Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,913 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A huge, HUGE disappointment...
TheScraggler18 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Before I review the film, let me start off by saying that I am a fan of the Harry Potter films and have liked all of them up to this point. I'm not going to compare the movie to the book because, as most people know, they are two completely different animals. There is no way in heaven, hell or on God's green Earth that a book the size of Goblet of Fire could appropriate EVERYTHING that happened in the novel. I'm going to go by what I saw up on the screen.

What I saw up on the screen was a completely pedestrian effort that made no attempt at contributing style, substance, or character development to a series that was getting better and better with each progressive film. Scenes start and stop with no explanation. The big action scenes (especially the fight with the dragon) just begin with no buildup whatsoever almost as if you've stumbled upon someone playing the new Harry Potter video game. There is no sense of the passage of time at all. The Tri-Wizard tournament consists of only three challenges yet the competition seems to last the entire school year. Ron and Hermione have a blow-up at the Yule Ball because of his misplaced jealousy yet six months go by (the last day of school) and NOTHING MORE is ever said about it? She even tells him that he made a mistake by not asking her out and he lets SIX MORE MONTHS go by without saying a word?!

I can forgive the fact that a lot of these things are just glossed over because of the time crunch but I can not forgive situation after situation that has something happen only because the lead character needs to live. In the aforementioned fight with the dragon, Harry ends up hanging from a ledge 100 stories above the ground trying to reach his broom which is nearby. The dragon lands on the building and begins crawling down to him, slipping and sliding, peeling away shingles as it goes and it suddenly hit me. Harry is hanging from a ledge, defenseless, and the dragon is CRAWLING toward him. He is dealing with a creature who spits fire and who can FLY. One flap of its wings and a quick belch and Harry is crispy. The ONLY reason it doesn't is because Harry has to live.

And for that matter, no one in the film acts or reacts to a situation because it's in their nature to do so. They react in a certain way because that's what the script demands that they do, even if it completely goes against their character and everything that we know about them. When Hermione blows up at Ron, it seems to come out of nowhere. She seems to be mad because Ron didn't ask her and she wanted to go with him. But if this is true, why is she so happy about being there with a competitor from a rival school? And I don't just mean happy, I mean she is absolutely BEAMING when she arrives with him. And at one point, Dumbledore grabs Harry and shakes him violently demanding that he answer a question. My reaction to that was WTF??? Has Dumbledore ever shown that he's a violent person or that he would grab a STUDENT, yelling in his face? Of course not but he does it because the script says he has to. At one point in the film, a particular curse is brought up that allows you to control another being. That's kind of funny because it seems like every character in this film is being controlled by the screenplay, even if it means going completely against character.

But I guess the biggest disappointment for me was the confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. For someone who has been built up to be the devil, he sure is beaten easily at the end of this film (and by a quartet of ghosts, no less, which took cheesiness to a new level). The appearance of Voldemort is obviously supposed to be chilling but, in actuality, he looks like a hairless rat wearing a cape. The great Ralph Fiennes does everything he can but part of the appeal of this character is NOT seeing him in closeup in full daylight. He shows up when he wants and manages to let Harry live because he'd rather talk him to death instead of just cutting off his head while Harry is pinned down. But, of course, that's because Harry has to live and this final confrontation, again, seems ridiculous in retrospect.

The entire Tri-Wizard tournament seemed a little off-kilter to me. You perform tasks that test your abilities and try to do better than your opponents, but to what end? The final test consists of entering an ever-changing maze and the first competitor to find the trophy wins the tournament. So, even if you finish DEAD LAST in every other challenge, if you're the first to find the trophy, you win anyway. So, I ask you, WHAT'S THE FRIGGIN' POINT OF EVEN COMPETING IN THE OTHER CHALLENGES?????? Why put yourself in harm's way three times when you only HAVE to do it once?

Looking back, I just realized that you could completely skip this film and move right on to number five without missing a beat as long as you had someone to tell you two things about the film - Harry's interest in Cho and Voldemort being back, sort of. Here's hoping Order of the Phoenix doesn't follow the same path.
124 out of 156 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The worst Potter film yet.
cryptkeeper300018 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I have to say, I'm really disappointed in how this film turned out, especially in comparison with how great the book is. In my humble opinion, studios have to face up to the fact that two and a half hours is no longer sufficient to capture the scope and power of J.K. Rowling's universe.

In this film, Harry is forced to enter the Triwizard Tournament when someone unknown puts his name into the Goblet of Fire, a magical artifact that serves as the selector of competitors from each participating school. The special effects, as always, are spectacular, but they seem to be a cover for a lack of effort, not the results of a work of love.

All of the highlights of the book are shown; the Quidditch World Cup, Harry's battle with the dragon, the underwater world of the merpeople and the enchanted hedge maze are all done in exquisite detail. But this only seems to point up the movie's shortfalls. Michael Gambon has none of Richard Harris' quiet dignity or unflappable demeanor as Dumbledore; instead he seems to jump at every shadow and constantly be lost in the situation. The worst example of this is when he almost tackles Harry and desperately interrogates him on whether he put his name in the Goblet of Fire.

The movie skips from one event to the next with very little shown of the intervening time; action is held up as a replacement for character development and plot. Draco Malfoy, the cruel bully everyone loves to hate, is only shown twice through the whole film. Mad-Eye Moody, beautifully portrayed by Brendan Gleeson, is given little to do other than push Harry along. Nothing is explained of the backstory between Barty Crouch and his son, nor of Snape's past or what Dumbledore intends to do in the face of Voldemort's return.

Along that line, Ralph Fiennes' portrayal of Lord Voldemort suffers in much the same way Michael Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore does. Instead of the patient, cunning Dark Lord I'd come to expect from the first two movies, he is easily angered and has no control of his emotions or reactions, much less the situation. The scene should look hopeless, but it is obvious right from the start that Harry is more than Voldemort's equal. In the same scene, Timothy Spall seems almost bored in his portrayal of Wormtail, reacting to the loss of his hand with as little pain or emotion as one would scratching an itch. He literally doesn't seem to feel it.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Don't go expecting the magic of the first three films; it's gone, and only a severe rearrangement of cast, director and editor will bring it back if this franchise hopes to survive. If you must see it in a theater (and for all its faults, I recommend doing that at least once), see it in a matinée or better yet, wait until it's in a dollar theater.
82 out of 103 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
They got Dumbledore all WRONG!! and lots of other stuff too
Reed Armstrong18 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
First, the good news -- The special effects and the music in the this movie were the best yet! The underwater scenes especially were very well done.

The thing I disliked most about the movie is that Albus Dumbledore is not portrayed as the calm, wise old wizard he is in the books. Instead he is portrayed as a stormy, confused old man that doesn't have much of a clue what's going on. The character of Dumbledore is just WAY off. In one scene Dumbledore grabs Harry around the neck and shakes him, what's THAT about? The very thought of Albus Dumbledore being physically violent with a student is Absolutely ABSURD!! THATS NOT IN DUMBLEDORE'S CHARACTER!! Real Harry Potter fans all over are going to be outraged by this portrayal of Dumbledore. That pretty much ruined the movie for me. Another thing I didn't like about this movie was that so much of the real story was left out and/or changed. I guess i'm just spoiled because I'm so attached to the books... I know it's impossible to fit that whole story in a 2 1/2 hour movie, but there was some pretty good stuff that was left out.

