Best of the series, yet still only an average film

Rating: 3/10 (13 July 2008)

The Harry Potter series remains a story in search of a director. This installment is the best yet, incorporating key story elements to move the plot along and new scenes & touches to cram in some character development, but it all leads to an ultimately disappointing climax and denouement.
The supporting cast is, as always, phenomenal. It is *criminal* that this much brilliant talent is assembled for only the briefest screen appearances. You can tell their talent by how much they wrench out of every second of screen time.
Radcliffe has matured nicely as an actor, but Yates' emphasis on action, action, action prevents Radcliffe from holding center stage as much as one suspects he could.
Rupert Grint has finally moved out of clumping "block of wood" mode but has so few lines and action that he still comes across as a cipher. Why would anyone find Ron Weasley interesting??? What does he actually *do*? I daren't ask what he *thinks,* since he so rarely evinces evidence of that, whether in the books or on screen.
Emma Watson seemed on hysterical overdrive for much of the picture, to the point where I couldn't understand her lines at times. Her outstanding prowess as a witch in the books is completely lost in this film, where she appears as just another student in Harry's class.
"Order of the Phoenix" is essentially an action film, and as such, it fulfills that role to a T. Shallow characters, very short scenes, fast edits, heavy use of montage, hints at relationships rather than exploration of them, focus on high-drama pursuit of an Ultimate Goal, and then - - the inevitable falling flat.
One of the great things about the Rowling books is that they make *consequences* very clear. Children are still children, no matter how brave or clever, and need caring adults to help them deal with emotional and physical bruising. The scene in the Dept of Mysteries was, in the book, a completely gripping experience as, one by one, the characters took serious blows.
In the movie, however, following the convention of almost every action film I've seen since the original Die Hard, there are virtually no consequences of what is supposed to be an epic magical, emotional, and physical battle. No torn clothes, no bruises, and none of the serious injuries that made the scene so frightening in the book. It's the presence of the consequences of violence (think Sarah Connor in either Terminator movie) that makes a good action film great. We have to see that these characters are human -- which means that they are vulnerable.
And, as in all the other pictures in this franchise, there is no exploration of the emotional toll such battles take. Sirius' death scene was so sanitized that it made no impression on me whatsoever, except to wonder if Yates' scene of Harry's reaction and the ensuing 15 seconds of slow-mo footage constituted plagiarism of Lord of the Rings as Frodo (far more effectively) reacts to Gandalf's death.
I have my usual laundry list of minor peeves, such as poor Evanna Lynch's thin acting abilities compared to the giants around her, and especially the Christmas scenes where everyone is saying, "Merry Christmas" -- only Mrs Weasley says the more Brit-appropriate "Happy Christmas." (I do detest how these films dilute the cultural specificity of the books.)
The ending, like most standard action films, leaves us with a forgettable closing line that is as emotionally satisfying as a twig in a cup.
Overall, I was willing to overlook the hacking and slashing of Rowling's epic (I'm used to it by now) for about 3/5 of the picture. Imelda Staunton made an outstanding, ever-present, puffy pink noose that kept tightening around the throats of our heroes. I even appreciated Yates' throwing in some lighter moments to keep the film (like the book) from getting claustrophobic.
But with the total emasculation of the Weasley twins' spectacular departure (I actually cheered when I read the book; in the movie I just kept saying, "Hunh?" and waiting for some sort of statement to be made), the picture fell into all the traditional ruts of any standard Hollywood-type action film. Special effects over substance. Superhero abilities given to our previously human characters. Predictable climax (only, in this case, add "confusing" because it was changed so much from the book -- for the worse), and lame & unsatisfying denouement.
I wish they would give these films to someone like Terry Gilliam or Baz Luhrman, who are capable of creating multi-textured stories using every tool in the filmmaker's toolbox: script, actors, sound, costuming, lights, sets, score -- all used to tell the story. Instead we're stuck with directors who think only in two dimensions and deliver "standard" adaptations of Rowlings spectacular, visionary tales. Such a tragic waste.