Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Mike Newell, 2005, Grade: B+)

Harry Potter seems to have grown up. Even though the film is crammed with special effects, action scenes and spectacle, it's the characters and their interactions which make this film seem the best so far. The characters actually seem more real and their emotions seem more honest and open. The overall tone is also very dark, not only because of Harry's nightmares, but because the "three musketeers" seem to be splintering during much of the first half of the film. Of course, anytime you adapt a 700+ page novel into a two-and-a-half-hour-long movie, you're going to miss out on some details and shading, but I think director Mike Newell and screenwriter Steve Kloves did a good job, at least for an illiterate like me. I also enjoyed the new characters and the performances of Brendon Gleeson, Miranda Richardson and Ralph Fiennes.

What do you guys think?

For me, Goblet of Fire was the worst of the Potter films. It was very choppy and a lot was left out or incorrect from the books. Moreover, Michael Gambon does not portray the Dumbledore of the books like Richard Harris did.

Now before I get lambasted by everyone saying "how can you expect to fit everything from that big a book into a 2.5 hour movie?", I will say that you can't. I understand that some things must be left out. However, to me, they left out some interesting and somewhat critical plot lines from the original story (critical in the sense of being accurate to the book). For example, there was no mention of Dobby the house elf or Ludo Bagman. Also, many plot points were changed to fit the shorter format of film. And to leave out any footage of the actual Quidditch World Cup Final was very annoying (we only saw the team intros); that could have been a really cool scene.

As you can tell, my main beef is the inconsistency with the book. If I hadn't read any of the books, I would probably have liked it more but I still think the third film would be my favorite.

I agree with BC that the latest movie was choppy. I felt that the movie attempted to do too much, beyond what a single movie could accomplish and it showed. I felt that character development was sacrificed for the retelling of the book, the characters didn't seem to have as much life and believability as in past movies. For not having read the book, I still found that there was a noticable lack of the use of magic on the part of our favorite characters and some behaviors on the part of Harry and others that just didn't seem reasonable. The coming of age aspect of this movie wasn't really on par with most movies geared to adolescents, likely another piece that was sacrificed.

Was there much footage left out for placing in the film's dvd next year? I hope so, this chapter was more choppy than I'd expected. I suppose it's fine if one's only following the HP story via the movies and not the novels. I would have sat through at least another 45 minutes of the film if it meant adapting more different subplots from the book to the screen.

quote:

crazed posted:

Was there much footage left out for placing in the film's dvd next year? I hope so, this chapter was more choppy than I'd expected. I suppose it's fine if one's only following the HP story via the movies and not the novels. I would have sat through at least another 45 minutes of the film if it meant adapting more different subplots from the book to the screen.

I haven't kept up with the novels and even so, this movie was choppy for the fact that there was so much material and there appeared to be attempts to add as much material but with many of the scenes cut to the point where the movie lost its sense of proportion and the pacing and editing became uneven.

I think this movie is very great eventhough some of the part in the book arent copied but everybody watched this film. Right?

I still think that the movie is great though some are saying that the movie was "choppy" but for us who does follow HP through the movies, I know a lot enjoyed it as we have witnessed the adventures of Harry.

This was dissapointing i wanted to see the quiditch match, more of rita skeeta and much more.

I do completely understand what you're all talking about... They're starting to use the HP books as guidelines now I guess, while the movie follows its own rythym and what not. I still believe all in all it was my 2nd favourite HP movie (the 1st was my fave) and I hope to see how they change The Order of the Pheonix (the longest book so far in the series) into a 2.5 hour movie... things are about to get really interesting, i'm sure...

I agree with everything BC said.
I found it very choppy and inconsistent and although they couldn't fit everything in they could have done better in my opinion. I thought it was a very good film for enjoyment, but not if you are a fan of the books.
Ludo Bagman was actually an amazing character, although not a nice person, and I was looking forward to seeing him, I think they could have fitted him in.
PLUS does anyone else agree with me that Emma Watson acts A LOT with her eyebrows?? You should watch them when she talks its hilarious!

hey was it just me or during the movie that the actors didnt have that many lines. For me they really droped the ball on this movie. I hope that the order of the pheonix is better than the goblet of fire. oh ya is there a law where a movie can only be 2 hours and 30 min?

I loved the books, but not the Harry Potter movies because there are so many flaws.

If you were to live in this magical world, wouldn't you want to be the best at it and learn as much spells as you could to make life easier? How can anybody not care about "Magical Schooling" like Harry?

It seems like there are spells and magic for everything, and that those magic can't be really explained but presumed that it's there becasue this is a magical world, and so that makes me wonder why don't they use magic for everything? Why don't they not even waste energy walking but instead use magic to float or fly effortlessly from place to place all the time?

Why did Alaster "Mad Eye" Moody need an amputated leg? I guess he can't use magic to get a more real leg? I mean they can make a stadium that looks enourmous compared to "Star Wars" Senate Chamber all into the ground, and Moddy has to have a fake plastic leg that we today can make by technology?

And those licorice snappers...When Harry tries to eat it, it tries eat him? and scatters away? Why didn't those things scatter away before? How can you contain those things in a bowl? Did they use magic contain them in a bowl and only when you try to eat them they run away? Magic for everything?

In the triwizard maze, can't someone just fly over the maze? Use some spell or potion or broom to fly over to see where they are going? I mean when they shot the maze from overhead, it seemed endless, yet somehow each of the contestants were able to meet each other

In the end, Dumbledore and Snape used the "truth" potion on Barty Crouch to try to get him to reveal where the real Moody was hiding. But why didn't they ask him questions regarding Voldemort, his hidebouts, who the Death Eaters are, ect? This truth potion can do anything!

In reality, this magical world cannot exists because Rowling creats a world where it seems there is endless, limitless magic.

The Harry Potter films once had the potential to retain and enhance the essence of the spectacular plot of the books, but they have become quite horrible with the release of Goblet of Fire.

Yes, the effects are great. Yes, the angst is dark and appeals to a different audience. But this movie was eye candy. Key parts of the plot which were large parts of the book (and will be important to future books) were left out, and there were many inaccuracies that will cause some plot holes in future movies. I didn't think that it flowed well at all.

Overall, some of it was quality, but in terms of continuing the movie franchise and correctly portraying the books... It was horrible.

Eye candy it might have bee, but it can still be a good movie. If one walked into the theater not expecting much, one would not be disappointed!

If one walked into the theater with low expectations, one would have no right to critique the movie afterwards.

Not necessarily. I will set low standards on movies that I've expected to be mediocre, and thus I'm not disappointed at the end. If it's better than I thought it was going to be, that's already fair critique (Or rather, praise). If you went to a movie with unreasonably high expectations, well, you're going to be disappointed.