If you're interested, Some of the things that weren't included in the movie that stuck out in my mind are:

  • The scene where Dudley eats the ton-tongue coffee and has an enlarged tongue. The Dursley's aren't included in this one at all.

  • Weasley's Wizard Weezes are not mentioned

  • The character Ludo Bagman is left out altogether

  • Winky isn't in the movie

  • S.P.E.W (Society for the Protection of Elfish Welfare), the Elf-rights activist group formed by Hermione, is left out altogether. And i thought this added a lot to the story throughout the book

  • Hagrid's humiliation at being exposed as a Half-giant is left out, and so of course is Harry, Ron, and Hermione coming to comfort him

  • no Blast-Ended Screwts

  • Hermione never catches Rita Skeeter in her animagus form (a beetle) as she does in the book

  • The scene in which Draco Malfoy is attacked on the train near the end isn't in the movie

  • The money Harry wins from the tournament and gives to Fred and George to go toward starting their joke shop is left out

  • The discussion with Fudge about Voldemort's return and his refusal to accept it is left out. I don't know how they're going to reconcile this one because Fudge's refusal to accept Voldemort is crucial in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

  • Sirius coming to Hogwarts to see Harry after the Third Task is left out

I'm still ticked off about Dumbledore... I'm starting to think that the people who make the movies just don't even read the books, because Dumbledore was SO out of character it made me angry. That bothers me more than anything else. I wouldn't rush to see this movie, wait until it comes out on DVD. Besides the good special effects and music, the movie was really bad. I Hope this review has been helpful.
292 out of 389 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A movie standing alone
h2o_ns19 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
There are a lot of things wrong with this movie and the part that's really wrong are the characters. 1000 words aren't enough to explain everything so I'll have to be brief. The worst character is Dumbledore. What version of him Kloves & Newell see I have no idea.. I mean, have they read the books at all? Would Albus Dumbledore, one of the greatest wizards alive manhandle one of his own students, especially his favorite student? I should think not. Would he use Harry as bait to lure Voldemort out of hiding? Same answer as above, NO. Gambon can't play him to save his life, Richard Harris could, he had the twinkle in his eyes... something that makes Dumbledore so special. Gambon just comes off as a lunatic.

If it isn't broken, why change it? So why change the first task? Why is Harry getting attacked by the dragon as soon as he leaves the tent? In the book he get's on his Firebolt first... he doesn't run around and almost die for 5 minutes. But then, finally he's in the air and I thought they'd stick to what's in the book but no. There is a chain instead of the dragon being a nesting mother, protecting its eggs. Instead of Harry luring the dragon to get airborne by gently guiding it upwards, teasing it, tempting it, we get this chain that breaks (What happened to the new security measures?) and a stupid dragon that forgets it can fly and has to climb instead.

The second task. This is where a part of me died inside. When Harry get's pushed in by Moody and doesn't re-surface at once Neville goes South Park. "Oh my god, I killed Harry Potter!". I'm sorry but Kloves, Newell or just about ANYONE involved in the making of this movie, how on earth could you let him say that! South Park quotes, although hilarious and one of my absolute favorite shows of all time has no right to be in a HP movie! Didn't you think we'd notice!? *exhale, calm down* The third task. What happened to the Sphinx? What about the Acromantula, we do know they exist thanks to Chris Columbus, why couldn't Harry help Cedric out there instead? So you skipped the Blast-Ended Screwts but you could have at least given us one of the other two...

The graveyard. This scene is very right and very wrong at the same time. Wormtail (Who was just awful in PoA) is just as bad here, and what is wrong with the other Death Eaters? Wormtail including the others are terrified that Voldemort is actually back! One of them flings himself onto the ground, crawling towards Voldemort while begging for forgiveness and kissing his robes, and get's tortured in the book. I think Ralph does a good job of Voldemort, since the make up or whatever they used makes it hard for him to really use his face which is basically the real problem. Where are those red slits for eyes? They're what really makes him creepy in the book... but then again (Yes Kloves & Newell, I'm pointing at you) where is his thirst for repayment of his 13 lost years? I didn't see it at all. There is also a BIG problem with the name Voldemort. It is said out loud at the QWC after the Death Eaters have had a go at the tents but no one shudders? They don't even use You-Know-Who, they actually say Voldemort? Where's the gasps when Dumbledore says Voldemort in front of the whole school? This is something established so early in the series, did you actually forget it?

Why is Harry wearing the newest Levis jeans... what happened to him wearing Dudleys old cast-offs? Perhaps Hermione has done some shopping for him since she apparently has taken a liking to pink clothes.. what was wrong with the blue dress she had in the book? Is blue a more expensive color to make a dress in or something? Or is it because we have to see her girlie side in GoF? First you took her bushy hair... now the pink dress.. I don't even want to know what's going to happen to her in Order of the Phoenix. Also, who the hell was Nigel? Why not use Colin or Dennis Creevey? They're already established characters for gods sake! What happened to Filch? When did he stop being bitter, evil and quite frankly a real bastard? He's the caretaker that wants to whip students, hang them from their ankles in the dungeons dammit, not some idiot jumping around and firing off cannons... and why on earth is McGonagall teaching them how to dance? Would she order a student to place his hand on her waist? I don't think so... even if you haven't read the books you must have noticed that she'd never do that.

I think the only good thing about this whole movie was Ginny. She showed me that she can act (She just didn't get much screen time in Chamber of Secrets, even if she was very promising), that she's sweet and has a temper! Finally a character that's actually working! Although I really did miss the moment where Ron suggests that she can go with Harry to the Yule-Ball. Sure, there's action, there's cool special effects but it's just not what the STORY is about and the story is what makes Harry Potter special, something more then your regular Hollywood script action movie. It, just like PoA get's an extremely well deserved 1.
74 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
See the movie for action, read the book for story
Hypno Toad22 November 2005
It's unfortunate that so much of the book needed to be cut for time and the movie is still nearly 2 1/2 hours long. The rule of movie editing is when you must trim for time you remove the sub-plots. A lot of story and character development isn't there.

But what is there is a great visual treat. If the movie leaves you with questions just read the book or get the audio version on CD. It would have taken a minimum of another half hour to flesh the movie out and that simply wasn't going to be done by a studio whose primary target is a younger audience. (Note how no studio wants to release an animated film longer than 90 minutes for this reason.) Perhaps Alphonso Curon would have done a better job of cohesion but there really isn't much more that could have been done in the time and the script would have been essentially the same. This movie begs for an extended Lord of the Rings type DVD, another 30 to 60 minutes to give you what was left out for theatrical release.

