To me, the Harry Potter films are all solid, perfectly reasonable adaptations of J.K. Rowling's books. The cool special effects, stunning sets, and eccentric English character actors work together beautifully to bring the world of the books to life. Certainly, the movies are not as deep or rich as the books - but that's only to be expected, since they're shorter than the books by necessity.
Alas, a lot of Harry Potter fans seem to attack the movies because they "cut out" parts of the books. I can understand their frustration, but really, it would be impossible to adapt the books in their entirety without making the movies about 4 hours long apiece. So, cut-down versions are simply inevitable.
And, in the case of "Order of the Phoenix," I think the filmmakers were right to trim some fat off the book. Rowling's novel is pretty good, but I remember finding it frustrating in parts. The plot concerns a lot of petty bureaucrats in the Ministry of Magic denying that Lord Voldemort has returned, and their obstinacy gets a little tiresome after a while. Even the "edited" film version drags a bit in the middle, as ministry officials Cornelius Fudge and Dolores Umbridge do their best to tie Harry Potter up in lots of red tape. I suppose it's a realistic plot, but it's also borderline tedious.
Thankfully, both the book and the movie end with satisfying action. The climatic confrontation between the good and evil wizards was fun to read, but arguably the action works even better on screen. Pleasingly enough, the old professor, Dumbledore, gets to joint he fight and show off some funky wizard moves.
Speaking of Dumbledore, I should like to defend the actor who plays him in this film, Michael Gambon. I enjoy his performance a lot; his Dumbledore is a little more eccentric and aloof than Richard Harris's, and I think that take on the character works well. Some Potter fans tend to slam Gambon, suggesting that he's some kind of unworthy successor to Harris. But honestly, I think Gambon's awesome - and he did star in "The Singing Detective," which is often praised as the greatest TV miniseries of all time. So he's hardly a total Piltdown man, is he?
Unfortunately, I've ended up writing a defensive review of this movie, since people have slammed it for the plot trims and Gambon's performance. But I guess I just wanted to address some of the common criticisms. I'll admit that this certainly isn't the best Potter movie - it's too draggy in parts, and the direction/design are just OK - but it is definitely another worthy adaptation that doesn't deserve a lot of stick for not being completest.
Alas, a lot of Harry Potter fans seem to attack the movies because they "cut out" parts of the books. I can understand their frustration, but really, it would be impossible to adapt the books in their entirety without making the movies about 4 hours long apiece. So, cut-down versions are simply inevitable.
And, in the case of "Order of the Phoenix," I think the filmmakers were right to trim some fat off the book. Rowling's novel is pretty good, but I remember finding it frustrating in parts. The plot concerns a lot of petty bureaucrats in the Ministry of Magic denying that Lord Voldemort has returned, and their obstinacy gets a little tiresome after a while. Even the "edited" film version drags a bit in the middle, as ministry officials Cornelius Fudge and Dolores Umbridge do their best to tie Harry Potter up in lots of red tape. I suppose it's a realistic plot, but it's also borderline tedious.
Thankfully, both the book and the movie end with satisfying action. The climatic confrontation between the good and evil wizards was fun to read, but arguably the action works even better on screen. Pleasingly enough, the old professor, Dumbledore, gets to joint he fight and show off some funky wizard moves.
Speaking of Dumbledore, I should like to defend the actor who plays him in this film, Michael Gambon. I enjoy his performance a lot; his Dumbledore is a little more eccentric and aloof than Richard Harris's, and I think that take on the character works well. Some Potter fans tend to slam Gambon, suggesting that he's some kind of unworthy successor to Harris. But honestly, I think Gambon's awesome - and he did star in "The Singing Detective," which is often praised as the greatest TV miniseries of all time. So he's hardly a total Piltdown man, is he?
Unfortunately, I've ended up writing a defensive review of this movie, since people have slammed it for the plot trims and Gambon's performance. But I guess I just wanted to address some of the common criticisms. I'll admit that this certainly isn't the best Potter movie - it's too draggy in parts, and the direction/design are just OK - but it is definitely another worthy adaptation that doesn't deserve a lot of stick for not being completest.