Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (12A)

Film

Family films

migrate.29942.jpg

Time Out rating:

<strong>Rating: </strong>3/5

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong>4/5
Rate this  

Time Out says

Mon Jul 9 2007

A midsummer release seems inappropriate for ‘Harry 5’, with its intriguing aura of new-term blues, as a hormonally distracted Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), having escaped expulsion by the intervention of dear head Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), trudges back for a fifth year at Hogwarts carrying a burdensome weight on his more muscularly defined shoulders. But just because he’s paranoid, it doesn’t mean that they’re not out to get ’im. Irritable but resolute Harry knows by physical injury that evil Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) is gathering a new army, but his every step to recruit a rival one is dogged by the morons at the Ministry and their appointee as new headmistress, Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), a smiling villain in pink-knit twinset who nails up more interdicts than a riled Robespierre.

There’s a new director on board, and if Chris Columbus was enjoyable, Alfonso Cuarón dark, and Mike Newell aware that for all school sagas, familiarity breeds content, new helmsman David Yates is serious, almost grave. He swathes swiftly through JK Rowling’s doorstopper text with martial efficacy, clocking a crisp 138 minutes, the shortest of the series. He certainly keeps the scenes and action moving, but his no-nonsense approach leaves no time for games – please sir, can’t we play just a little Quidditch? – and the excision of scenes of lolling chat in study rooms will disappoint fans of Bunter and Tom Brown worldwide.

On the plus side, Harry gets his first, sweet screen kiss – to the warrior the spoils – from one of the increased quota of ethnic faces, cherubic new girl Cho (Katie Leung). Also, Evanna Lynch brings new, if blenched, blood with her endearing loony, Luna Lovegood; the production design is again an eclectic wonder, from the adumbrated Georgian mustiness of the secret Order of the Phoenix house to the Bazalgette-burnished tiles of the Victorian Ministry ‘Headquarters’ where stacked rows of jurors deliberate like Doges for Harry’s inquisition; and there are some spectacular CGI effects. Performances are more mature, the soundtrack (by Nicholas Hooper) less grandiose, and Yates executes some thrilling set-pieces – but, please, Mr Yates, don’t let these winds of modernity sweep too many beloved cobwebs away! Let’s hope he casts some more old-fashioned spells in part six, ‘The Half-Blood Prince’.

Share your thoughts
  1. * mandatory fields

Comments & ratings

Rated as: 4/5 (130 ratings)
  • harry potter was really really really really really really really really good i watched it last week at the cinema's.

    Taylor Tue Aug 21 2007
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • harry potter was really really really really good i watched it lastweek and got 2 free ticket's and today me and my mum and going to watch the bratz movie.

    taylor Tue Aug 21 2007
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • Again fantastic, loved the others and loved this one, even though it took us 6 attempts to actually see the film!!

    Sue Fri Aug 17 2007
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • i really have to admit,this film was absouluty disgraceful magic is not even true.so what is the whole point of making harry potter films?magic is for little kids anyway.only little kids belive in magic.only 1,2,and 3 year olds should watch it.shame on the director.

    apollo Thu Aug 16 2007
    Report
  • i really have to admit,it is absoutely disgraceful.magic is not true.what is the whole point of making harry potter films?only little kids belive in magic.so all you peole in smackdown,raw,ecw and tna and all you randon people,never ever whatch this film.it is shit.

    appolo Thu Aug 16 2007
    Report
  • FANTASTIC - GO SEE IT! BUT REMEMBER.....the book is over 700pgs long and the film is only 2hrs. So it is NEVER going to be as good as the book, but it is done brilliantly and is a nice refresher if you cant remember what happened in the book or if you've never read the books before. My sister hasn't read any of the books and only seen some of the films and managed to follow it (and enjoy it). The best thing about the film has to be the person who cast the actress playing "LOONEY" Luna Lovegood - she is FANTASTIC...you couldn't have got closer to JK Rowlings character even if she'd played the character herself. Not too long for the younger kids, and there aren't too many bits without action scenes or magical creatures etc. If you're taking really small kids just be careful they're not too easily crept-out as Ralph Fiennes plays a fantastic baddie, and Helena Bonham carter is a bit too convincing as a nutter..

    Deb Thu Aug 16 2007
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • found the film ok, it was probably one of the best films so far. really good acting by daniel radcliffe in the posession scene. i don't like the way they change things in the films though - why wasnt dobby in it again? and why is there no quidditch? thats supposed to be a main part of the story, ron being keeper!!! i dont see how they can do the last 2 films if they cant even include all the important parts in no.5!! how will they do dumbledore's lessons with harry? but it was better than HP4 anyway. and what they DID actually put in it was really good!!

    beckye =] Thu Aug 16 2007
    Rated as: 4/5
    Report
  • its ok i mean its rubbish dint lyk it wun bit walked out half way thru !!!!!

    AmyBaybeex Thu Aug 16 2007
    Rated as: 1/5
    Report
  • waste of tym movieeee

    d Thu Aug 16 2007
    Report
  • OMG, It Was So Good. I Love Them All, They Are So Funny (: I Can't Wait To See The Next One... Will Deffo Be Going To See It =D XxoxOox

    Rhaegan Wed Aug 15 2007
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  • Hotwise
  • Cool brands
  • Star