It's hard to imagine the kind of pressure J.K. Rowling must have been feeling when putting together the final book in the best selling fantasy series of all time. With a fan base much broader than the young adult audience the books were marketed for and a worldwide community that had been poring over the previous six volumes and speculating endlessly about the finale, it's safe to say that she had to tread very, very carefully.
Luckily for that audience (which I am obviously a member of), she has mostly succeeded.
While every Potter reader will likely have some quibble with the fates of their beloved characters, Rowling has definitely pulled out all the stops, here. There is tragedy, not only in the deaths of a few beloved characters, but also in the circumstances of those deaths. There is triumph, and, for once, Harry is not the only character to make a heroic stand (though, of course, Harry gets the big showdown that everyone knows he can't avoid).
Snape's backstory is finally revealed, and though it is a bit exposition-heavy, it is possibly the best part of the book. The other major character whose early life is explored is, most surprisingly, Dumbledore. Easily the most unexpected element of the book, the humanizing of the late, previously saintly headmaster of Hogwarts will probably raise some eyebrows among the faithful.
Though it features virtually every major and minor character from the series in some form, the book focuses mainly on Harry, Ron, and Hermione, as they are on the run from the bulk of the wizarding world. Largely on their own for a surprisingly long time, and plagued by setbacks and frustration, the trio's friendship is pushed to the breaking point. During their journey, they encounter a few characters who are either entirely new to this volume, or have had only minor roles thus far, including Luna Lovegood's father, Xenophilius Lovegood, Griphook the goblin, and Olivander the master wandmaker.
Through an interesting "shared consciousness" lens, Rowling is also able to show us the vile deeds of Voldemort and his minions. Harry periodically "becomes" Voldemort, and witnesses his frustration at his continuing failure to destroy him. This actually serves to lend a lot of tension to the story. At times, Harry will be in the midst of some difficulty only to learn, suddenly, that Voldemort knows where he is and is coming with terrible speed. This is particularly effective toward the end of the book, when Harry & Co. are racing to find something before the Dark Lord realizes what they are up to.
This volume is a very suitable addition to the Potter series, and a fine conclusion. While it does leave a few minor questions unanswered, it brings a definite climax and close to the story.
And now, some spoilers.
DO NOT READ PAST THIS POINT
I warned you. Don't say I didn't.
Still reading?
Okay. Random thoughts.
First, the good:
If I had been less manly, I might have teared up a little when Dudley finally treated Harry with a little kindness. Or when Hedwig died. Or when Harry saw the bodies of Lupin and Tonks lying next to each other. Or when Fred died. Or when Snape revealed the form of his Patronus. Or when Percy came back. (Hang on a minute, I have something in my eye...)
Really, the book had too many nifty bits to list. So here's a list: Percy's return to the fold, Neville's moment of triumph, Trelawney kicking ass, Kreacher's transformation, Snape's history revealed, the whole damn Battle of Hogwarts, Mrs. Weasley getting medieval on Bellatrix Lestrange's ass, the side trip to the Chamber of Secrets, Ron's book on how to be a ladies man, "Harry, if we die saving them, I'm going to KILL you!" ...
Dumbledore's explanation of why he had to make things so hard to figure out actually worked for me: "So you wouldn't be able to charge in like an idiot without having people help you."
Now, the not-so-great:
Snape's death is a bit weak. His backstory is very well done, but I still wished he'd had some kind of meaningful interaction with Harry before he died. His secret was pretty much what I'd expected, but it was handled very well.
I really wish there had been a bit more with Draco Malfoy. I had hoped to see him change a bit, but any changing he did was pretty much off-screen, indicated only by the fact that he acknowledges Harry on the platform at the end. In fact, Rowling misses a fantastic opportunity to justify Slytherin's existence even a little by having somebody, anybody from Slytherin fight the good fight. But, no. They're all toerags, after all.
How did Fred even die? There was an explosion and, boom, he's dead. No indication of what really happened.
Harry's dead. No, he's not, because he's a Horcrux! Surprise! Yeah, not really that surprising.
Why did Voldemort's curse reflect back on him? It didn't make a lot of sense.
No info on what Harry, Ginny, Ron, and Hermione are doing with themselves, "19 Years Later"? Apart from pumping out the kids, that is. The only person whose career we learn anything about is Neville, who has apparently (and unsurprisingly), become the professor of magical plants at Hogwarts. No mention at all of Luna, Hagrid, or George. No mention of who became headmaster of Hogwarts. No mention of the fates of Lucius and Narcissa Malfoy. No mention of what has happened to the Ministry. No mention of Umbridge being sent to Azkaban. No mention of a LOT of things, all of which I'd really like to know.
Oh well. It was still a good book.
Showing posts with label harry potter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label harry potter. Show all posts
Jul 23, 2007
Jul 20, 2007
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Rating: 1/2 banana (out of one banana)
This review contains spoilers, but only if you've never read the book.
My least favorite of the Harry Potter books has now become my second-least favorite of the Harry Potter films (just edged out by Chamber of Secrets, which was so bad I have put it out of my mind almost entirely). Maybe this was inevitable, as Order of the Phoenix isn't a fun book.
