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.

In Non HP talk did anyone see that TCM had a Silent Shakespeare special on?

Sunday, midnight Eastern. Razza-frazzin' TiVo decided to record channel 56 instead of 256.

Fred that's too bad! I hope that TCM replays it.

Kathy, I think it's interesting to look at very early film work. There's a short piece that starts it off that was filmed in 1899, there's not much remaining. Then the others are The Tempest (1908) and Midsummer's Night Dream (1909). Both of those had outdoor shots and it reminded me a bit of home movies, the way the camera is very still on the subjects and doesn't pan at all. Then also the light looks very natural, like they've set a camera out there and are only using natural light. There are definitely limits besides the lack of sound, they can only move within the square of the camera and it can't get closer but the actors can get closer, but not too close. There are some editing tricks (to make characters appear and disappear) and then special effects of paintings and other things.

It very much looks like a filmed play done on a very narrow stage and there's no panning over to the next scene, it either jumps to the next seen or there's a break to the words for setting up the next scene.

BEST HP movie to date.

More later as I wake up.

I really enjoyed HP5, though I wouldn't say it's my favorite (that's still #3 for me). I'd put it on par with #4. The pacing is problematic, and that affected my reactions to some scenes that should have been more powerful. In fact, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think it would have worked better if it had been a half hour longer. It needed a little more time to establish some key elements like the purpose and importance of Harry's Occlumency lessons with Snape, or the role that each kid plays in the climactic fight at the Ministry, or the impact of the prophecy.

But as noted, the acting is great, much improved over the last ones. I was quite impressed with Daniel Radcliffe (and, okay, I know I'm late to the party, but when did he actually get hot?? rowr!) and Imelda Staunton was *brilliant*. I also loved the girl who played Luna Lovegood. I thought Emma Watson was the weak link, though -- she came off kind of flat in a lot of her scenes. I've really liked her in the previous movies, so I don't know what's up with her now.

My favorite bits were the Dumbledore's Army scenes -- you really get the sense of these kids' fear of what's coming, but also their excitement at finally learning how to defend themselves and maybe even make a difference in the fight against Voldemort. Plus, Neville! Also all the teen-romance bits, often just throwaway things like a great reaction shot from Ginny when Hermione is teasing Harry about Cho Chang.

Best post-movie comment from one of my friends: "I love how Bellatrix LeStrange escaped from Azkaban -- by actually gnawing her way through the scenery."

I figured 5 would make a good movie, whereas it's a really depressing (and almost oppressive) book.

I'll believe it's better than 3 when I see it, though. Which...won't be for a while.

I figured 5 would make a good movie, whereas it's a really depressing (and almost oppressive) book.

Nodding in agreement. Umbridge was the kind of villain who is nigh intolerable in an 870 page novel, but can work very well in a movie (and given how the reviews have been praising Staunton, it sounds like that's exactly what happened).

Umbridge was the kind of villain who is nigh intolerable in an 870 page novel, but can work very well in a movie

Without having yet seen the movie, I'm in complete agreement.

I will certainly agree with the first part. Lord, did I hate her. And not in a love-to-hate way.