"Harry Potter and the Order of the
Directed by David Yates.
Written by Michael Goldenberg. Based on the book by J.K.
Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson and Imelda
Release Year: 2007
Review Date: 7/17/07
still haven't read ANY of the books!!]
Another year, another Potter...and, with the
final book out in a few days, I figured I would catch one more flick
before some schmoe ruins the whole franchise by telling me what
happens in the end (because they incorrectly assume that everyone
only reads Potter). I hate to keep breaking this to people,
but Potter book success notwithstanding, NOBODY reads books any
more. NOBODY!! If you took away Potter, I'm convinced
that either Barnes & Noble or Borders would have shut all of their
stores by now, because the same 11 people you see in the store each
time reading aren't even buying books, just freeloading in the
stores and taking up space on those comfy couches.
(Speaking of which, shocking stat #1:
according to the National Endowment for the Arts, half of all
American adults won't read a single book all year. This number
has tripled in the last ten years, and it includes college students
who HAVE to read books for classes. If you dumped college kids
and then did this survey again in 2020, you would have about 95% of
Americans not read a single book all year. Soak on that for a
(Shocking stat #2, a bit dated but still
shocking: in 1994, 70% of all fiction novels sold were written
by just five people. I would love to get the numbers for years
when J.K. Rowling and, I dunno, John Grisham released a book in the
same calendar year...whoa.)
Since a plot synopsis of what happens in this
film 1) won't make any sense coming from a Muggle like myself and 2)
probably leaves out about half--or more--of what happened in the
book, let me just say this: for the first time in this series, I
liked the previous movie and didn't like the current one.
"Goblet of Fire" was not too bad, had a little action, had a
couple of characters die, finally introduced the Voldemort
character. I might have even, you know, LIKED it. In
"Order of the Phoenix", I was shocked at the amount of
story-advancing could have but didn't take place; I was shocked at
the lack of action, or simply "magical cool stuff" (nothing like
invisibility or a map that shows the movements of everyone at
Hogwarts in this movie...no, we're mostly stuck with spells that
make baddies get hurled a little ways backwards); no Quidditch, the
strangely-amusing hockey/soccer/football hybrid on flying
broomsticks; barely any other kids at Hogwarts worth talking about
(save for maybe the flighty death-seeing friend Luna Lovegood).
As I told my girlfriend later in the evening,
"Even Ron didn't get the chance to whine at anyone in this movie."
You KNOW that if WEASLEY doesn't even get to whine to Harry that
he's about to be eaten/slaughtered/wronged in The Ron Voice, you
just know that something is going on here.
But, not unlike "Star Wars Episode One", you
need to have a film that bridges the transition into something a bit
more serious, and one can only hope that this sets the table nicely
for the last two films...but, I was pretty much bored throughout
this latest iteration of Potter and I am not all that fired up to
drop $20 more to see this series finished out. But, I'll give
it this--at least it's not the shitstorm that is what "Shrek" is
Comments? Drop me a line at
Bellview Rating System:
"Opening Weekend": This is
the highest rating a movie can receive. Reserved for movies that
exhibit the highest level of acting, plot, character development,
setting...or Salma Hayek. Not necessarily in that order.
"$X.XX Show": This price
changes each year due to the inflation of movie prices; currently,
it is the $9.50 Show. While not technically perfect, this is a
movie that will still entertain you at a very high level.
"Undercover Brother" falls into this category; it's no "Casablanca",
but you'll have a great time watching. The $9.50 Show won't win any
Oscars, but you'll be quoting lines from the thing for ages (see
"Matinee": An average movie
that merits no more than a $6.50 viewing at your local theater.
Seeing it for less than $9.50 will make you feel a lot better about
yourself. A movie like "Blue Crush" fits this category; you leave
the theater saying "That wasn't too bad...man, did you see that
Lakers game last night?"
"Rental": This rating
indicates a movie that you see in the previews and say to your
friend, "I'll be sure to miss that one." Mostly forgettable, you
couldn't lose too much by going to Hollywood Video and paying $3 to
watch it with your sig other, but you would only do that if the
video store was out of copies of "Ronin." If you can, see this
movie for free. This is what your TV Guide would give "one and a
"Hard Vice": This rating is
the bottom of the barrel. A movie that only six other human beings
have witnessed, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. A Shannon
Tweed "thriller," it is so bad as to be funny during almost every
one of its 84 minutes, and includes the worst ending ever put into a
movie. Marginally worse than "Cabin Boy", "The Avengers" or
"Leonard, Part 6", this rating means that you should avoid this
movie at all costs, or no costs, EVEN IF YOU CAN SEE IT FOR FREE!
(Warning: strong profanity will be used in all reviews of "Hard