I'm not a purist, mind you. I understand that a humongous book does not lend itself easily to a 2 1/2 hour film adaptation. But, really, Goblet of Fire was nearly as long and the movie was easily twice as good. The blame here at least partially belongs to Michael Goldenberg, whose previous screenwriting credits include the very uneven 2003 Peter Pan and the so-so adaptation of Contact to the big screen in 1997. Then again, it could be director David Yates, whose directing credits include ... well, pretty much nothing I've ever heard of.
Steve Kloves, who wrote all the other Potter screenplays (and is slated to return for the next film), at least had a sense of pace and knew how to earn the payoff for scenes by building the suspense first. In contrast, Goldenberg simply jumps from one "memorable" scene to the next, with barely a moment left for character.
Without any development, moments that shone in the book, such as the Weasley twins' infamous exodus from Hogwarts, fall flat. They are essentially demanding a payoff that the film hasn't earned. Other scenes, such as Dumbledore's "not-coming-quietly" bit and the firing of Professor Trelawney, are so truncated that we have no time to enjoy them.
Conversely, scenes which could easily have been cut with little harm to the plot, such as the bits with Hagrid's giant brother, are given far too much screen time. I know that there's little reason to even have Hagrid in the film if you cut Grawp, but, really, there's little reason to have Hagrid in the film anyway.
And, of course, there must be arbitrary changes made. I suppose someone, somewhere thinks it's less "cinematic" if Dumbledore is always one step ahead of Umbridge, as he is in the book, but the net effect of removing any reference to his outwitting her by appointing a new divination teacher before she can and so on is just a weakening of Dumbledore's character, to the point that the film actually has Dumbledore snap at his students because Umbridge has gotten to him. If you've read the books, you know how completely out of character that is.
Edit: She Who Must Not Be Named reminded me to mention just how bad Michael Gambon is in the role of Dumbledore. Gambon is a fine actor, but just plain miscast, and has been for three movies now. While the late, great Richard Harris was able to project the right combination of kindness and power, Gambon seems unable to strike a balance. Gambon's Dumbledore is probably a more realistic person, but this isn't a genre where realism sits comfortably.
Snape, though well-played by Alan Rickman (as usual), is again relegated to scant minutes of screen time. His most crucial scene, involving memories of the past, survives in an extremely abbreviated form. Yates might has well have cut that scene too, however, since there is no reaction from Harry at all to the revelation that his dad wasn't such a great guy. We see virtually nothing of Snape's interaction with the Order, either. Instead, we are left watching a stupid bit with a magic ear on a string.
Still, the movie isn't without its bright points. Daniel Radcliffe is decent as Harry. He's not exactly Brando, but he's getting better. I'd like to say the same for Emma Watson, but Hermione hasn't made nearly as much progress as Harry in acting class. Rupert Grint is largely sidelined, since the entire prefect subplot is absent. I'm pretty sure Neville had more lines than Ron this time around.
Evanna Lynch hits the cute/weird balance mark for Luna Lovegood pretty well. She was probably the best of the kids outside of Radcliffe. Jason Isaacs actually manages to dial it back a bit as Lucius Malfoy, giving by far his best performance in the series. Imelda Staunton does a good job with the vicious Dolores Umbridge, though sometime in the middle of the second act, the screenplay starts to let her down. Ralph Fiennes is quite good as Lord Voldemort, chewing scenery like a half-starved termite.
The list of prominent actors who have about five lines in this movie is astounding: David Thewlis (Lupin), Brendan Gleeson (Mad-Eye Moody), Emma Thompson (Trelawney), and Helena Bonham-Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange) are all on-screen for a minute or three at most.
The movie's best moments are probably those involving the training sessions of "Dumbledore's Army" in which Harry imparts his hard-earned knowledge of Defense Against the Dark Arts to his fellow students. A substantial plot alteration regarding their eventual betrayal seemed fairly arbitrary, but other than that, it was alright.
Overall, I was a bit bored, a bit irritated, and only occasionally entertained. Your mileage may vary.
This review contains spoilers, but only if you've never read the book.
My least favorite of the Harry Potter books has now become my second-least favorite of the Harry Potter films (just edged out by Chamber of Secrets, which was so bad I have put it out of my mind almost entirely). Maybe this was inevitable, as Order of the Phoenix isn't a fun book.
I'm not a purist, mind you. I understand that a humongous book does not lend itself easily to a 2 1/2 hour film adaptation. But, really, Goblet of Fire was nearly as long and the movie was easily twice as good. The blame here at least partially belongs to Michael Goldenberg, whose previous screenwriting credits include the very uneven 2003 Peter Pan and the so-so adaptation of Contact to the big screen in 1997. Then again, it could be director David Yates, whose directing credits include ... well, pretty much nothing I've ever heard of.
Steve Kloves, who wrote all the other Potter screenplays (and is slated to return for the next film), at least had a sense of pace and knew how to earn the payoff for scenes by building the suspense first. In contrast, Goldenberg simply jumps from one "memorable" scene to the next, with barely a moment left for character.