See it and spend the bucks to see it on the big screen.
276 out of 373 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
horrible idea to make it one movie and not two
Lucifer80018 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The movie ran as if it were a series of highlight clips from an actual film representation of the fourth harry potter novel. Details were thrown in haphazardly, if for no other reason than to bring a feeling of recognition from readers. If the viewer had not read the book, but only seen the previous two movies, s/he would not have understood the movie. The screenwriters created no semblance complicated plot, but rather the rather single-minded story of the three tasks in the tri-wizard tournament. All new characters were hardly introduced and remained quite one-dimensional, which is unfortunate; even old favorites got the shaft in this one. There was no time for more than two short scenes with either Malfoy, no magical lessons, and Dobby the house elf was completely absent. Crouch never disappeared, but his body was found dead. The cinematics in this case were atrocious: Harry appears in Dumbledore's chambers in the scene immediately after discovering Crouch's body, but then proceeds to tell him about his scar hurting and dreams rather than Crouch's discovery. There was no magical map, no late-night encounters with Moody, no discussion of Snape and Karkaroff's relationship, nor of Dumbledore trusting Snape. Seeing as this relationship will rise to be the single most prominent issue in the entire series, I was very disappointed to find it was ignored in favor of large and ineffective theatrics, such as a hedge maze without any traps, only shifting walls and evil roots, an extremely obnoxious modernized yule ball, and a pointlessly drawn out dragon chase scene. Dumbledore's lines and the directing of his acting made him look like an old, bumbling fool, rather than the clever, most-powerful-wizard on the planet, the only person of whom Voldemort is afraid. The writers decided to add Crouch Jr. into Harry's dreams, completely removed the second house-elf and the invisibility cloak from the quidditch world cup, and had the audacity to explain that Crouch Jr. had been sent to Azkaban, but never explained his escape. Finally, the movie ended with Crouch Jr. being sent back to Azkaban. The Minister of Magic never showed up with dementors to kill Crouch, Dumbledore never argued with him about the verity of Harry's claims, and the potential for an amazing cliff-hanger conclusion with Dumbledore in all his might giving orders to Hagrid and others as a general before the final battle, was instead replaced by a horrible attempt at a eulogy combining direct quotations from the novel with poor scriptwriting to make Dumbledore out to be a poor speaker as well as incompetent wizard. I shudder to think how the next movie will have to deal with all of these plot gaps, and how Dumbledore can hope to maintain any semblance of respectability when he trusts Snape and continues to avoid Harry in the fifth movie. Much better would have been to stick with the original idea and make two movies. This movie didn't feel like it had any plot, one did not become attached to the characters, and spent the movie groaning or laughing at the contrived immaturity of it all. Some acting by Harry and friends was good, but it was overshadowed by a terrible attempt to fit everything and nothing into the movie.
233 out of 314 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Highly Disappointing
egarmon18 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I have to say that I disagree with almost every review posted here. I traveled for an hour to see the movie at midnight, for the first showing. I am a huge Harry Potter fan and have been eagerly awaiting the release of this film. How disappointed I was. I must say that I think that the fourth book is perhaps the weakest in the series, but it is still a good read. The movie, however, was by far the worst yet. So many important details were left out, the movie raced along trying to fit as much plot into two and a half hours as possible. Of course there was excitement, funny moments,and talented acting. But overall, the plot moved so quickly, that one barely felt any connection to the characters involved other than what has been built up from the last three movies and the book. The Yule Ball was ridiculous, and Hermione (Emma Watson) was overly dramatic. The challenges in the Tri-Wizard Tournament were rushed through and the other competitors characters were not built up. You barely know, yet alone feel anything about Viktor Krum, Fleur, or even Cedric Diggory. The special effects were great, but could not make up for the loss of the "magic" felt in the books and other movies. The final scene with Voldemort was well-done. Scary, suspenseful, exciting. But I must say I will not be seeing this movie again in the theaters as I have the last three.
66 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good though rushed
Mel J18 November 2005
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.
423 out of 605 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Did the producers even glance through the book?
kaoruchan3019 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
A fabulous film -- if you haven't read the books. Really exciting, and nothing left out -- if you haven't read the books. However, if you have read the books, it is a complete and utter disappointment. I went into the theater thinking, 'This shouldn't be too bad,' but, after seeing what they did to Mad-Eye Moody (i.e. the HUGE BLACK STRAP) I wasn't all that thrilled. Dumbledore - completely out of character. During one scene, he actually shakes Harry and yells in others. The Albus Dumbledore of the books is a wise, calm old man, not a raging but clueless crackpot. Many things are left unexplained; such as Neville's fear of the Cruciatus (sp?) curse, and what exactly happens to Barty Crouch (senior). Of course, if you have read the book, you know exactly what is going on, but as an innocent movie-goer who has never even glanced in the books, you are left wondering. And as Emma Watson already being quite pretty, the supposed transformation when she appears at the Yule Ball is muted and almost nonexistent; it simply that she put her hair up. All house-elves are not mentioned at all. S.P.E.W. is gone (though, despite it being a interesting subject in the book, it wasn't particularly important to the story). And it is Neville who gives Harry the gillyweed, instead of Dobby. Of course, that still works quite well, as Neville is so good at Herbology. But, did anyone think that Voldemort was far too jolly? Or is that just me? 'Oh, Harry, I'd almost forgotten you were there!' Can you honestly picture that coming from the great Dark Lord's mouth? There were many other examples during that scene; it was extremely annoying. As for the Dark Mark appearing in the sky, it comes too late. The tents are set on fire (where are the people suspended in the sky?) and everyone is running. Yes, that's reason to be scared, but surely the Dark Mark appearing is far better. So, after everyone has left, who should come along but Barty Crouch Jr. Then he fires the Dark Mark into the sky, and the producer thinks, 'Oh, good. We've got that in the story; people shouldn't complain.' Nope; wrong. He fires it a bit too late. After EVERYONE has left he brings out what should have started the terror. How stupid. (And it was also disappointing when they only made one comment that might suggest who won the World Cup. I'm Irish; I would have been very pleased if they had made that a bit more apparent. While we're on the subject of Barty Crouch Jr., I will bring up that his character totally changed. Instead of being this sniveling, scared young man who calls out to his father in desperation only to have Barty (senior) say, "You're no son of mine," we have him as a weird, explosive monster who comes up and licks his lips at his dad and is all, "Nyehehehe. Hello, Father." The 'son of mine' line only works if you make Barty (Jr.) a proper, terrified, misunderstood boy. And Sirius. Gary Oldman makes no actual appearance; how do we even know that it was him who was talking to Harry? And that was done horribly. Instead of Sirius's head appearing in the flames, we have a grotesque thing (that did not look anything like Sirius) popping out of the embers. And also, when Harry sends off his letter to Sirius at the beginning, it is clearly marked on the front to go to Sirius Black. But how ridiculous! His letter could have been intercepted, and then everyone would know that Sirius was somewhere nearby, and that someone (if they weren't one of the people who knew either Harry's handwriting or Harry's owl) was in contact with him. But, as for the acting and the special effects, it was all fine.
24 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
For equivalent reading experience, skip every other chapter in the 'Goblet' book
Kaphlooey1 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
At the time this film came out, I was convinced that it indicated that the longer the Harry Potter book, the worse the film. Now, with Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix out, I am relieved that this isn't the case -- instead, I now fully comprehend how thoroughly bad this picture is.

