Harry Potter y el cáliz de fuego

I must say I am extremely sick of this movie, though not for conventional reasons. Nine reels is a lot to put together and screening a three hour movie can be exhausting, especially when you're trying to write several term papers during the same week it is coming out. You see, I am a projectionist and getting this movie ready for a midnight show was part of my job. I realize that the fact that I was paid $14.50/hr to watch this movie on Wednesday night might give rise to feelings of jealousy among some, but I am currently wishing I could manage to get more than five hours of sleep sometime soon.

All that said I must say this was by far the greatest Harry Potter film so far. Although it was long, it did not drag on. It had a nice, tight feel to it. It progressed from scene to scene with a smoothness that I find to be lacking in many movies adapted from books. The acting has noticeably improved from the first three, and the more adult feel to this one really drew me in. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this movie was the fact that it felt like a mix of genres. It had an epic feel to it. After all it is about good v. evil and battling the dark wizards, etc. This movie,however, also felt like a high school movie. It had the issues of coming of age, which makes sense as the characters begin to mature. Ultimately it came off a lot more loyal to the book in theme than I think the last one did. (The first two, while loyal, I found to be relatively campy and childish.)

This movie, like many, does have its shortfalls. I believe that Dumbledore was portrayed as a little too intense, like an old Al Pacino. Instead of the benevolent, kind, and good-humored old man I have always loved in the books. As someone that has read the books, I must say another shortfall is that this movie banks on familiarity with the story. Having read the books, I found it very easy to follow, but I could understand how one who has not read the books may feel a bit lost, as some important information was left out and some back-story was left mostly unexplained.

All in all I would say this is definitely the best movie in this series so far, and if the next three are on par with this one then I would be content.

Based on one of the best books of the Harry Potter series, the film adaptation of 'Harry Potter and the Goblet' had a lot to live up to and I think it succeeded. As Potter fans will know, in GoF, Harry is now fourteen and in his Fourth Year at Hogwarts. When an ancient tournament between Hogwarts and two other European wizarding schools is held that year, a Seventh Year contestant is chosen from each school to compete but things go dramatically awry when Harry, three years too young to even be entered in the dangerous and challenging tournament, is somehow also chosen after his name is mysteriously nominated. GoF is a sharp turning point in the books as the tone darkens considerably and the characters themselves change from being rather wide-eyed innocent children to adolescents thrust the turbulent, uncertain adult world where being 'good' or even an innocent will not guarantee your survival. This shift is also reflected in the film, which was rated 12A (PG13 for Americans), the first of the HP films to be rated so high.

I have to say I did enjoy this film, although Prisoner of Azkaban remains my favourite of the four. Unlike the first two films, this did not attempt to condescend as much to small children in the audience. The tasks of the Triwizard tournament captured most of the thrills of the book, particularly the second water-based task where the merpeople were suitably creepy (now we know why none of the kids go swimming in the summer term!), but the first task over-ran for a minute or two more than needed. Light romance was touched upon yet wasn't over-emphasised and the Yule Ball will please those who enjoyed the scenes in the book but audience members over the age of sixteen might find teens ogling each other a tad dull (Hermione is very out-of-character and the scene does drag).

The acting of the adult cast is, of course, exemplary as always. Alan Rickman's Snape may only have had four or so scenes but he definitely made his presences known while Maggie Smith really captured the essence of McGonagall. Many people do miss Richard Harris' Dumbledore but I found that Michael Gambon has done an excellent job of moulding the role to make it his own. In GoF, Dumbledore feels very human in the way he carries the weight of the wizarding world on his shoulders and though he struggles at times, his concern for his pupils is paramount. I finally felt the close rapport between Dumbledore and Harry in this film that was missing in the previous three HP flicks. However, the prize has to go to Brendan Gleeson for his scene-stealing depiction of Mad-Eye Moody. Gleeson clearly enjoyed illustrating Moody's dangerous, feral edge.

The younger cast have also grown into their roles, improving from their previous outing. Rupert Grint, usually used to playing a comical and stupid Ron, had the chance to cut his acting teeth and show Ron's darker, bitter side and he did well. The Phelp twins have also improved dramatically. No longer do they come across as wooden cut-outs just reading from a cue-card and instead they are able to show the mischievous spontaneity of the Weasley twins. And I look forward to seeing more of Matthew Lewis, who was great at showing Neville's sensitive side without making him too klutzy. Out of the younger cast, though, Dan Radcliffe is the one who has progressed the most. In PoA, he was awful in the 'he was their friend' scene so he seems like another boy in the harrowing graveyard scene and the aftermath, depicting Harry's anger, feelings of vulnerability and grief. He still stumbled on occasion in other scenes but I, at last, have faith he might be able to do the Harry of 'Order of the Phoenix' justice when the time comes.

The film did lose points on a few issues. Although most of the young cast have expanded their acting skills as they have gone on, Emma Watson is waning. She has a tendency of over-enunciating her lines and being too melodramatic, which worked in 'The Philosopher's Stone' when Hermione was condescending and childishly bossy, but is just annoying by this point. She spent most of the film sounding as if she was on the verge of tears or in a hormonal snit, even in scenes which were not remotely sad or upsetting. There was also a choppy feel to the film, as if Steve Kloves struggled to properly condense the book into a two-hour film. Those who haven't read the books will have missed quite a bit and those who have read the books will feel the film is very rushed. Molly Weasley and the Dursleys were also missed, especially since I think Julie Walters would have been exceptional in the Molly/Harry interactions that take place aftermath of the graveyard scenes of the novel as the film didn't round off in a manner that reflected a boy had died and Harry would be traumatised by what he saw.

I think most Potter fans will enjoy this although they will remark that it could have been better. Non-fans will also get something from this film as I imagine it is hard not to be captivated by the many action and dramatic events but they may find themselves muddled by the story. I would recommend that parents of young children either keep away or, at the very least, check out the film firstly before deciding if their child is old enough to cope with it. When I went to see it, there was a small lad of four or five being dragged along and in the middle of a particularly fearsome incident, the silence of the moment was cut by a wee voice crying, 'Mummy, I'm scared' so, parents, be warned.

First, a confession: I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a Potter fan, so I felt something of a fraud as I sneaked into a media screening of Goblet of Fire while many bona fide devotees have had to wait it out.

My interest in the franchise has thus far consisted of sitting through the first film in a freezing cinema wondering what all the fuss was about, and skim-reading the second book on an aeroplane to appease my curiosity as to the young wizard's appeal. I have long been astonished at the sheer scale of Rowling's achievement, and while I may treat many of my fellow commuters - the regressive thirty-somethings who are buried in her CHILDREN'S novels on the tube – with something approaching contempt, I realise her success is very much deserved. It's a bit excessive though, and frankly enough to reduce any impoverished wannabe writer to a jealous whimper.

Being an outsider who will undoubtedly get all the names wrong, I won't spend long here on the plot, save to say it revolves around the "tri-wizard tournament" – an epic and dangerous event that threatens to split Hogwarts loyalties asunder.

Instead, I'll concentrate on the performances, and, first up, I fear I must say I have reservations over the casting of Harry. Daniel Radcliffe looked an inspired choice after the first film – floppy hair and specs and an earnest charm - but I'm afraid to say, he is an ordinary actor. The trouble with hiring an eleven year old for a film project as massive as this, is you are rather in the lap of the gods when it comes to puberty. It's a bit like doting on a baby puppy and then being terribly upset a year or so later when a bloody great Alsatian smashes up your living room and defecates on your carpet.

Much better are his faithful chums. Rubber-faced Ron (Rupert Grint) handles the adolescent grunting with considerably more aplomb than Radcliffe, and he also says "bloody hell" a lot which elicited gasps of delight from some of the younger viewers around me. There is some nice chemistry between him and the hitherto gawky and posh Hermione who has blossomed into a snooty English rose, and the theme of teenage angst runs deep throughout the excellent supporting cast.

"Dark and difficult times lie ahead" is the smartly worded tagline, and one gets the impression Harry is far more comfortable dodging fire-breathing dragons, than he is tiptoeing around the opposite sex. The growing pains are neatly handled by director Mike Newell, himself no stranger to the awkward whimsy of love's young dream after sterling work on Four Weddings and a Funeral – Indeed, many of the light-hearted interludes around the school dance scenes betray Newell's penchant for bittersweet comedy and romantic pratfalls.

And, of course, the adults in the cast zoom around with a zest inspired by their youthful co-stars. Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid fashions an unlikely romance with a giantess played by Frances De La Tour; Michael Gambon is a sprightly Dumbledore; and Gary Oldman's screen time is restricted to one scene where he thrusts his head through the burning coals of a roaring fire to offer Harry some sage advice. Perhaps they should have simply hired a stunt double and saved on his fee.

Most impressive of all is Ralph Fiennes who is genuinely terrifying as the evil Lord Voldemort. Fiennes is ably assisted in his wickedness by a suitably conniving Timothy Spall and also the most fearsome set of nostrils to grace the silver screen since Hannibal Lector flexed his snout at Agent Starling in The Silence of the Lambs.

It is pretty stirring stuff – visually extraordinary in places – and nicely paced. Potterfiles will love it and detractors may just find their criticisms stuck in their throats. However, my disdain for adults who proudly devour the novels on public transport without any sense of shame remains absolute.

7/10

This fourth installment of J.K. Rowling saga , once again our friends Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) , Ron (Rupert Grint) , Hermione (Emma Watson) are at Hogwar school and their enemies Braco Malfoy (Tom Felton) , his father (Jason Isaacs) along the dark forces , the Death Eaters and Lord Voldemor . Besides , appearing the ordinary teachers , such as : Minerva (Maggie Smith) , Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) , Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) , along with a meddler journalist (Miranda Richardson) , Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) , a new rare professor (Bernard Gleeson) , and , of course , Rubeus (Robbie Coltrane) . Here a legendary event takes place and Harry Potter competes in the Triwizard tournament , in which young people champions are selected , they are representatives from three wizarding colleges confronting in a series of dangerous tests : challenging dragons , horrible sea creatures and a spooky maze .

This episode contains loads of adventures and action and it is such deeply riveting and emotional as its predecessors ; besides , getting lots of bombastic special effects and several images have you on the edge of your seat , including an amazing array of technical bizarre creatures , a breathtaking combat between Harry and a dragon , a rescue from sea deep of his friends fighting creepy , scary monsters and an exciting battle between Harry and the Dark Lord and his henchmen , the Death Eaters. The picture displays stimulating action set pieces illuminating the full-blown adventures , blending wizardry , witchcraft , horror , humor and being extremely amusing and enjoyable . Darkest even than previous chapters ; it is more thrilling ,more dramatic , more touching and more exciting . The motion picture was splendidly filmed with sensational production design by Stuart Craig and a colorful cinematography by Roger Pratt . Phenomenal and spectacular musical score by Patrick Doyle , substituting to the great master John Williams.The movie was magnificently directed by Mike Newell .The film is recommended to Harry Potter saga lovers as well as neophyte who didn't have seen prior episodes.

I'd hate to face the task of condensing a 700 page book into a movie - even a two and a half hour movie, but they've managed pretty well with this installment of the adventures of Harry Potter.

For fans of the movies, you'll find this installment a little darker, a little grittier, and a little more involving. The characters are growing up and are now facing more adult situations with more adult outlooks.

For fans of the books, you should find this adaptation a commendable reflection of Rowling's tale. Naturally, some parts had to be modified or cut entirely - there's no way to avoid that without making it a 10 hour movie - but the parts that were cut were either not critical to the story line, or will be easy to account for in the films to come. Unless you're an obsessive nitpicker about every last detail, you should find this a satisfactory film version of Goblet of Fire.

Goblet of Fire works well as a stand-alone film, as a film version of Rowling's book, and is in my opinion quite easily the best Potter movie yet.