Without any development, moments that shone in the book, such as the Weasley twins' infamous exodus from Hogwarts, fall flat. They are essentially demanding a payoff that the film hasn't earned. Other scenes, such as Dumbledore's "not-coming-quietly" bit and the firing of Professor Trelawney, are so truncated that we have no time to enjoy them.
Conversely, scenes which could easily have been cut with little harm to the plot, such as the bits with Hagrid's giant brother, are given far too much screen time. I know that there's little reason to even have Hagrid in the film if you cut Grawp, but, really, there's little reason to have Hagrid in the film anyway.
And, of course, there must be arbitrary changes made. I suppose someone, somewhere thinks it's less "cinematic" if Dumbledore is always one step ahead of Umbridge, as he is in the book, but the net effect of removing any reference to his outwitting her by appointing a new divination teacher before she can and so on is just a weakening of Dumbledore's character, to the point that the film actually has Dumbledore snap at his students because Umbridge has gotten to him. If you've read the books, you know how completely out of character that is.
Edit: She Who Must Not Be Named reminded me to mention just how bad Michael Gambon is in the role of Dumbledore. Gambon is a fine actor, but just plain miscast, and has been for three movies now. While the late, great Richard Harris was able to project the right combination of kindness and power, Gambon seems unable to strike a balance. Gambon's Dumbledore is probably a more realistic person, but this isn't a genre where realism sits comfortably.
Snape, though well-played by Alan Rickman (as usual), is again relegated to scant minutes of screen time. His most crucial scene, involving memories of the past, survives in an extremely abbreviated form. Yates might has well have cut that scene too, however, since there is no reaction from Harry at all to the revelation that his dad wasn't such a great guy. We see virtually nothing of Snape's interaction with the Order, either. Instead, we are left watching a stupid bit with a magic ear on a string.
Still, the movie isn't without its bright points. Daniel Radcliffe is decent as Harry. He's not exactly Brando, but he's getting better. I'd like to say the same for Emma Watson, but Hermione hasn't made nearly as much progress as Harry in acting class. Rupert Grint is largely sidelined, since the entire prefect subplot is absent. I'm pretty sure Neville had more lines than Ron this time around.
Evanna Lynch hits the cute/weird balance mark for Luna Lovegood pretty well. She was probably the best of the kids outside of Radcliffe. Jason Isaacs actually manages to dial it back a bit as Lucius Malfoy, giving by far his best performance in the series. Imelda Staunton does a good job with the vicious Dolores Umbridge, though sometime in the middle of the second act, the screenplay starts to let her down. Ralph Fiennes is quite good as Lord Voldemort, chewing scenery like a half-starved termite.
The list of prominent actors who have about five lines in this movie is astounding: David Thewlis (Lupin), Brendan Gleeson (Mad-Eye Moody), Emma Thompson (Trelawney), and Helena Bonham-Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange) are all on-screen for a minute or three at most.
The movie's best moments are probably those involving the training sessions of "Dumbledore's Army" in which Harry imparts his hard-earned knowledge of Defense Against the Dark Arts to his fellow students. A substantial plot alteration regarding their eventual betrayal seemed fairly arbitrary, but other than that, it was alright.
Overall, I was a bit bored, a bit irritated, and only occasionally entertained. Your mileage may vary.
Jul 16, 2007
"Books! And cleverness!"
My oldest daughter, at the ripe old age of six, has recently finished reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (apologies to purists who know it should be "Philosopher's Stone").
Six.
My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure I didn't read anything of novel length until I was nine or ten.
She wanted to watch the (godawful) movie of Sorcerer's Stone, but not until she'd finished the book. Once she sat down and watched it, she was able to talk about differences between the movie and the book.
At six, I would have had a hard time distinguishing between cinematic and comic book versions of Star Wars.
Okay, fine. The kid is smarter than me. It's not like I haven't already admitted that. And she loves to read, which is great. She sometimes sneaks extra reading in during schooltime, and after she's supposed to be sleeping at night.
Now, I did the same thing, but not until I was considerably older. I'm not sure about her mom. She is a bookworm too, though, so she was probably reading Jane Austen when I was reading The Mouse and the Motorcycle.
So we have a little Hermione in the family (though not an insufferable know-it-all, thank god). Now if we can manage to keep the younger one from going all Slytherin on us, we'll be set.
Six.
My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure I didn't read anything of novel length until I was nine or ten.
She wanted to watch the (godawful) movie of Sorcerer's Stone, but not until she'd finished the book. Once she sat down and watched it, she was able to talk about differences between the movie and the book.
At six, I would have had a hard time distinguishing between cinematic and comic book versions of Star Wars.
Okay, fine. The kid is smarter than me. It's not like I haven't already admitted that. And she loves to read, which is great. She sometimes sneaks extra reading in during schooltime, and after she's supposed to be sleeping at night.
Now, I did the same thing, but not until I was considerably older. I'm not sure about her mom. She is a bookworm too, though, so she was probably reading Jane Austen when I was reading The Mouse and the Motorcycle.
So we have a little Hermione in the family (though not an insufferable know-it-all, thank god). Now if we can manage to keep the younger one from going all Slytherin on us, we'll be set.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)