When Harry Potter’s name emerges from the Goblet of Fire, he becomes a competitor in a grueling battle for glory among three wizarding schools – the Triwizard Tournament. But since Harry never submitted his name for the Tournament, who did? Now Harry must confront a deadly dragon, fierce water demons and an enchanted maze only to find himself in the cruel grasp of He Who Must Not Be Named. In this fourth film adaptation of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series, everything changes as Harry, Ron and Hermione leave childhood forever and take on challenges greater than anything they could have imagined.The latest entry in the Harry Potter saga could be retitled Fast Times at Hogwarts, where finding a date to the winter ball is nearly as terrifying as worrying about Lord Voldemort’s return. Thus, the young wizards’ entry into puberty (and discovery of the opposite sex) opens up a rich mining field to balance out the dark content in the fourth movie (and the stories are only going to get darker). Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral) handily takes the directing reins and eases his young cast through awkward growth spurts into true young actors. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe, more sure of himself) has his first girl crush on fellow student Cho Chang (Katie Leung), and has his first big fight with best bud Ron (Rupert Grint). Meanwhile, Ron’s underlying romantic tension with Hermione (Emma Watson) comes to a head over the winter ball, and when she makes one of those girl-into-woman Cinderella entrances, the boys’ reactions indicate they’ve all crossed a threshold.
But don’t worry, there’s plenty of wizardry and action in Goblet of Fire. When the deadly Triwizard Tournament is hosted by Hogwarts, Harry finds his name mysteriously submitted (and chosen) to compete against wizards from two neighboring academies, as well as another Hogwarts student. The competition scenes are magnificently shot, with much-improved CGI effects (particularly the underwater challenge). And the climactic confrontation with Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes, in a brilliant bit of casting) is the most thrilling yet. Goblet, the first installment to get a PG-13 rating, contains some violence as well as disturbing images for kids and some barely shrouded references at sexual awakening (Harry’s bath scene in particular). The 2 1/2-hour film, lean considering it came from a 734-page book, trims out subplots about house-elves (they’re not missed) and gives little screen time to the standard crew of the other Potter films, but adds in more of Britain’s finest actors to the cast, such as Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody and Miranda Richardson as Rita Skeeter. Michael Gambon, in his second round as Professor Dumbledore, still hasn’t brought audiences around to his interpretation of the role he took over after Richard Harris died, but it’s a small smudge in an otherwise spotless adaptation. –Ellen A. Kim
Buy “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire “ For Only $5.98
April 11, 2008
#1
Before I start my review, I must disclaim that I am a huge fan of J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” series. That being said, I am also a big fan of the movies based on the series. There have been many complaints that this movie didn’t convey the same texture as the book on which it’s based or that too much was left out. These statements, while true at base level, forget that the book in question is 730-some-odd pages long and had the film inlcuded every detail, it would have been one of the longest movies in history. So, if you are a fan of the books and have yet to see this movie, do your best to accept each medium as its own entity, as comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I thought that the young actors really stepped up their games in this installment and it was fun to see them dealing with all of their teen angst and such. The special effects are out of this world and, as always, the score is terrific. There are some wonderfully funny moments, as well as some truly heart-wrenching ones near the end of the film.
That said, I do think that this is a weaker film than “Prisoner of Azkaban”. I think that this weakness lies at the feet of the director, Mike Newell, who seemed intent on making this movie about time spent at a British boarding school. Mr. Newell made the movie with the school being the central element and all of the magic and adventure being secondary, while it’s really the other way around. Because the focus was on the social issues at school (a huge amount of time is spent on the “Yule Ball” –like a Christmas Prom–and other such issues), a lot of very important details were left out. If you haven’t read the book, it’s probable that you won’t have any idea why anything is happening, as the film jumps all over the place. I have read the book several times and knew what was going on, so it didn’t matter much to me. The director and screenwriter opted to leave out a lot of integral details, but kept many either fringe details or included something that was important to the book (like “Daily Prophet” gossip reporter Rita Skeeter), but didn’t explain or devote enough time to it so as to beg the question, “What was the point of that??”
Overall, I think that this is an enjoyable movie. If Amazon would allow a review of 3.5 stars, I probably would have ranked it there, rather than give it the four stars that I did. As long as you go into watching the movie with the expectation that it is not the book come to life–just a movie, folks–then you’ll enjoy it. If you are the sort who gets bent out of shape when a movie doesn’t live up to its parent book, you’ll probably be disappointed.
April 11, 2008
#2
Uuughh. Like all the Harry Potter movies, this movie was absolutely RUBBISH. It was a complete joke. And the acting, oh come on. Do you people have eyes?????????????? Both Daniel Radcliffe and Emma watson are HORRIBLE. Rupert has the best potential of the three, even though that’s not much. The one actor in this movie I found was actually okay was Rob Pattinson or something, a shame his character died.
I read the books, I’m fan Numbahr Uno when it comes to the books. I’ve read them about a thousand times. I’ve even seen the movies a thousand times, though they are certainly not the best movies in the world.
But this, this was the absolute worst. What the hell was with the dragon chase scene??? It was all about showing off the special effects and that it what bothers me. Lord of the Rings for example was made to tell a story. Harry Potter movies are made to earn money.
And luckily the next movie has a different screen writer, it still give me some small amount of hope, maybe Movie 5 will sweep me of my feet. But that’s probably not going to happen.
April 11, 2008
#3
All of the Harry Potter movies (as well as the books) are artless adolescent, “no-rules” fantasy composed of pubescent cultural drek of interest only to those newly familiarizing themselves with incipient secretions of estrogen and testosterone. Mature adults, stay away unless you consider gagging and retching forms of entertainment.
The most recent (…Goblet of Fire) is actually the worst – mostly for the length of time (2.5 hrs.) it takes to pass. Rawlings is no Tolkien, and director Newell provided no improvements. The special effects – especially flying – are too fast and furious to be appreciated as anything but blurs. If you must see this travesty, complete the experience with stale popcorn.
April 11, 2008
#4
This damn author of these books should realize that she is just copying the Star Wars storyline, get some of your own ideas lady
April 11, 2008
#5
Harry Potter sucks. Go watch something actually worth watching… like Star Wars, Firefly, or Serenity.