LE SIGH. I love a lot of Ebert's reviews, but, geez, has he read the books? The series has been growing darker since BOOK TWO. And for many people, that's a good thing.

I'm seeing it tomorrow night. Going to get tickets tonight after work.

Wow, that review demonstrates an epic lack of cluefulness. I hope to God Ebert really has never read any of the books past Sorcerer's Stone, because if he has then there's truly no excuse. Where's the whimsy? Er, crushed beneath the boot of the writer since roughly the midpoint of Chamber of Secrets.

Also, this caption to the still accompanying the review:

"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is filled with British actors solidly established long before Daniel Radcliffe (seated) landed the role of Harry.

irritates the fuck out of me. What, they should have cast an experienced RADA-trained Shakespearean actor of 11 in the role to match up with the rest of the cast? What the fuck does that even mean?

Clearly I'm in need of either lots more or lots less coffee. I really shouldn't be sitting here itching to slap an oldish man who's been recently ill. But, really, Ebert is too intelligent and too film-literate for this review. It's beneath him.

It isn't like Radcliffe had no acting experience whatsoever--he was the title character in David Copperfield, after all. And, like you said, where does an 11-year-old (not named Christian Bale) get Shakesperian experience at that age?

"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is filled with British actors solidly established long before Daniel Radcliffe (seated) landed the role of Harry.

I wouldn't blame Ebert for a caption. The review, yes; the captions, no.

Wow, that review demonstrates an epic lack of cluefulness.

He does this often. I often get eyerolly reading him (much as I like lots of his writing, especially in his Great Movies books, and even in his two books of trashing reviews) because he seems to be deliberately and willfully not getting things at times.

Not only is the cinema near me showing HP5 at midnight on ten screens (eleven if you include the IMAX one), but they're having an additional showing on one screen and also the IMAX at 3:00 am!

Waiting for word from my aunt if I can take my cousins to the midnight showing in ... less than EIGHT HOURS.

I'm planning on seeing HP when it comes to IMAX here, which is generally about a month after general release. I was planning on rereading the series, but I can't find books 1 and 2, very distressing.

In Non HP talk did anyone see that TCM had a Silent Shakespeare special on? I can't remember when it aired but I dvr'd it, it's early silent movie adapations of Shakespeare (or in some cases what's left of the films). I watched the first part of it and it's very interesting to see the sets and some of the acting. I'm nots sure if they are going to air it again but anyone who is a fan of Shakespeare and silent movies should check this out.

I think that was on Sunday night--that's when TCM usually shows silent films. I saw that on my cable listings and was thinking about watching, but passed over it in favor of something else I can't remember now.

I like some silent films, but find that some of them indulge in what Kathy Selden in Singin' in the Rain calls "a lot of dumb show."

New York Magazine likes OOTP

And Michael Sragow has nice things to say about the acting:

When Umbridge needs to be an outright threat, Staunton makes her as vicious as they come. Staunton lifts everybody's game, including, in their few scenes together, Maggie Smith's McGonagall, who expresses a real class act's disdain at Umbridge's upstart arrogance, and Emma Thompson's Trelawney, who whips up a tangy comic pathos in mere seconds.

But there's an even deeper font to the film's bubbly caldron of up-and-down emotions: every adolescent's mix of sometimes-farcical, narcissistic insecurity with a desire to break through to a larger universe. As enthralling as the adult performances can be -- for example, Gary Oldman has rarely been more relaxed or as dashing than he is as Harry's godfather, Sirius Black -- it's the always-developing chemistry of the three leads that make this film so moving.

Forget When Harry Met Sally: Give me When Harry Met Hermione for a tale of male and female friendship. Harry's love interest, of course, isn't Hermione, it's Cho Chang (Katie Leung). But what makes Cho and Harry's kiss memorable is Hermione's explanation to Ron and Harry of why Cho cried through it. She lists a torrent of reasons for Cho's confusions, including unresolved emotions for her former boyfriend. When the charmingly obtuse Ron protests that one person can't hold all those feelings -- "they'd explode" -- Hermione tells Ron he has the affective capacity of "a teaspoon." This trio is in perfect harmony: Radcliffe's earnest tumult and emotional receptivity as Harry, Watson's precocious female omniscience and Grint's blend of scampishness and squeamishness epitomize their by-now instinctive embodiment of their characters.

Time Magazine (Richard Corliss) also rates it the best in the series:

Another mystery--whether a new director (David Yates) and scriptwriter (Michael Goldenberg) can build on the intelligent urgency of the past two Potter films--is cleared up in the first few minutes as Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) performs some impromptu magic to save an ugly Muggle. The confrontation is swift, vivid, scary and, to the audience, assuring: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix will be a good one. Perhaps the best in the series, it turns out. The tone and palette are darker, the characters more desperate and more determined. Playtime is over; childhood is a distant memory or just a dream. For Harry and his friends, it's time to grow up and fight Voldemort or surrender to him.

All the reviews consistently note two things: it's very scary and Daniel Radcliffe's acting has gotten very good. Of course, it would if most of your acting classes included scenes with the very greatest actors in Britain.

Jaysus. Saw my first Underdog trailer. The fuck? Lots of scenes of the dog hitting his head.

Laugh riot.