It starts out good enough with a dark, scary and well directed scene where Voldemort feels immensely more menacing than he is at the end of the film. Then we cut to our beloved protagonist, squirming in his bed at the Dursl-- no, wait a minute, that's the Burrow! Damn, I think, Newell weaselled (no pun intended) me out of seeing my favourite nasty relatives. Oh, well, at least I'll get to enjoy the weirdness of the Weasley home for a whil-- no, strike that, apparently they're heading straight to the Quidditch World Cup.

I think you see The Goblet of Fire's main flaw. It lies not in the acting, as usual carried out by Britain's finest, nor, I don't think, in the screen writing, as Mr. Steve Kloves acquitted himself well enough in the three previous outings. No - it's the directing. It's as if first-timer Mike Newell weighed the seven-hundred page book in his hand and said to himself "oh, how will I ever fit all this into one film?". The film jumps, at a maddening, jerky pace that makes you want to cry out, "but I wanted to see that!" Case in point: Harry and the Weasleys barely have the time to find their seats at the Stadium, before the game's over and we're inside their tent again. Mind you, I wasn't exactly a fan of the Quidditch game in the book, but at least a glimpse of it -- a teensy little montage? A minute of Death Eater-induced panic later, and we're on the Hogwarts Express. Half a second of Cho Chang later, and we're at Hogwarts, seeing the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang schools arrive - apparently on the same day. What on earth they're doing there so early is anyone's guess, since the Triwizard Tournament still doesn't seem to start until Halloween, which would allow for nearly two months application time to the Goblet of Fire. And on it goes. The only really good scene (apart from Hermione, like all the women in the film, acting like a frail damsel in distress) in which the students have their first DADA lesson with Mad-Eye Moody passes by all to quickly, and then we're jumping and jerking about the plot again. Harry has a falling out with Ron, signified by Rupert Grint dramatically lowering his eyebrows down to his cheek bones. Big deal. Harry kicks the living crap out of a dragon. Wow. Harry and Ron make up. Happy to hear it.

And then, suddenly, Newell hits the brakes. The "Four Weddings and a Funeral" director sees in the Yule Ball semi-familiar ground, and he seems intent to squeeze all the juice there is out of it. Harry and Ron talk about girls, learn to dance and behave like unbelievable prats to both the Patil twins. Meanwhile, Hermione strikes up a relationship with Viktor Krum, Hagrid woos the plus-size Madame Maxine, and we are then treated to the musical stylings of a wizard rock band, telling us to "boogie down like a unicorn" (which the probably imperiused crowd subsequently does). It's all very cutesy, all very non-Potterish. Hermione and Ron are especially egregious in this part of the movie -- Harry just seems oddly vacant.

The movie trudges along, occasionally giving reason to hope, only to quickly dash it again with a mind-boggling jump. Finally, we reach the ending, where the maze is nowhere near as challenging as it was in the book, and where Voldemort's rebirth is strangely anticlimactic and unfulfilling. Cedric Diggory dies, impostor Moody is exposed, Ron and Hermione exchange some glib remarks that trivialise the whole ending, and that's the film.

Now, a lot of people like this film. Rotten Tomatoes ranks it higher than its successor, Order of the Phoenix. This, to me, is inexplicable. Sure, a lot of things have to be scrapped to fit any novel into a two-hour movie. But a good adaptation, such as Order of the Phoenix, does that without you noticing it. Instead, Goblet of Fire rather seems to be making a point out of making omissions glaringly obvious. Even non-Potterians would probably surmise that the book covered the Quidditch game even though the film didn't, because the cut is made so quickly that Newell seems to hope that viewers will just think they dozed off during the game. Actually, all it does is leave us with a nonsensical, disjointed mess that will make you long for the comparative greatness of Chris Columbus. At least he knows how to do an establishing shot.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not good at all
Jacob Gilbert21 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
It was toooooo rushed. The length of this book should have been matched with a movie the caliber of the lord of the rings movies. It was too unfaithful to the books and left out many characters or made them too small. Rita Skeeter was barely in it, you didn't feel the evil that should have emanated from her. Plus, nothing happened to her at the end. If these movies are to be the standard for Harry Potter movies to come, true fans should be disgusted. Dobby, Winky, Ludo Bagman, Hogwarts classes in general, other students, the Dursleys, Ton-Tongue toffees, all gone. Shunted to the side was the whole graveyard scene, Voldemort wasn't scary at all, Dumbledore was almost violent to Harry. Overall, there wasn't enough time in the film to give the characters their due limelight. With Rita Skeeter not caught, no Winky, Sirius almost non-existent, the next movie will probably sink as low as this one and its predecessors. If these books are so long, the movies should be made longer.
30 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worst Harry Potter Film so far
HMSDauntless21 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is the worst conversion of book to screenplay in the whole series. From the first scene where there are characters in the movie scene that are not in the book scene, to added scenes in the storyline, to radically changed scenes in the triwizard trials, this screenplay bares only a passing resemblance to the book. The book was fine, and had plenty of drama and excitement at the needed times. there was no need to rewrite the story, only trim it down for runtime.

I was very disappointed watching this, and surprised to see that it was the same screenwriter as the first three films, since this was of such substantially lower quality.

And the director completely wasted Brendan Gleeson as Moody. This is an incredibly talented actor, and should have been an anchor of the movie. instead, he's almost nothing like the character in the book, even going as far as substituting a metal leg for the wood one. he's practically a footnote to the whole movie.

And the final showdown in the graveyard felt incredibly rushed. there's been four movies and 1500 pages of book building to this scene, the scene were everyone finally sees Voldemort in the flesh, and watches him duel with Harry. this should have been a powerful climax, yet is over almost as soon as it's begun.

bottom line, get a new director, and a new screenwriter for the next one. if the climax at the Ministry of Magic is as bad as the climax of this movie, the series will lose a lot of fans.
53 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
what the hell?!
em_198618 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
As a fan of the potter book series, I'm going to start with my opinion of the movie,and then I'm going to slaughter the adaption.

as a movie this was ALMOST amazing. the special effects (other than the captives under the water) were generally of an excellent standard. The acting of the trio was well above what it has been previously. Especially in the case of Emma Watson, who was initially terrible but has improved with each movie. Bravo i say! Rupert Grint is always a joy to watch. he really is Ron Wealsey for me, despite that fact that hes the same height as Radcliffe. speaking of Radcliffe, i was exceptionally impressed! he was brilliant for the most part, but especially during the scenes with Voldemort in the grave yard and when he returned to Hogwarts. However, credit given to those, i have to say that Alan Rickman as Snape is the best! This isn't just because he is my favourite character but i genuinely thought that he was brilliant, particularly during the scene when Harry and Ron keep talking. dumbledore on the other hand was atrocious. I'm afraid this is where my commentary moves onto slaughtering the adaption.

Since when exactly, has Dumbledore ever lost control and shaken Harry. If this is how he reacts to harry's name being entered, what the hell is he going to do when Harry destroys his office in The Order of the Pheonix. Michael Gambon may be a fine actor but he just isn't Dumbledore.and is it me or did the film lack certain key elements that made the book? such as the fact that Harry has a parent figure now? when the Thing with Sirius happens in OOTP, the audience wont know anything about him. And the scene with the Dursleys at the beginning was one of the best in the book! I understand that for the obvious reasons such as time management, certain elements have to be omitted, but this really did take the biscuit. Why alter scenes which arnt vital to the book, such as the way that the first task played out, and then cut what makes the books great. The two things that really wound me up were the way that Sirius appeared in the fire (why the hell they did it like that ill never understand) and the change in who gave Harry the Gillyweed. Those changed really were pointless.

When viewed as a movie in its own right the Goblet of Fire is as enjoyable, thrilling and down right scary as the book is, but as an adaption, to be quite honest, it was a let down.
199 out of 290 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Entertaining but too short and too many omissions
tony.newton21 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
What summed this film up for me was the comments of my non-HP book reader wife and friend. "Didn't really understand it".

The JKR books are full of "tells" and explanations, with sub-plots taking on great significance later on. The book of Goblet of Fire is central to the denouement of many of these - and in the main they are left out of the film version in favour of action and CGI.

That said, it was not all bad, so I'll highlight what I liked first!

The teenagers' awkwardness as they explore their relationships, and the way this was handled in the build up to and the actual Ball scene. Hermione in particular was well portrayed, and Ron and Harry sitting like wallflowers while the rest of the school dance the night away was well done.

The look on McGonagall's face when she sees Ron's dress robes - priceless.

The Moaning Myrtle scene in the Prefect's bath is excellent, funny and well acted.

Mad Eye Moody was excellent, convincing and menacing.

The opening scene showing the splendour of the Quidditch stadium was breathtaking.

The graveyard scenes at the end were well done, and close to the book. Ralph Fiennes was excellent, if a little too "strong" to be credible so soon after his rebirth.

What did they do badly? Quite a lot actually. I realise how hard it must be to condense this long book into a 150 minute movie, but overextended scenes could have been shortened, and 20 minutes extra to cover some key current and future story lines would have been time and money well spent.

Dumbledore is mad! What has Gambon done to him? Would Richard Harris have grabbed Harry by the neck and shaken him, shouted at him? Would Harris be mumbling and doubting of his abilities, such that there is now almost no credibility that Voldemort should ever fear him? No. And neither does the Dumbledore of JKR.

No muggle taunting and no house elf in the Quidditch world cup scenes, meaning no explanation of the purpose of the riot and burning of the tented village, and no set-up of Bartie Crouch Senior as a key character.

No mention at all of SPEW.

The dragon fight scene is ridiculously long, and ridiculously expensive. Harry flies right out of the stadium, chased by the Norwegian Horntail on a trip to demolish large parts of the castle roofing tiles. The dragon can fly, for goodness sake - why would it spend 2 minutes climbing across rooftops to get to Harry when it could fly out and blast him from the air?

The characterisation of the new characters is poor - Fleur, Viktor and Cedric are all just cardboard cutouts for Harry to battle against.

The omission of almost all the interaction between Harry and Sirius, so crucial to the next two films. Make you wonder whether the film makers have actually read all the books.

The absence of any reference to Hagrid's half-giant heritage (subtly alluded to in one scene with Madam Maxime, but only if you know what you're looking for) which is so important to his role in the next film

No mention of the Minister For Magic's denial of Voldemort's return, nor his act of bringing the dementors to kill Bartie Crouch junior before Snape can use Veritas serum to make him confirm Harry's story - both key to Dumbledore's flight in the next book, and setting up for Umbridge to wreak her havoc.

A messy treatment of the Snape/Karkaroff relationship and history, again failing to set up the future doubts we have about Snape, who is still mainly just portrayed as a nasty teacher rather than key character of the 6th book.

The acting. Sad though I am to say it I thought most of the acting was poor in this film, especially from Emma Watson (who I've always thought was the best of the young actors) and Rupert Grint. To be fair this is probably more due to their hugely diminished parts in this film, but that aside I feel Hermione is portrayed more as Harry's mother figure, rather than the super-clever heroine who Harry can always rely on to get him back on track.

The Rita Skeeter storyline is shallow, with no set-up for the essential article in support of Harry, and no mention of her being an illegal animagus, and thus no capture and blackmail of her by Hermione.

The Maze is transformed from testing puzzles and magical scenarios that the 4 Champion's could reasonably expect to figure out/defeat, to a series of menacing hedges and roots that becomes the entirety of the final test. The winner just needs to be luckier and faster than the others - leaving no avenue for true Wizarding contest, nor for Moody's sabotage of Fleur and Viktor's efforts.

Finally (though I could go on) I was amazed that a director of Newell's status and past history should make Fleur such a lame character, fit only to be dressed in a skimpy swimming costume, and swiftly fail, with no explanation, in all the tasks.

As I've said, I sympathise with how hard it must be to condense such a long book and not miss out big chunks of it - and I think they did that quite well with the start - but I do feel they erred too much on the side of spectacle and not enough on explaining all the plot twists and lead-ins to the next book.

What will non-book readers make of it all!

12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Shortest 2.5 hour movie
AetherTheory21 November 2005
Mike Newell is forgiven for cutting out so much detail from the book, and JK Rowling is forgiven for writing wonderfully rich books. However, fans of the book cannot help but feel like riding a roller coaster that is so fast there is no time to enjoy the ride. I predict the huge void between book and movie will spur remakes in about 10 to 20 years. Even if the movies must be 5 hours long, Harry Potter fans are willing to sit through them. This movie doesn't get a 10 because it leaves me feeling like something is missing, but it does deserve a 9 for being the best possible portrayal of the book given a 2.5 hour limitation. All said and done, this is the shortest 2.5 hour movie I have ever watched.
40 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
a small portion of the book is in this movie
calabas21 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
first off this was a sloppy fast tracked Hollywood (get it out for the holidays) project . if you read the book or listened to the audio book you would know what i mean. right from the beginning it is wrong no tavern scene , harry wakes up at at ron's house from the dream ? no durdleys no fireplace pickup to take harry to the world cup . no house elfs liberation front no actual showing of serious black . i understand that to make this book a movie it would have to be 5 hours long but honestly the dragon scene is nothing like the book you never see anyone but harry fight a dragon. Harry's dragon scene was added to not like the book the dragon does not land on a roof or chase harry through the country side ... I hope when you see this movie you buy the book and read it cover to cover i guarantee you a much better experience . of all the books and movies this one leaves the most out . and to see dumbledoor running around like a nervous idiot is just wrong . trust me if you are a true fan you will be extremely disappointed like i am . get peter jackson to do the rest of the movies (someone with attention to detail )
32 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Book is Better
quistis_719 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
If you read the book the movie sucks. What happened to the whole Rita Skeeter scandal? What happened to the Hogsmeade trips and visiting Sirius? What happened to the Weasley's coming to watch Harry and Fluer meeting Bill? What happened to the tournament winnings that Harry gave to Fred and George? What happened to Dumbledore explaining the fact that Harry and Voldemort's wands had the same core, and that the feather came from Fawkes? Why didn't they play out Ron and Harry's fight better? What happened to Viktor talking to Harry about his feelings for Hermione? Where was Dobby? Why didn't Harry see Barty Crouch Jr. sneaking into Snape's storage? Why didn't Harry ask about Neville's parents? Didn't Belatrix Lestrange torture Neville's parents?
62 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I didn't think it was great
Joey (Joey_the_random)18 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I went to see this movie this afternoon and to be honest i was expecting disappointment as happened with the other three potter movies but i wasn't quite expecting what i saw. I am a lover of the books and have read them all many (10+) times (ex HBP) and hate it when important bits of the plot are cut. I think in terms of effects and general film making the film was good, the acting from the majority of the cast was also excellent, however i feel that the movie moved too fast and didn't really explain what was going on. If you've seen the trailer you have pretty much seen the movie. Much of the Plot involving Rita skeeter was cut (i think we only saw her twice) which i find very disappointing as it sets up the fifth book and the "harry is crazy, look at what was said about him in the prophet last year" plot. One surprise for me though was Mad-eye-moody, after seeing the trailers and photos i was dreading him being played as a joke character with his mad eye but i was very impressed with his character and performance although i did notice the lack of CONSTANT VILIGANCE. Overall i think this movie could be used as a 'look what i can do with my computer' movie. In my opinion if you want a good plot and more than one comprehenseable storyline you should go read the book.
37 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
this movie should have never been released such as it is
volrath8818 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
this movie was horrible. all that you get from it is a very basic plot outline. there are huge time gaps, changes in scenes, and total disregard for what happens in the book. all of the subtle nuances that make the harry potter series great are missing from this movie. some scenes are completely changed from the book. the horntail scene, world cup scene, and many many others are completely redone. this being said, there were some impressive CGI effects done. the world cup stadium, though they do not seat harry and his friends in the correct place, and do not show the match its self (which was personally very disappointing, because i had been looking forward to seeing the match quite a lot) is, as a CGI work alone, very impressive, as is the maze at the end. despite these minor interesting details, the majority of the movie is very poorly done in relation to the book. accordingly, this is easily the worst of the four movies released to date.
56 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The PR Machine Fails the Product... Again.
B.R. (Havoc1)18 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
-=-=-=-SUMMARY: The movie leaves a lot to be desired. It nails its dark ending, but the rest of the film is disjointed and without substance. Why? It puts a little of everything in, rather than a lot of a few things. "Star" characters Krum, Fleur, Cedric, and Cho get the shaft in a big way -- but at least it looks pretty?-=-=-=-

