Good acting and special effects, poor directing, writing, and editing

Rating: 4/10 (14 July 2007)

JK Rowling has created a world so rich with texture and vivid descriptions that we can live everything from the smell of the kitchen stench at the Leaky Cauldron, to the feel of the sheets at Hogwarts. Unfortunately, she brings one other element into her book that bastardizes the entire work; her reliance on worn out literary devices. The order of the Phoenix is rife with them. First, we see friends that turn on Harry for terribly poor reasons just for the sake of creating tension. Last time in was Ron, this time it is Seamus, and various other people throughout the series who sort of just go along with whatever the stronger willed characters tell them to do. Even Dumbledore has been seen to accuse Harry of wrongdoing when there was little or no proof and his past record is of absolutely candidness. (Goblet of Fire)
The next device is her reliance on contrived and impossible situations to further the story. Of course, suspension of disbelief is necessary for a movie about wizards, but you shouldn't have to abandon common sense. The Tri-Wizard tournament in the last film, was a game that restricts its participants to the whims and fancy of a magic goblet whose motivations are never explained and thrusts them into a tournament whose peculiar games are inexplicably drawn over the course of a school year when the actual competition itself lasts only a couple of hours. In Phoenix, it is Deloris Umbridge who is able to take over Hogwarts putting the entire school in the stranglehold of her moral code and at no time suffers any backlash from parents, other professors, or the rest of the wizard community. The only support offered for this ludicrous situation is that she has the minister of magic in her pocket. Never mind that ministers are elected positions and have to answer to more than just one woman. This is a woman whom everyone is against but no one has the nerve to stand up to. Even Dumbldore simply chooses to vanish like a coward when faced with the prospect of being excused from his position. Has Dumbledore ever shown such cowardice before in his life? I doubt it.
The biggest device however, and the most often abused by Rowling, is her reliance on the Cassandra complex: a person who knows the truth of the past or the future but is disbelieved by everyone including friends and family. This is present in every film in some degree and grows with intensity as the series goes along. In the Order of the Phoenix, Harry spends nearly the entire film being accused by everyone at Hogwarts of making up stories about the Dark Lord's return. Umbridge even goes so far as to scar Harry for "Making up Lies." Again, where are the parents and other teachers when this is going on? In the last film, Mad-Eye Moody was scolded for using transfiguration as a punishment on a student, and here we have a professor using mutilation with impunity? But back to Cassandra. While Harry does manage to recruit a small band of friends to that he trains in defensive magic, the majority of people think he is making things up. That is, until the very end of the film when the Minister witnesses Voldemort for himself and the headline in the Daily Prophet reads "Harry Potter Vindicated." This headline indicates that it was not just those at Hogwarts but probably the majority of the wizard world that thought he was a Liar. Why? He has no history of lying. Indeed, he has the opposite. He has been vindicated time and time again in each film and yet people continue to think he is making things up. This may make drama in an otherwise undramatic year at Hogwarts, but it defies common sense.
Now unfortunately, the film itself only amplifies these issues. Even more perplexing is that Harry himself is not immune from this propensity to disbelieve other wizards. Although Harry is by now, quite familiar with the loneliness and frustration of being disbelieved, when his budding girlfriend Cho is indicated to have turned him in to Umbridge, instead of asking her what happened, or giving her the benefit of the doubt, he gives her the cold shoulder and does not speak to her again for the rest of the film. Even when it was revealed that Umbridge used a spell on Cho to get her to tell of the location of their secret club, Harry still does not go to her to apologize. Obviously his own experiences have thought him nothing of empathy or understanding, not even equipping him with the ability to admit when he is wrong, something others have done including Ron and Seamus who ultimately realized they were being poor friends for disbelieving Harry. Apart from this, the movie fails in ways the others have not. Namely, it is the shortest Potter film to date and I got the distinct feeling that what was cut out, was more crucial than the editors thought. There were so many loose ends that I left the theater thinking I had missed entire sections. Who ordered the Dementor attack on Harry? How was Voldedmort able to break into Aszkerban? What were the circumstances surrounding the death of Neville's parents? Why has the minister suddenly become a complete nincompoop? Why has Draco (one of the most interesting characters in the first two films) been completely written out of the script? What happened to Quiddich, was it canceled along with everything else at Hogwarts? Why isn't Harry, or anyone else for that matter, doing anything to try to clear Sirius' name? What happened to the romantic tension that was brewing between Hermione and Ron in the last film?
Taken by itself, this would have been a satisfactory movie. But it isn't by itself. It has a book to try and match and four previous films to honor.