The films are actually remarkably unportentous, certainly compared with more critically-acclaimed franchises such as The Lord of the Rings, or even the X-Men; Dumbledore has nothing on Gandalf’s pompous monologues, and “he who must not be named” is usually referred to as the less self-important “you know who”. Goblet of Fire is one of the best fantasy films I have seen in the last few years, with plenty of comedy and marvellous action sequences.

In the latest film – admittedly inferior to Goblet of Fire – so much has been cut from the mammoth novel that some scenes were bound to be oblique if the film was to play to audiences in one seating. The lack of conclusion to the Cho Chang storyline (and the lack of screentime for significant new characters, such as Tonks and Kreecher) are unfortunate casualties. In Milo’s critique, no mention is made of Imelda Staunton, who even the most devout Harry-hater must admit is marvellous in every scene she is in.

Harry dropping the prophesy (surely a spoiler warning is in order?) is completely unexpected, and a brave move from Rowling (the blogger’s critique on this point should be aimed at the author). And given there are two more films to go, it clearly isn’t going to “end in butterfingers”, just as the Lord of the Rings trilogy doesn’t end with the conclusion of part two – 3 hours, and it all ends with Gollum pondering “we could let her do it”. A bit of a baked bean ending when quoted out of context.

The sad truth seems to be that slavishly copying the books is the best option left to the films. Philosopher’s Stone and Chamber of Secrets both did this, and captured the spirit of the books beautifully. But they were too long. Prisoner of Azkaban – the worst of the films, despite what the critics say – was slicker, tried to be hipper – and crap. Alas, the films are doomed to fail – they’ll either be too long or incomprehensible. In an ideal world they would work brilliantly as a television series, but of course no one can afford this unless the budget is slashed.

And whilst Emily Watson’s Hermione is a weak link, all three children – especially Radcliffe – have improved hugely since the franchise began, and given the cardboard characters – again, a fault of the books rather than the films – they do a fine job for the most part. Plus, to address Scot’s point, Harry Potter has got bad reviews since the first book went on sale, so slating the current film is no new phenomenon. Whilst the films are not perfect, they are fun, exciting and – a rarity in a children’s franchise – complex. It’s just a shame that they play, albeit necessarily, to those who have read the novels. And what’s wrong with calling them novels? They ain’t freaking magazines.

And Roger Moore did an astonishing seven Bond films before they stopped him.

Other film series have gone on for much longer with the same lead actor - the Charlie Chan films, for example. Though, given that Sean Connery ALWAYS plays the same character whatever film he is in, I suppose he wins out in the end.

PS: Scot, I promise to save my poop. After all, the new Transformers film is out soon, and I might be needing it….

However, I am not a fan of the films. THE PHILOSOPHERS’ STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS were the direct cinematic transfer of the book, faults and all. By the time they got to THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN they realised they needed a proper director and the bizarre choice of Alphonso Cuaron popped up. You know what, it was a superb choice. The book was trimmed substantially, the acting improved and there was an attempt to make something that worked as a film. The first two just relied on putting what happened into the book on the screen and hoping that people would be happy with that.

THE GOBLET OF FIRE was a disappointment after the third film, but an excellent director did a decent job considering the mess of the book that formed the source material.

And so to THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX. I really liked this movie. This book was the heftiest by far and vast swathes have been mercifully excised to create the shortest film, and wow, has that improved the Harry Potter experience. There are still weaknesses. I think you really have to have read the book to get the importance of some events and characters; the only person in the movie who has any sort of dramatic arc is Harry himself - the rest are just to keep you entertained along the way; if you have only seen the previous films, I cannot imagine that some of this will make sense. If you have not seen any of the films then you need to stay away - this is not the place to start watching.

I was very impressed with the direction. The great elephant in the room with Harry Potter is the truth that the acting is, well, a bit crap. OK, the great and good of the English acting crowd all throw in their hats with great dignity (Gary Oldman dominates every shot he is in, although newcomer Helena Bonham Carter only gets to shriek a little), but the kids… oh dear… Excepting Rupert Grint aka Ronald Weasley, there has been more wood on display in this series than in all the Ikeas in Europe. Somehow though, David Yates has managed to coerce actual acting out of at least 75% of the kids in this movie. Alongside that, he has managed to integrate a sense of visual wit and imagination quite separate from the books (and no, I will never refer to them as novels).

Re-reading this, it looks like I am damning with faint praise. In a way I am, but I thoroughly enjoyed my two hours in the cinema watching this and that is a lot more than I can say for at least three of the other Harry Potter dirges. Compared to some other sequel tripe I have sat through this summer (looking at you Pirates of the Caribbean and your damn interlude), HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX is a masterpiece of popcorn.

On a related note, can anyone else think of any film series of such length, which has managed to retain the same cast playing the same characters? James Bond comes close I suppose, but did they ever do more than 5 in a row with the same Bond?

As I ranted once it was all over, and after I’d finished glaring at the smattering of applause(!) in the cinema - it looked good, the acting was fine, but the script was an absolute stinker. Around 50% of the scenes made no sense whatsoever. Motivation and reason were far, far away. And the fight scenes near the end may have worked in the book but were just bizarre on screen - why don’t you evil death eaters (silly name) just kill the kids? Or at least incapacitate them. Please! Instead, you’ll fly after them and try and frighten them while the kids blast you with stun spells. Terrible terrible. I never want to talk about again. I wanted to walk out. That hasn’t happened since the Flintstones (don’t ask).