‘Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix’

Fans of the book might miss chunks and segues, but others will probably see the movie as action-packed.

By: Pat Summers

"image"
From left: Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) and Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) battle evil forces in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.


   "He’s back!" The "he" is Voldemort, of course — evil wizard, dark lord and Harry Potter’s archenemy and would-be murderer. Now, in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the fifth movie taken from J.K. Rowling’s history-making series, Voldemort is mustering his Death Eater followers and is on the rise.
   Yet despite Harry and Dumbledore’s insistence, the wizarding world refuses to believe it, and it takes most of the film’s 140 minutes, filled with fights, flights and narrow escapes, mind games and occlumency to convince them. Meanwhile, the revived "Order of the Phoenix," counting numerous veterans of earlier wars against Voldemort, soldiers on.
   But this movie-story boasts another villain, far scarier than Ralph Fiennes’ blurry-nosed Voldemort. Dolores Jane Umbridge, of the Ministry of Magic and, briefly, of Hogwarts, is a witch in every sense of the word.
   Imelda Staunton needn’t resemble Rowling’s "ugly, toad-like" character to do the job. Dressed in bright pinks down to her shoes, with a perfect ladylike coif and a fixed, fake smile, she is nonetheless sadistic and menacing, every kid’s worst dream of an authority figure gone wrong.
   Yet Professor Umbridge does one good deed in the movie, which is even darker in actual hues than the tale it tells: she lights it up. Even over her dark heart, her pink ensembles serve as picker-uppers in a context that otherwise might move a viewer to scream, "Turn up the lights!"
   The Weasley twins’ fireworks scene offers her only competition for color and light. Otherwise, moonlight and flickering firelight illuminate most events.
   To bring a book of 870 pages to coherent screen life cannot be easy. As the fourth director in this series of five movies, David Yates clearly pruned what he thought could be spared — the issue of house prefects, the reformed Rita Skeeter, and any reference to Quidditch — to move the story along.
   Viewers familiar with Rowling’s fifth book might miss chunks and segues, but most others will probably see the movie as action-packed, with clearly identifiable "goodies" and "baddies" operating in a captivating world of wizards.
   The movie can stand on its own, as it should, being a wholly different medium. It’s not required merely to illustrate every twist and turn of the book, nor expected to convey all its wisdom and wit.
   At that, it still drives home some of the "life messages" for which Rowling is so admired: to be effective, you must first believe in yourself; except apparently for Voldemort, people aren’t "black or white," as in all good or all bad. Their choices make them what they are.
   And finally, friends are very important and there’s strength in numbers — or, as Ron puts it to Harry, rushing off on a solo rescue: "Maybe you don’t have to do this all by yourself, mate." And with that, Harry and friends mount their thestrals (fleshless winged horses) and head for London.
   The movie’s "memorable images department" could also include Harry’s night flight by broom along the Thames and past Parliament, to number 12 Grimmauld Place; his recurring dreams of the locked door; and virtually anything Hogwarts, whether inside or out.
   Also remarkable are the actualization of Rowling’s Ministry of Magic, aerial views of the courtroom where Harry’s hearing occurs and the huge room filled with shelves of glass globes, each holding a prophecy.
   Only this medium could do justice to wizardly realities like group photos in which the subjects in front obligingly step aside to let those behind them move forward, or even the numerous kitten plates in Umbridge’s office, whose inhabitants move and mew. Small touches, much appreciated. Possibly capped by the fiery battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort, grander effects are also in good supply throughout.
   But for faithful fans, the characters, many of them carry-overs from earlier movies, are center stage. As 15-year old Harry, Daniel Radcliffe really seems to be growing up. He’s less pouty than earlier, yet understandably somber and often angry.
   By this time, Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) seems simply lumpish and mumbly, while Hermione (Emma Watson) spends most of her screen time frowning intently. Snape never disappoints, however; Alan Rickman’s in-his-head voice and dismissive manner (toward Harry and Umbridge alike) are perfect.
   Robbie Coltrane’s Hagrid appears relatively little in this movie, which is just fine here, and Fiona Shaw, as Aunt Petunia, is jarringly got up in what looks like a short sundress with matching panties.
   Besides Dolores Umbridge, this time we meet Luna Lovegood, played by Evanna Lynch as moony and loony-like-a-fox; and Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange — fierce, frightful, yet looking more like an escapee from Les Miserables than Azkaban. Kreacher, Sirius’ disloyal house-elf, looks disconcertingly like Gollum, from Lord of the Rings, and he was more than enough.
   What canny timing for this movie. Its release, 10 days before book seven is published, effectively turns July into "Harry Potter Month." But who’s complaining?
Rated PG-13 for sequences of fantasy violence and frightening images.