Well Played, Sir. Well Played.

The family traveled to the nearest multiplex to see Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. The Potter movies are an interesting case. The first two, directed by Chris Columbus, were literal, Cliff's Notes versions of the books, fodder produced to cash in on the phenomenally popular books. They had the gloss and plasticity of Hollywood "feel good/family" blockbusters, but the first one was palatable and it was great to see so many outstanding British thespians involved and giving their all (Why are great British actors, like Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman, able to do material like Potter straightforwardly, without the winking/nudge-nudge to which Americans are so prone?).

The third film, Prisoner of Azkaban, was the watershed moment. The books were getting longer and more complex. The success of the first two books had given J.K.Rowling the ability to tell her story at any length she wanted. Would it be possible to adapt an 850 page book into one film? After Columbus declined to direct (a decision worthy of flowers from me), Alfonso Cuaron accepted the challenge. I was ecstatic. Most people knew Cuaron from Y Tu Mama Tambien, but I remembered his transcendent version of A Little Princess, one of the best movies of the last two decades. Cuaron's changes in color palette (the shot of Harry looking out of the clock tower as his classmates depart for a snowy Hogsmeade weekend is clock-stopping in its starkness), his relocation of Hogwarts to a bleaker, more Scottish location, and his decision to get the actors into casual dress, so that they actually looked like students, were great, but the real revelation, the real turning point for Potter as film series, was his approach to adapting the story. Whole subplots, gone. Events reordered. Quidditch toned down. Cuaron broke free from the books and, paradoxically, became more true to their spirit. The Potter books are, at their hearts, great stories. I would entertain the notion that Rowling isn't a great writer, but she's a fantastic storyteller.

Cuaron's Azkaban was the most artistic of the films, but his approach freed Mike Newell to make Goblet of Fire as the action/adventure Potter. He and screenwriter Steve Kloves streamlined the unwieldy novel even further, lopping off huge chunks of exposition and subplot. Draco Malfoy, Harry's constant antagonist in the books, was present only as comic relief. Newell sped up the plot, making the movie race where the book often meandered (which is one of the great joys of books). The film focused on one thread--the Tri-Wizard Tournament. While not as atmospheric as Azkaban, Goblet of Fire furthered the notion of the Potter films as their own works of creative imagination, not just visualizations of Rowling's prose.

David Yates is the director of Order of the Phoenix. I knew nothing of his previous work. At least new screenwriter Michael Goldenberg had the 2003 live-action adaptation of Peter Pan under his belt. There was the usual noise about casting ("Natalia Tena will be Tonks!"), but by this time the cast has grown so large and the plot so dense that the movie consists of Daniel Radcliffe and a huge number of cameo performances . Ron and Hermione are little more than supporting players. They're not really on screen much more than Cho Chang (Katie Leung), Harry's first girlfriend (By the way, if the series has compacted Harry and Cho's relationship as it seems, then the filmmakers have improved on the books). This really is Radcliffe's show.

Except for one other role.

Casting can be 90% of a movie. OotP features Rowling's one great stand-alone villain, Dolores Umbridge, a petty tyrant who hides her vicious soul behind an ostentatiously maternal facade. I'm a great believer that the hero's antagonist is as important as the hero. Dolores Umbridge must be believable, sweet, cruel, and loathsome.

Imelda Staunton was nominated for an Oscar for Vera Drake in 2004. I'm going to suggest something unthinkable to many here and say that her work in Order of the Phoenix is actually better. We love to praise grim, kitchen-sink dramas as the stuff of real acting and that movies like Phoenix are fluff that actors take to pay the bills. I've already mentioned how the cast of the Potter films give their all. One of the things I most enjoyed about OotP was the way people like Emma Thompson, Jason Isaacs, and Helena Bonham Carter attacked their fifty seconds of screen time with such brio. Alan Rickman wrings every drop from his limited screen time as Snape. If he was any drier, he'd crumble into powder.

Staunton rules, however. Umbridge's performance lifts Phoenix and, I think, pushes everyone else to bring their 'A' game.

Yates deserves much credit. The night-flight along the Thames is breathtaking. The set pieces are handled with gusto and Yates is able to keep spatial relationships straight (don't sneer at this; Michael Bay can't do it). The action isn't just disjointed visual noise; it has rhythm and perspective. Yates also handles CGI and SFX well, especially for someone whose background is TV and indie film. Many directors who are comfortable with small-scale pieces can be overwhelmed by the resources available on a big-budget production. Yates is not. He keeps a complex plot moving cleanly and keeps it understandable. I think that he has helped Harry Potter make that most difficult jump; Order of the Phoenix is a movie you can enjoy even if you haven't read the book.