There are few places where I can comment on a review, so I will do it here. First, I'm a huge fan of the books. Regardless of their popularity, JK Rowling is a wonderful author and has painstakingly put together a 7 part mystery series that boggles the mind. I think the character of Snape is proof that she is a wonderous writer - for 10 years we have all wondered if Snape is good or bad, that is how expertly she has written that character. Even after the 6th book (I won't spoil it here, although I'm sure everybody knows right now), we still don't know if he's good or bad! That still boggles my mind!

But, on to the review. I'm glad the person liked the movie and appreciated it for what it was. I'm tired of hearing from critics that it's just a transition movie, or even that they couldn't follow the plot. Yes, in a way, it is a transition movie as it was a transition book. But I'm almost positive that once we get done with the 7th book we will find out that something in the story was important to the conclusion, because that's just how JK Rowling is. If you can't follow the plot and a 10 year old can, maybe you should get your IQ checked. Or take the time and read the books, too. Reading is fundamental, you know.

But, I have one beef with this review and with other ones that brought up similar points - I'm tired of hearing about how Umbridge and Ministry are like the current Administration. I heard that about the Star Wars movies, too (also a big fan) and I think that if that's the way you see it, then you completely don't understand what the bad guys are doing. And I'm not a registered Republican. I "decline to state". I voted for Clinton and regretted it. I voted for Bush and regretted it. Maybe I should just write in Mickey Mouse. I may get lucky!

Let me start with this - I don't think that JK Rowling was trying to make any particular political point about current administrations and politics in any country. I think she was making a general political statement against fascism and against racism of any kind.

Yes, Umbridge is a fascist. She wants control. You think that's only the Republicans? I have one phrase for you: Fairness Doctrine. What happened to free speech? How about another one: terrorist deniers. Bush planned 9/11? The terrorist won't want to hurt us if we just talk to them and give them what they want?

In the book (and the movie) the Ministry refuses to see the threat of Lord Voldemort's return (in fact they are denying he has returned at all) because they think it's made up by Dumbledore to seize control. BUT THE MINISTRY IS WRONG! Gee, who does that sound like? Simply remembering 9/11, 7/7, and the recent thwarted plot by the lovely Middle Eastern doctors shows that there is a threat and the threat was there BEFORE Iraq and will continue. So who is wrong? The reinstitution of the Order of the Phoenix is not so that the two sides can have a dialogue. Everyone knows that Voldemort's evil and a psychopath. No one wants to talk to him. Hell, the whole point of Harry is to "vanquish" him!

Umbridge doesn't want the "children" to use their wands to learn how to defend themselves because they don't need it in her opinion. Sound familiar - gun-control lobby anyone?

If you take the time to read the 6th book, you find that the public changed its mind about Harry and Voldemort and got rid of Fudge. Unfortunately, they replaced him with someone who is overly enthusiastic about catching the bad guys and has imprisoned someone all Harry Potter fans know to be innocent - Stan Shunpike (the guy on the Knight Bus). And they want to use Harry as a rallying point, which he refuses to do. Now, that does sound like some on the Right (I don't trust government at all, regardless of which party is running it, by the way) who, if you let them, would be herding all Arabs into camps like the Japanese in WWII (and who was running the government then? Um, yeah, a Democrat, which proves that both sides have their dark side) and trying to use military heroes as a rallying point (oh, yeah, they did that too with Iwo Jima . . . again, the Democrats. Well, maybe the military alone, I can't remember, but Roosevelt was a Democrat, or was it Truman; shit, I can't remember!).

Anyway, the point being, the critic is, of course, entitled to bring up the politics. Please refrain from sending me replies about freedom of speech (especially if you are a liberal, since you have no idea what that concept really means). I know he or she gets to say it. My point is to bring it into perspective and maybe critics will start THINKING before doing it again, especially when the connection is either weak or non-existent, and especially if it's obvious that the author wasn't going in that direction in the first place. It may have a political undertone, but to compare it with current events when it wasn't meant to be that way, is just pointless. And I think it's just a way of them infusing the review with their political views, which again, is their right, but takes away from their journalistic integrity. They get in a jab and they feel better for it, but unless they are going to write an essay on it (and believe me, Harry Potter fans have done this), and not a review, they should just not do it at all. Remember, just because you have the RIGHT to do it, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. That's called RESPONSIBILITY.

And I would say the same thing if someone were skewering a person or party that I agreed with, or if someone I generally agreed with politically were trying to use it to their advantage. I go to movies to be entertained, and unless it's supposed to have a specific political or social point, I don't need it drilled into my head by dozens of (liberal) critics. It's a cheap shot at best and takes away from what is an otherwise well-written, thoughtful review.

couldn't agree more

She doesn't read much, apparently.

Would you care to share your thoughts on Book 7 in our discussion thread? Always happy to have passionate readers on board.

Yeah, it doesn't sound like she does. Thanks for the offer. I will definitely check it out. I don't work for them or anything, and if you haven't already, check out Mugglenet.com. A great place for thoughtful essays and a huge Message Board that discusses, well, EVERYTHING!

And, yeah, I know...

Of course you do!

I agree with the several posters who think it's a stretch to compare DU with GWB. In particular, I think Dana is unclear about OWLs. My reading is that OWLs correspond to what used to be called "O-Levels" in Britain, which were standardized tests taken around the end of 10th grade (generally for 16 year olds). O-levels were introduced in the 1950's. Dana is way off base if she is trying to draw a parallel between OWLs and NCLB.

As far as I know, you are right about OWLs and O-levels (and then there are A-levels, too). This shows Dana's misunderstanding since she obviously didn't read the book, but is also the "fault" of the movie - in the book Umbridge did not conduct the OWLs; she, in fact, had nothing to do with them. The OWLs are administered by some other governmental department in the Harry Potter world. And the OWLs were pertinent to the story only in the sense, I think, of realism. I think the OWLs are taken in the Harry Potter world around the same time that young teens in the real world in Britain take their O-levels. Unless we learn something more in Book 7, they are, to me, of very little importance to the overall plot of the septology.

And I don't see how NCLB has anything to do with Bush personally. Even though I am an American and have been educated here, I have no concept of the educational system in this country and what its goals are. I think standardized testing of the American sort is a poor indicator of ability since it does not test knowledge, but the ability to take a test. But that is for another topic and another post.

But I get totally lost on their message board! I really wanted to see an analysis of what Dubbledore's cries when he's drinking the potion guarding Horcrux might imply.....

Book 7 is only 4 days away! I'm sure we'll get an answer. And I'm sure that they analyzed it somewhere. Since the Forums are closed you'll have to wait, but by then you'll likely have your answer!

"Yes, in a way, it is a transition movie as it was a transition book. But I'm almost positive that once we get done with the 7th book we will find out that something in the story was important to the conclusion, because that's just how JK Rowling is."

For what it's worth, rather than cutting house-elf Creacher down to a rew moments onscreen the producers wanted to eliminate him entirely. Creacher's two scenes were included after J. K Rowling warned them they'd run into trouble later on in the series if he wasn't at the least introduced in this film (and I don't recall his being a significant plot element in Half-Blood Prince.)

He was actually somewhat important in HPB (well, this is what I recall anyways. Unlike the other books, I never reread this one for, er, certain reasons).

and probably not the last. You must be new to Slate movie reviews if you didn't know about this. Stevens takes any opportunity possible to insert an Administration jab or Bush-bash. I'll be writing my own post, but suffice to say, this is standard issue for Stevens.