrileyKenney on 11/27/2008 6:45 PM
member
view 
avatar

I don't think Daniel is that bad. Ok, he is probably not the best actor ever and he will never recieve an Oscar for his role as HP but he is pretty good on the stage. I heard a lot of people that were impressed by his performance in London (currently in NYC) and he seems to be a better actor on stage than in movies. Maybe he discovered his talent just after he signed the contract for 7 HP movies.

Some actors are similar, e.g. Josh Hartnet. He is a brilliant actor in movies (love him in Pearl Harbour and Black Hawke Down) but his stage performances are poor. I've seen him in Rain Man and was a bit disappointed though. I think he should consider to go back to LA and work with American movie producers instead of English stage directors.

Post Reply:

File Under: