THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: The Fake Shemp on July 25, 2007, 04:05:26 PM
-
Saw the latest Potter flick for free - which is the best way to see these things.
It's better than the saccharin Columbus snooze fests and Newell's pedestrian Goblet of Fire, but still falls well short of Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban in style. None of them have been extremely entertaining and all struggle with creating a coherent story; the movies seem like segments of the books visualized and put in chronological order. In all, this entire series has never corrected the main flaw that plagues each installment - none of the writers have found a way to adapt Rowling's books.
This film is probably the most incoherent of them all (it relies heavily on newspaper clippings to progress the story, a horrible and lazy writing device), but probably the most entertaining. Yates disregards his predecessors, and drops the awe-inspiring fantasy design motif for very gritty and 70s set design. Hogwarts, something that looked magical in the Columbus films, epic in Cuaron's (Hogwarts seems huge in this one) and arcane in Newell's, looks very much like a castle in this one. It has lost its magical luster and kids certainly won't feel whisked away to a fantastic world in this adventure - even the opening sequence feels more grounded than any of the threats that the titular character has faced in the past. And while this might upset some, I think it gives the film some real credibility when it comes to hurling life threatening and impactful moments at Potter's way.
My main grievance with the films is that they've done an awful job of setting up Voldemort as a legitimate antagonist and none of the films prior had a heavy that came close to endangering "The Boy Who Lived". They were very much stories about what kind of mysteries that Harry would unknowingly walk into and survive out of dumb luck and his lineage. In that essence, I dug that he is isolated and lost his rock star status at the beginning of this film; the book describes Potter as a tortured kid that that is transported to a world where he's not a loser for once, whereas the films kind of make Potter out as a dumb, popular kid. This is the first film where it felt like Potter actually worked to save his life and/or friends for once, instead of relying on Hermoine or Dumbledore.
Furthermore, the films get a legitimate antagonist for once! Nope, not Voldemort played metro sexually by Ralph Fiennes yet again, but fascist cat-lover Dolores Umbridge. She was obnoxious in the book, but she is pure evil here and I loved it. Fuck you, Potter! Dumbledore can't save you now! This is the element all the films have been missing and the one element that Cuaron's really needed - a foe that makes you actually root for Potter and the rest of the dumb school kids. The Brit that plays her, plays her well. The same can be said for all the supporting actors.
Alan Rickman is still awesome in the few seconds they give him, but criminally underused once again. The kids around Radcliffe are growing as actors, but Radcliffe is not. He is great at handling quiet moments and that confused and bewildered look. He does a great job of nailing that introverted kid that's been whisked away into an awesome, fantastic world. But he sucks at being angry, an emotion that Rowling makes central to his character as the books progress. Radcliffe overacts in a way that would make Shatner blush; his angered outbursts seem more like staged temper tantrums than anything broaching acting.
The fight sequence at the end has been overblown by critics, it is indeed awesome to look at, but it's also woefully short. It's over by the time it began. Unfortunate. The plus side is that this is short for a Potter film, so my bladder was not dead by the credits.
It was a decent way to blow two hours. They do some good things here, but manage to keep doing the same bad things as well. I hope they manage to take the positives from this production and apply it to the last two, but five films in and I don't think any of my issues with this series will be resolved.
-
so, better or worse than transformers?
-
I liked the movie, but I doubt they could use Alan more than the book did. Everyone says he's more important in the last two books so im sure youll see more of them then.
-
It's definitely a better production than Transformers, because, y'know, it features actual thespians instead of TV show rejects and the writers probably spent more than a weekend on the script. In terms of summer time enjoyment, I definitely had more fun at Transformers, but there is no denying that this is a stronger production in almost every aspect.
Much like I am genetically predisposed to nerding out over giant robots destroying shit and stuff, I'm sure folks that have equal love for wizards and stuff will get a kick out of this one. I've never been really high on the books, though.
-
Harry Potter and the B+ Review
-
I liked the movie, but I doubt they could use Alan more than the book did. Everyone says he's more important in the last two books so im sure youll see more of them then.
I hope so. His character is probably the most complex one in the books and has the awesome benefit of being played by a thesp of equal complexity and range.
-
also he always gets a scene where he beats children
-
Tonight I plan on watching Perfume, also featuring Alan Rickman! I am hoping he is surly and beats children in it!
-
Alan Rickman makes every production better. How he handles his emotions in the Potter films is nothing short of amazing - he is incredibly subtle, but can shift quickly between the spectrum. I don't understand how Radcliffe can be around so many great actors and not really learn a thing or two. Even the doofus that plays Ron seems to outshine Radcliffe in every scene that doesn't involve Radcliffe looking at something in awe.
-
Radcliffe has already learned life's most important lesson, that you don't need to be talented if you're hung like an EQUUS
-
THE BOY WHO WAS HUNG
-
radcliffe is probably balls deep in the actress of his choice right now, so i doubt the criticism of his rather narrow acting range hurts as much as it probably should
-
10 3/4 inches, solid hickory shaft
-
the guy is pretty hung.
:-\
-
radcliffe is probably balls deep in the actress of his choice right now, so i doubt the criticism of his rather narrow acting range hurts as much as it probably should
That's awful that his Hollywood counterpart is a one Michael Bay then.
-
That was such a photoshop, you 'mos. You can all stop writing your EB/HP crossover slashfics now.
-
That was such a photoshop, you 'mos. You can all stop writing your EB/HP crossover slashfics now.
Now who is being naive?
-
Whoever believes he has Brian Urlacher's thighs, probably.
Was the Cauron HP movie good? I never got around to seeing it.
-
I'd rank the Potter movies thusly:
3 (Cuaron) >>>>> 2 (Columbus) >= 1 (Columbus) > 5 (Yates) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 (Newell)
I think 4 is legitimately awful. The pacing is terrible; the script is confusing and expository; and the direction is mundane, which puts the spectacular CG work into unpleasant relief. The only high point is Mad-Eye Moody. The whole experience was like watching someone play a really mediocre Harry Potter themed videogame based on the book, badly.
-
Reduce my post count and I'll read your review.
-
Prisoner of Azkaban is as good as the Potter movies have ever been. It's stylish and its own beast, and the most different from Rowling's book in that it doesn't entirely feel like Potter Cliff Notes.
Also, I think Radcliffe's acting peaked in that film and the children in general grew as actors. It's no surprise, as all the behind-the-scenes show Cuaron as an engaging director and definitely an actor's kind of director.
Gary Oldman shines in his limited role, which was non existent in Goblet of Fire and had a rather dud of an exit in this last one. Also, the setup for Voldemort in Prisoner of Azkaban was pretty fantastic; Cuaron really made the foreboding sense of doom a real teaser to the inevitable dark climax in the future films. But the future films never built upon that and unleashed Voldemort is just a serpent-looking metrosexual. He felt very much like THE EMPEROR in Cuaron's film - you knew he was a bad dude and bad shit was coming. You didn't want to fuck with that.
It also has probably the best visual effects in the series and the last film to use John Williams to score.
-
Whoever believes he has Brian Urlacher's thighs, probably.
Was the Cauron HP movie good? I never got around to seeing it.
It's good, but don't bother seeing it if you haven't seen the previous two flicks.
3 (it's an actual good movie) > 2 (it's an improvement on the book) > 5 (feels more like scenes from the book, a la Lynch's adaptation of Dune) > 1 (starts strong, but once the wonderment of being slowly submerged into the wizarding world wears off, you aren't left with much good) > 4 (bad and nonsensical; tells its story in a confusing manner)
-
I agree with Drinky that Goblet of Fire was the worst of the bunch - it was a chore to finish. It was pedestrian and forced and just not that good all around. I don't think the Columbus films are leagues better than Goblet of Fire, though, and I certainly think this last installment was more entertaining than Columbus' first two entries as well.
-
sounds like I did good to have somehow missed seeing Goblet of Fire then
Rygar, you are talking about the Triwizard TournamentTM.
-
yeah, the 5 == Dune comparison is kinda apt. The nuances of the story are disposed of, the villains become cariacatures, and the whole thing feels like a "best of" digest. It's clearly watchable, and often entertaining, but it also seems to exist wholly to illustrate something you've previously read.
-
TVC: I think I've seen the other three previous films. I'm pretty sure I saw the first one in theatres, I definitely remember Keneth Branagh so I've seen #2, and I saw a lot of #4 on HBO. I tuned in almost halfway through, so I missed almost all of Mad-Eye, and I kept waiting for more Snape, which never materialized. I was surprised, cause it's not like I expect the HP movies to be really good, but it shouldn't be hard to make a decent young adult fantasy romp.
I'll Netflix the third one. I think Cauron can overreach (I've already talked about Children of Men and Y Tu Mama Tambien annoyed me), but I can't deny that he's got skillz.
-
As long as they keep "illustrating" Tonks I will keep giving Hollywood my $10.50 :hump
Rygar, I hear you. Rowling made such a HUGE DEAL over what a harrowing death would be found in Book 4 and my initial reaction upon reading it was, "who"? I had no idea who he was despite reading the book in more or less a single go.
Book 5-7's fatalities were similarly overhyped.
-
Actually, Goblet of Fire, while not a terribly good book either, was probably the easiest to adapt into a really great fantasy movie. I always held this belief. It had the benefit of a really good hook with the Tri Wizard Tournament, the Death Eaters intro was fantastic, the death of a supporting character and the ultimate reveal of the series' great villain - great stuff that should have been easy to translate to the silver screen.
The first time we ever see Voldemort should have been the climax of the entire series. That foreboding sense of doom that Cuaron so cleverly crafted with his more grim installment was going to come to a head. Instead it was sloppy and forced and awkward, and not terribly threatening or menacing. The character that died was not even remotely fleshed out, so it was hard to feel much of anything for his loss. The Tri Wizard tournament was haphazardly handled in its adaptation to film. And the Death Eaters were relegated to a rather bland opening sequence.
The fact that Goblet of Fire was so bungled will hurt the series in the long run, as it was supposed to be a turning point for the characters. Instead, it seems like a gigantic step backwards.
-
I forgot the name of the witch in the beginning of this film, but TVC tells me her name is Tonks. She is hot as hell and a total slut - she's winkin' and shit at Harry and they flirt race on broomsticks. She just wants to fuck. Then she disappears for the entire film! What the fuck! I want her to have her own spinoff series, where she just flies into men's houses and has hot wicca sex with them.
-
I forgot the name of the witch in the beginning of this film, but TVC tells me her name is Tonks. She is hot as hell and a total slut - she's winkin' and shit at Harry and they flirt race on broomsticks. She just wants to fuck. Then she disappears for the entire film! What the fuck! I want her to have her own spinoff series, where she just flies into men's houses and has hot wicca sex with them.
it's called "about a boy"
-
Actually, Goblet of Fire, while not a terribly good book either, was probably the easiest to adapt into a really great fantasy movie. I always held this belief. It had the benefit of a really good hook with the Tri Wizard Tournament, the Death Eaters intro was fantastic, the death of a supporting character and the ultimate reveal of the series' great villain - great stuff that should have been easy to translate to the silver screen.
The first time we ever see Voldemort should have been the climax of the entire series. That foreboding sense of doom that Cuaron so cleverly crafted with his more grim installment was going to come to a head. Instead it was sloppy and forced and awkward, and not terribly threatening or menacing. The character that died was not even remotely fleshed out, so it was hard to feel much of anything for his loss. The Tri Wizard tournament was haphazardly handled in its adaptation to film. And the Death Eaters were relegated to a rather bland opening sequence.
The fact that Goblet of Fire was so bungled will hurt the series in the long run, as it was supposed to be a turning point for the characters. Instead, it seems like a gigantic step backwards.
I'm still sad that neither of the following (which were originally going to happen) happened:
1. Goblet split into two films
2. Cuaron directing them
-
I don't like the way Voldemort is portrayed by Feinnes, either. He comes off way too metrosexual, even going as far to dress like a GQ model in this latest installment ("Hah, watch as I torment Harry in his dreams in a three-piece black suit!"). He has no presence either. I understand that he is supposed to be serpent-like, but he just moves to fluid to be menacing or imposing. His limited screen time and lack of fleshed out supporting characters also gives little insight to how he amasses large amounts of followers.
In the films, he has been all hype.
-
Rickman has a really great scene in Goblet of Fire (in the library), but it's a shame that he isn't used more. But there's no way he'll be underused in Half Blood Prince. I'm actually a bit excited about the movie. HBP is easily the best paced Potter book, and it seems much easier to adapt than GOF and OOTP to me. But then again I wonder how the pevensie scenes will be handled. But no matter, Naomi Watts is going to be in it so :-*
My brothers told me to avoid the OOTP movie and so far I have; I'll catch it on DVD, like I did with GOF.
-
None of the films to me have been HORRIBLE. I dislike the first two films more than the rest of the series though.
My favorite is Order of the Phoenix. It's great and some of the characters and moments are perfectly captured. Rickman is not in it as much, true, but Yates said he is going to fix that in the next film. Honestly, before Deathly Hallows, OOTP was my favorite Potter book, so I'm probably biased in my liking of this film from the get-go because of my preference of the story, but it just felt like many of the things were better than the previous films, such as the emotion present in the film and the acting. Cuaron definitely has some filmmaking aspects though....
Those two are really close to me though in terms of quality. Order of the Phoenix, without question, is the best of the summer blockbusters and makes Spider-Man 3 and Transformers look like mother fucking jokes in comparison.
-
Rickman has a really great scene in Goblet of Fire (in the library), but it's a shame that he isn't used more. But there's no way he'll be underused in Half Blood Prince. I'm actually a bit excited about the movie. HBP is easily the best paced Potter book, and it seems much easier to adapt than GOF and OOTP to me. But then again I wonder how the pevensie scenes will be handled. But no matter, Naomi Watts is going to be in it so :-*
My brothers told me to avoid the OOTP movie and so far I have; I'll catch it on DVD, like I did with GOF.
PD, fuck your brothers. OOTP is worth it.
-
Rickman has a really great scene in Goblet of Fire (in the library), but it's a shame that he isn't used more. But there's no way he'll be underused in Half Blood Prince. I'm actually a bit excited about the movie. HBP is easily the best paced Potter book, and it seems much easier to adapt than GOF and OOTP to me. But then again I wonder how the pevensie scenes will be handled. But no matter, Naomi Watts is going to be in it so :-*
My brothers told me to avoid the OOTP movie and so far I have; I'll catch it on DVD, like I did with GOF.
PD, fuck your brothers. OOTP is worth it.
They told me horrible things, mainly about the pacing; one said that Harry is at Grimwauld after like 5 minutes, and 5 minutes later he's at the trial. :'(
Not counting DH because I'm not done (it's freaking amazing and tonight I read THE BATTLE FOR HOGWARTS omg i kno something bad will happen :(), OOTP is my favorite Potter book but HBP is the best Potter book. HBP is masterfully paced, and the book just works mechanically perfect. People complain about OOTP because of the subplots and "nonsense", but that's why I love that book. Every storyline is interesting, and even the smallest ones become very important by the end of the book. So when I heard S.P.E.W. was totally cut out of the OOTP movie I was pretty upset. The more I heard about stuff being cut out the less interested I was.
But like I said, I'm very excited about the next movie
-
You lie in your very existence, Pee Dee. You should go into the wilderness and indiscriminately eat random plants until you die.
-
Order of the Phoenix is where the books start coming apart, I think. JK Rowling is not good at world-building.
Anyway, I don't see why they don't just shoot every little subplot and hold the footage for future extended cuts. If they don't think they can bleed HP fans for 3 or 4 redundant DVD purchases, they're crazy.
Though what I really want is a Severus Snape spin-off, where Alan Rickman teaches potions and fights crime while berating his students, Gregory House style. Who wouldn't watch that?
-
Order of the Phoenix is where the books start coming apart, I think. JK Rowling is not good at world-building.
Anyway, I don't see why they don't just shoot every little subplot and hold the footage for future extended cuts. If they don't think they can bleed HP fans for 3 or 4 redundant DVD purchases, they're crazy.
Though what I really want is a Severus Snape spin-off, where Alan Rickman teaches potions and fights crime while berating his students, Gregory House style. Who wouldn't watch that?
Most people agree that the series took a significant leap with books 4-6 so you may be alone in that regard. I love OOTP although I can see why people would be upset with the million subplots.
-
I like the setting/atmosphere colombus provided in the first two - I only saw 3 of them, but the third was pretty ok.
-
I like the setting/atmosphere colombus provided in the first two - I only saw 3 of them, but the third was pretty ok.
I went to the theater to see the first two (shhh) and at the time I thought they were good enough. While they were definitely the weakest films so far, and not good looking back, I still like them. If only because of the characters whom I love so much. And Richard Harris was great as Dumbledore
I didn't see the third movie in the theater because I figured it would be just like the other two, but when I finally saw it I was really impressed. It's a GREAT fantasy movie that really has a life of its own outside of the series. Anyone can watch it and enjoy it without being too confused (although I guess the time travel thing may confuse some people)
-
Most people agree that the series took a significant leap with books 4-6 so you may be alone in that regard. I love OOTP although I can see why people would be upset with the million subplots.
The feeling among the actual literate set, to the point that there's any sort of consensus, is that the books peaked around 4, before Rowling got all epic with it.
Megan McArdle set off some discussion about this among the more political bloggy types (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/megan_mcardle/2007/07/harry_potter_the_economics.html) with her article on the economics of HP. McArdle's a crazy randroid, but she hits on something: Rowling does not do a good job of creating a believable magic world with solid internal logic and all that stuff.
-
Most people agree that the series took a significant leap with books 4-6 so you may be alone in that regard. I love OOTP although I can see why people would be upset with the million subplots.
The feeling among the actual literate set, to the point that there's any sort of consensus, is that the books peaked around 4, before Rowling got all epic with it.
Megan McArdle set off some discussion about this among the more political bloggy types (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/megan_mcardle/2007/07/harry_potter_the_economics.html) with her article on the economics of HP. McArdle's a crazy randroid, but she hits on something: Rowling does not do a good job of creating a believable magic world with solid internal logic and all that stuff.
I could add on to this, too. There was some big inconsistency I was mulling over the other day, and I always trip on a new one when reading the books.
Also, PD, if you sat through Goblet of Fire, you will appreciate the new movie on at least some level. OotP is definitely an improvement on it.
-
Most people agree that the series took a significant leap with books 4-6 so you may be alone in that regard. I love OOTP although I can see why people would be upset with the million subplots.
The feeling among the actual literate set, to the point that there's any sort of consensus, is that the books peaked around 4, before Rowling got all epic with it.
Megan McArdle set off some discussion about this among the more political bloggy types (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/megan_mcardle/2007/07/harry_potter_the_economics.html) with her article on the economics of HP. McArdle's a crazy randroid, but she hits on something: Rowling does not do a good job of creating a believable magic world with solid internal logic and all that stuff.
You'll always find a small group of dissent, but from what I've read she has continued to get praise for the later books - and even more so with books 4-6. 4 is more "epic" than 5 and 6 anyway, and is the least traditional (although DH is even more less tradtional)
Are there any spoilers in that article?
-
Small group of dissent? Outside of the crazed Potter world, it is almost universally agreed upon that Rowling peaked with Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire.
-
No, it came out July 20th, and focuses on the economics of the HP books (like how the Weasleys could possibly be poor).
Anyway, saying 4 was more epic than 5 or 6 just signals that you're talking completely out of your ass to defend a piece of fiction you've tied your ego to, just like "The first book owes nothing to Roald Dahl!" before it.
-
My main grievance with the films is that they've done an awful job of setting up Voldemort as a legitimate antagonist and none of the films prior had a heavy that came close to endangering "The Boy Who Lived". They were very much stories about what kind of mysteries that Harry would unknowingly walk into and survive out of dumb luck and his lineage. In that essence, I dug that he is isolated and lost his rock star status at the beginning of this film; the book describes Potter as a tortured kid that that is transported to a world where he's not a loser for once, whereas the films kind of make Potter out as a dumb, popular kid. This is the first film where it felt like Potter actually worked to save his life and/or friends for once, instead of relying on Hermoine or Dumbledore.
Funny I always felt like the books played him out to be a dumb popular kid who survived on being rich, famous and an athlete. I guess there was one of the four books where he got framed for some shit, but he emerged and ended up more popular and annoying than before.
-
Alan Rickman, for the record, is pretty cool in Perfume, although he isn't in it a whole lot. He does get to slap a bitch in it, though.
-
Alan Rickman's cool in EVERYTHING.
Harry isn't a great character. He's basically an avatar for the reader in the first book, saying "WOW! LOOK AT THAT!" to all the fantastic things happening around him. Which makes him a standard Roald Dahl type hero, and is fine, but in the later books he gets written as more and more of a Mary Sue.
-
I'll go as far as to say that Harry is piss-poor character. He isn't very likeable and Rowling struggles to give him an identity throughout the books.
-
yeah, i really can't tell what rowling wanted to do with harry -- initially everyone acts like he's going to be a great wizard, but it's clear that hermione is light years beyond him. his supposed adolescence is nothing but a series of tantrums, and he remains utterly clueless throughout the entire series until someone dispenses a crucial piece of information to him. harry is a cipher with a gland problem, and the series operates entirely on deus ex machina.
-
yeah, i really can't tell what rowling wanted to do with harry -- initially everyone acts like he's going to be a great wizard, but it's clear that hermione is light years beyond him. his supposed adolescence is nothing but a series of tantrums, and he remains utterly clueless throughout the entire series until someone dispenses a crucial piece of information to him. harry is a cipher with a gland problem, and the series operates entirely on deus ex machina.
No- don't you get it? He's powerful because he knows how to LOVE!
-
Love > Magick
-
No, it came out July 20th, and focuses on the economics of the HP books (like how the Weasleys could possibly be poor).
Anyway, saying 4 was more epic than 5 or 6 just signals that you're talking completely out of your ass to defend a piece of fiction you've tied your ego to, just like "The first book owes nothing to Roald Dahl!" before it.
4 is considerably less traditional than 5 and 6, and I would argue its more epic because it reveals a larger portion of the magical world, mainly through the Triwizard Tournament and the wizard cup. 5 doesn't reveal a much larger world than that; yes you get a view of the Ministry, but book 4 had already established the politics of it. Now, with book 6 you have an argument because here you get a glimpse into the heart of the story through Riddle's childhood. This is capped off with chapters such as The Cave, which are very untraditional in the sense that they're large scale adventure bits. This ultimately culminates in the last battle at Hogwarts, which came into being due to a plot revealed in the previous book (the Room of Requirement and the vanishing cabinet).
Book 7 is much larger than all of them, and offers a glimpse into even more areas, some of which that have been hinted at (Gringotts), others not so much.
My fingers are shaking right now; I just finished chapter 31 (Battle for Hogwarts) and I'm in shock, while also in awe. I knew something was going to happen :( :( :(
-
I admit that I got crossed up, and forgot all the tournament stuff was in the fourth book (they sort of blend together for me). So yeah, that book was the first one to introduce the larger, more ambitious scope.
In any case, the series has definitely been trending towards bigger stories that encompass more people, and that's a big weak point. Hogwarts works a lot better as a version of Willy Wonka's factory, a fantastical escape for kids where anything's possible. It doesn't work as one cog in a larger universe.
When it comes to writing about a magic civilization in the macro sense, Rowling's basically Piers Anthony.
-
I admit that I got crossed up, and forgot all the tournament stuff was in the fourth book (they sort of blend together for me). So yeah, that book was the first one to introduce the larger, more ambitious scope.
In any case, the series has definitely been trending towards bigger stories that encompass more people, and that's a big weak point. Hogwarts works a lot better as a version of Willy Wonka's factory, a fantastical escape for kids where anything's possible. It doesn't work as one cog in a larger universe.
When it comes to writing about a magic civilization in the macro sense, Rowling's basically Piers Anthony.
It's good we're having a nice discussion. I'm heading off to read another chapter soon, but I like this.
Books 1-3 were much more intimate than 4-6; as you said, the number of characters at that time was basically kept to a minimum. Instead of creating new major characters, Rowling simply "re-introduced" older characters, just in a new light. Ginny (Chamber of Secrets) and Sirius (Prizoner of Azkaban) are the best examples of this; both were introduced in the first book, but fleshed out later. Book 4 introduces a whole slew of new characters while also giving a glimpse at the political workings of the world. The Ministry is no longer a distant presence that creates excuses for Harry or serves as comic relief; it is now the underlining structure on which books 5, 6, and 7 are effected by.
I won't talk much about book 7 so as not to spoil anything, but Hogwarts really takes a backseat in book 6. It's definitely there, but its involvement in the book's underlining themes and plot begins to fade. In many ways its the center of book 5, as is the Ministry; imo book 5 is perhaps the most political of the books. With book 7...I will say that in the middle of the book it loses some of its appeal as important supporting characters begin to disappear for long periods of time. Whereas everyone was once brought together - either by Hogwarts or Christmas or whatever - the war begins to separate everything and everyone