I'm so sick of PR. "Goblet of Fire" comes out, and doesn't live up to the PR machine. This film was showcased as the TriWizard Tournament with some Yule Ball flavor. Instead, the film is schizophrenic and doesn't address either plot satisfactorily.

That doesn't make the film unenjoyable. It is well produced, with a high-and-shiny gloss that makes it picture-perfect. The locales are gorgeous. The cast is gorgeous. Ralph Finnes and the graveyard scene ending is done without flaw. But the whole picture is hollow. In short, it could have been so much better.

Take, for example, the TriWizard Tournament. Four contestants, three new schools, two new love interests -- and we learn nothing about them. Nothing. Fleur has a total of 2 lines. At least Clemency Posey tries to give the character a bit of dignity with some naturally added and improvised French to contrast with all of the sexism the gal faces. Viktor Krum is just for looks, as he literally has 2 lines. TWO. And the one he says to Hermione is barely audible. Cho Chang - with Katie Leung being subject to much controversy - gets three lines. Three. THREE! Cedric comes off as the most substantial character, which isn't saying much.

I don't blame this on director Newell, but rather the Potter source material as a whole. For one, fan boys and fan girls - hellbent on everything being lifted directly from Rowling's "divine word" - are crippling a potentially successful film franchise. None of these have been so glaring as "Goblet of Fire." Secondly, the film is handicapped by the ongoing script that is the Harry Potter novel series. "Lord of the Rings" it ain't. Whereas Peter Jackson, Phillipa, and Fran could take the trilogy and work around the major subplots, the HP crew cannot. No one knows what subplots JK will use, abuse, neglect, discard, or revive. What character will be essential? Which one is not? Since the screenwriters don't know, then it makes sense to leave in a little bit of everything, which takes away from the "whole lot of some things" essential to making "The Goblet of Fire" a stand-alone story.

It should have stripped to the basics: - TriWizard Tournament - Yule Ball, with some Cho/Harry, Ron/Hermione, Hermione/Krum characterization, with a bit of Patil twin thrown in.

And, in the end, the return of Voldemort. Instead, the movie attempts to juggle its insane cast: Snape, Malfoy, Lucius Malfoy, Hagrid, Ginny, Dean, Seamus, Fred&George, Dumbledore, Moody, McGonagall, Flitwick, Neville, Rita, and so on and so forth that it cannot adequately address its new characters. And since so many of these new characters have never before appeared in a Potter film adaptation, they never receive sufficient exposition or introduction.

The Patil sisters are never expressly named; Parvati is only named outside of a scene. Never appeared in a movie. Cho Chang is never even given a named introduction. Never been in a movie. Cedric Diggory is never given sufficient introduction. Fleur and Krum have no lines, so it is moot. Madame Maxime gets a few awkward scenes with Hagrid. Karkaroff has a pointless subplot that goes nowhere.

Thus, the movies are becoming increasingly convoluted -- and for those who haven't read the books, it becomes difficult to decipher. Wait until Movie 5 tries to add in "Luna Lovegood." It'll be a field day for sure. The real problem is that Harry Potter isn't completed. We're leading to a Hermione/Ron romance, but we don't know if they will get together. This need to leave in a little of everything kills the films and, in turn, the films put a clamp on the direction of the stories. The insane market-hype that is "Harry Potter" is neither giving the film nor print franchises the creative space to grow.

The acting is still the same for the children - over-emotional. Mad Eye Moody adds character, charm, and much needed pizazz into an otherwise "color by numbers" tale. Hermione (who I adored in the 3rd film) and Dumbledore were very off - Dumbledore seeming irritable and aloof throughout, and Hermione overly shrill. Emma: chill with the eyebrows. Dan Radcliffe looks like a Harry Potter, but still struggles with the key scenes. Ron is Ron, though he isn't too likable in this film with his unnecessary melodrama. The timing is off -- the "guest" schools visit for an entire academic year, with one of the three challenges occurring in fall, a Winter Ball on Christmas Eve, and two challenges in the Spring. All of this time flies by with no character interaction, growth, or even any "Nancy Drewing" on the part of our protagonists.

C'est la vie, in the end it's all moot for the Potter fan. The film looks beautiful, but leaves a lot to be desired. The hardcore Potter fans (like my boyfriend and sister) don't seem to care. Even I, a non-hardcore fan, feel like there needs to be some sense of artistic freedom in these film adaptations.

Break-Down Pros: Gorgeous Cinematography, Special Effects Best of the Series, Costumes, Sets, and Characters look phenomenal, The showdown with Voldemort at the end is near perfect.

Cons: Still too many unnecessary subplots and characters, Not enough focus on our "new" characters, choppy scenes, over-acting from Emma Watson and Dan Radcliffe.

OVERALL: 6/10. You'll see it regardless. It's an entertaining time, but leaves a lot to be desired.
31 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pretty darn good
BeforeDarknessFalls14 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, I must mention that Goblet of Fire is my favourite Harry Potter book, and so I expected great things from this movie. And great things I did get, but they were entirely unexpected.

The movie starts off with Harry being shaken awake by Hermione in The Burrow. This itself gives us a glimpse into Mike Newell's thought process. Mike Newell and writer Steve Kloves seem to be Harry/Hermione advocators to a small extent. It's not so much as the fact that they show Harry and Hermione to be better friends than Ron and Hermione, which isn't really true to the books, it more the fact that they've made Hermione tag along or take care of Harry in several scenes.

As the subject matter of the Goblet of Fire book was too vast, many scenes in the movie have been sliced so that it deals with action rather than explanations. In a way, this works. On the other hand, Potter fans will surely expect some more details, and this, I predict will be the main negative response to Newell's work. The end particularly requires an explanation. Newell leaves things a bit up in the air. But this doesn't mean the movie is bad or disappointing. At least not for me. It is filled with laugh-out-loud moments, thrilling action sequences and a few new surprises that will captivate you. Truly, It has some wonderful scenes which seem like they've been plucked from your imagination. Voldemort's rebirth for instance.

And speaking of Voldemort, I must say Ralph Fiennes has done a remarkable job. The make up artist and computer animation guys must have worked hard too – Voldemort looks just as evil and scary as he should! This is one of the reasons that the movie has received a PG-13 rating. The highly suggestive yet hilarious scene in the Prefects bathroom, as well as a few very suggestive dialogues here and there also explain the rating.

The movie's casting has been tastefully done. The new actors have managed to remain true to the characters that they play, and are very believable. Miranda Richardson makes a fantastic Rita Skeeter. Stanislav Ianevski (Krum) and Robert Pattinson (Cedric) are well cast and play their roles well. Clémence Poésy makes a good Fleur Delacour, but Mike Newell should have let her keep her hair down.

Unexpectedly, Matthew Lewis and Brendan Gleeson gave very good performances. Matthew Lewis, although he has grown out of his short and pudgy first-movie form and has become tall and slim, has nonetheless managed to keep Neville alive and kicking. There are many funny scenes as well as scenes that can only be described as 'cute' involving him. As for Brendan Gleeson, I didn't think much of him as 'Mad-Eye' Moody when I saw the trailers and the teaser pictures. But he makes a great Moody, crazy, loud and sometimes scary.

There was much debate about the casting of Frances de la Tour as Madame Maxime as many seemed to think that she didn't fit the part. I can see their point, since she isn't the best Maxime they could have got, but she wasn't too bad. Pedja Bjelac (also known as Predrag, in case you're wondering) made a wonderful Karkaroff.

As for the carry-over actors from the last movie into this one, I have to say that I am most impressed with Emma Watson's performance. (and of course Matthew Lewis, whom I have already mentioned.) Emma manages to capture the essence of 14-year-old Hermione quite well. Rupert Grint gives his 100% Ron. Sometimes it's hard not to imagine Ron as Rupert while reading the books. Daniel Radcliffe, the 'star' himself, has greatly improved in terms of acting since Prisoner of Azkaban and, although his performance is uneven, he still manages to be a convincing Harry. The Phelps Twins are remarkable as Fred and George and entertain with their hilarious banter and excellent screen presence. Bonnie Wright (Ginny) has a bigger role in this movie than in any of the others. She has almost no dialogue, but is present in many scenes here and there, which is something. Tom Felton, too, has a very small role. In fact he's only present in three scenes, one of which I am pleased to announce involves Professor Moody! But enough about the talented actors that have been a part of this magical movie. What about the scenes everyone has been waiting to see? Are they well done? What has been kept? What has been cut? I'm afraid you'll have to see the movie for that. If I begin to dissect this movie into what was well done and what wasn't, this review will probably be 8 pages long. All I can say is that this movie will make you feel happy, sad, anxious and surprised at the same time. It will make you laugh out loud, jump in surprise and gasp all at once. Prepare yourselves for a ride filled with mixed emotions. It's advisable to be prepared – This ride can get very overwhelming!
168 out of 273 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
matthewtooke6320 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
TO be honest, this was my favourite book of all of them so far and frankly i was shocked at how terrible it really was. For gods sake will you choose a SUITBALE Dumbledore?? Its really depressing to see a wannabee actor playing the great wizard. All the good parts were missing from the book!! We didn't see David Tennant have his soul sucked which was rubbish, for goodness sake, get it together with amateur acting man!! I wasted my money and I certainly won't be buying this twaddle on DVD. I hope they pick it up for the next one as I immensely enjoyed "The Order Of The Phoneix" and its structure. I advise anyone with a likeness to the book, PLEASE Don't SEE IT!!!!
32 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Good Movie, But Die Hard Rowling Fans Will Be Very Disappointed
Listers_armpit21 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This just goes to show that these films are merely based!!! on the brilliant series that is the Harry Potter books. Again Fair play to the actors, they have matured and acted better than ever in this film and i thoroughly enjoyed Rupert Grints portrayal of Ron, for me it was him who somehow kept me in the cinema and reminded me of some of the brilliant scenes in the book. The first problem with this film is that almost the whole film is dark and disturbing, like the last half hour of the prisoner of Azkaban. there are hardly any light fun moments, any that were, were cut from the film. for example, Dudley's huge tongue after eating Fred and George's sweet prototypes for their future joke shop.

Harry's feel good Two weeks of summer at the Weasleys house. The immense full length Quidditch world cup match and the two teams comical cheerleaders.

When Harry fights the dragon he actually starts to enjoy himself by being back on his broom flying and being free again.

Rons comical new owl Pigwidgeon.

There are many more but if you want to know you'll have to read the book. The other huge problem with the film is the total miss interpretation of Albus Dumbledore, Fans of the books will know that Dumbledore is a kind gentle patient wise true powerful wizard who commands respect by every full grown wizard around him and he never shows any sign of fear anger hate and doubt or depression, in the film however he has almost none of his good qualities and all of the bad, for me the first two films' Richard Harris had Dumbledore to a tee and i was devastated by his passing away, he showed a true compassion for Harry and the following films were meant to show a ever growing bond between them, sadly there is hardly a friendship between them, and how Dumbledore got angry at Harry and showed fear was terrible, and when he showed hopelessness at the situation after Harry looked into the pensive really lost the confidence in Dumbledore. I am not having a dig at Michael Gambon as i believe him to be a brilliant actor but the direction he was given obviously didn't work for his role. the film lacked a huge substance, unlike the book which leaves you on tenterhooks and anticipation for the next one, scenes that truly needed to be in the film were discarded by added ones that didn't need to be there, (like the learning to dance for the yule ball). I would have much rather seen some integral scenes instead of these added extras. for example, The Weasleys comic arrival by Floo powder at number four to pick Harry up for the rest of the summer.

The feel good two weeks at the weasleys house was a delight to read

The amazing world cup match.

there was no Dobby or Winky in the film which will need explaining in the fifth film.

There was none of Hermiones elf aid S.P.E.W

None of Hagrids Blast ended Skrewts, which should have been a challenge in the maze, as was the sphinx and the giant spider and the mysterious Myst that made everything upside down.

The trio never met Sirius in Hogsmeade, which cancelled out the growing of Harry's and Sirius's relationship

You never found out in the film that Hagrid and madame Maxime were descendants of giants

Hardly any Severus Snape in the film, why? hes turned out to be one of the most important characters

No Ludo Bagman in the film, made the film lack storyline.

No Bertha Jorkins in the film, which ruins how Wormtail found Voldemort and also how Voldemort found out about the tournament

Hardly any info was given on Barty Crouch and his son and also no explanation of how Barty junior escaped azkaban

Percy weasley was meant to take over the judging in the tournament after the death of his boss

No Mrs Weasley at all

No bill or Charlie weasley

The graveyard scene which should have been the highlight of the film lacked many important bits and Harry hardly fought Voldemort, in the book there is a much more satisfying fight

The most important scene to the whole film was completely left out, it is when Harry is recovering in the hospital wing and everyone is there, here is where the order of the phoenix is meant to begin to regroup, where Sirius reveals himself to the rest of the weasleys and how Dumbledore forced Snape and Sirius to shake hands and put their pasts behind them, and also mentions Snapes secret mission which he agrees to do. also Harry is meant to give his thousand galleon triwizard winnings to Fred and George for their joke shop, how they'll explain that i do not know. The Goblet Of Fire is by far my favourite book and i was sooo looking forward to the film, sadly its left me angry and disappointed, but its still a Harry Potter film and though lacking immense loads its still watchable. All in all this film has left out a lot, meaning also that the next film is going to leave out a lot, its in all honesty that if you want to experience the true magic of hogwarts and see a bigger relationship between the trio and others and a much huger and fuller satisfying storyline, go and buy all of the Rowling books and read them from start to finish, it will leave you completely satisfied and craving more,

I only hope the next director can somewhat redeem these films and deliver a brilliant Order of the Phoenix.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dark, and funny.
joestank1518 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - Harry (Dan Radcliffe) enters his fourth year of Hogwarts and is entered into the incredibly dangerous Triwizard tournament by an anonymous stranger. All hail to Mike Newell, the director of this masterpiece! The movie forgoes the happiness and frivolity of the previous movies and replaces it with teen problems (done very funnily of course), epic action sequences and hilarious British humor.

Coming back to the show are the fantastic three. Dan has come into his own. He is Harry. He is vulnerable, angry, not always sure what to do, and has actually gotten quite good at comedy routines. Rupert Grint is not just used for comedic relief this time. He gets jealous of Harry for getting into the tournament, and is tired of being referred to as "Harry Potter's Stupid Friend". Emma Watson is beautiful and plays the supporter of Harry largely, but does it well. The other children are a blast to watch, especially Neville and Fred and George. I liked how more attention came to the character of Cedric Diggory, and his brief relationship to Harry.

The adult actors are sparingly but well used. Alan Rickman only has two main scenes (He probably did about one day of filming) but it's just enough. Maggie Smith is equally funny and Micheal Gambon is used more than in the previous film. He thankfully has one fatherly scene in this film, which was lacking in PoA. Brendan Gleeson is hilariously over-the-top as "Mad-Eye", a vicious old dark wizard catcher assigned to be the new Dark Arts teacher.

The humor has grown more adult, which fits the growing audience better. Sexuality and Excellent Writing replace most of the repetition gags and silly physical humor of Columbus and Cuaron. This fits J.K. Rowling's style much better actually. It's all very funny and very British, as it should be. As for the teen problems? Getting a date for the dance, and learning to dance. Dealing with rejection and hormones. We've all been there. It's all very real and well done. These kids feel like real people, not mythical elves or gods.

The movie is close to 3 hours, but chances are you'll spend most of it either laughing or terrified. Harry's round with the dragon is intensely scary but amazing. His second task, slightly less so, but the dragon was a tough act to follow. The maze is scary, easily a villain by itself. Think "The Shining" on crack. The finale will leave pretty much anyone with a soul breathless and crying. Ralph Fiennes is terrifying as Voldemort. Dark times indeed.

Not for anyone who hasn't seen the other movies or read the books (or doesn't want to because it's not "cool"), but who gives a crap about them? Not for kids under 12 (they'll go to see it anyway, I've seen 7 year olds read the 6th book), but this stuff is scary for anyone. Diehards who want every side-plot of the book included will be disappointed. C'mon guys, the movie's almost 3 hours anyway (Though I was genuinely disappointed at the lack of further exposition about Neville Longbottom)! The movie does the best at being comprehensible without aid of reference from the books of it's predecessors, and is a genuinely exceptional comedy/thriller, and feels epic and yet real. And that's a tall order to deliver for a story about magic and a wizard. Mike Newell is a god truly.

Not for the faint of heart, this gets an A
137 out of 227 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Midnight Disappointment
Khimaera Tia18 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Before I hear the "You can't expect it to follow the books", the people who seem so firmly set on this was a good movie, best yet, and that it did the book justice I have to ask why.

In the first scene, it comes to the house of Riddle, as in the book. But instead of it just being Nagini, Wormtail and Voldemort in the room, there is also Barty Crouch Jr? What? I know that they had to cut things out but to manipulate the plot line so that things fit the way that the director wanted and not how many avid fans would want is beyond me. He had the option of making it a two part series, and in that I think he would have been able to do a lot more justice to the books then chopping it all to an atrociously choppy film. It was choppy, and for people who don't read the books it will be confusing and misleading, especially if they read them later on.

I had the, unfortunate idea that I should read the GoF before seeing the movie, as I was excited about all of the things that would happen. Some people don't miss the Dursleys, the Weasleys, and the opening feast, but I did. What happened at the Dursleys leaves things open for what happens in book/movie 5. At the Burrow we lost Mrs. Weasley, Percy, Charlie and Bill. Each of which did a lot of growing in the book and would affect later plot lines in the story. I know, they are lengthy, but the slow start to the story is put there for a reason. There is a reason for each of the scenes as they are written as per the book.

I understand that they would not be able to fit everything in, but to cut out people from the story, manipulate it as they have, what is going to happen in the sixth movie? In this story Fleur and Bill would have met by chance, but nothing. In this story, Sirius was a bigger piece of the plot, and one of the few that was holding on to Harry. They cut out a lot of Rita Skeeter and the effect she had on the book, the other characters involved. It was like this movie was not to be about the story, but simply the Tri-Wizard cup. Alright, let me try it from that angle.

In the scene with the dragons, someone was really CGI happy. This is obvious in the long, drawn out, far from the story line, Hungarian Horntail chasing Harry around the grounds of Hogwarts. Did I miss something in reading the books? The mer-people and the scene there was closer, a lot closer and yet still things were missing. The seats weren't over the water, they were on the shore, and one of the mer-people, the Cheiftaness no less was to be there. And lets not forget the champion eating hedges for the maze, instead of blast ended skrewts, the spider, the traps, and the Sphinx.

OK, I am dragging on.

Overall, acting was alright, not spectacular, but not frighteningly far from the story. Voldemort was played with a particular flair that left some to be desired but at least it was true to him.

What I am most disappointed about though, is simply the lack of the story in the movie, the choppiness of scene to scene. The missing characters who are in later books as well. It just makes me worry that if they cut this much out of GoF, what are they going to cut out of OotP? At least there was a bouncing ferret.
30 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews