Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire

[Ghostboy]

So I've seen this twice now, and it gets better each time. The first third is really far too fast for its own good.. most of the changes made are good (turning Crouch and Bagman into a single character, getting rid of the Dursleys and the Elf Liberation Front, etc.) but they could have spent a bit more time here and there on some of the details we've come to know and love about the series. It feels like they Kloves and Newell went out of their way to speed things up - this is the shortest movie yet - and as a result certain things (that I won't talk about because they're spoilers) have less impact than they should. There's also a really stupid red herring that feels like it was left in the film as a mistake.

Also, Patrick Doyle' score, as good as it might be, pales in comparison to John Williams. The old themes are scarcely heard, and sorely missed.

Still, right around the Yule Ball the film hits a good groove, and gets better with the second tournament (the underwater stuff is far more impressive than it was in the trailer, and is a great set piece). The last third of the film is pretty heart stopping, as it was in the book, and if you're invested in the series at all, you'll probably shed a few tears. Ralph Fiennes' incarnation of Voldemort is really quite wonderful....he's not playing some stodgy old dark lord, but a lithe, physical, sepentine fellow. And his accent is perfect.

All in all, this doesn't feel like the epic that the book did - it's more of a transitional film, to get Voldemort into the picture - and so while it's not as perfect as Goblet Of Fire, it's still very much worth seeing if you've seen the other films. If you're starting off fresh, though, you're in trouble, because the pacing leaves no room for newcomers.

I'm interested to see whether people who haven't read the book respond to it more favorably...

[polkablues]

this is the shortest movie yet

According to IMDB, it's longer than both "Sorcerer's Stone" and "Prisoner of Azkaban".

Still, your review worries me a little... my one complaint with "Batman Begins" was how fast it felt, like they patched a two-and-a-half hour movie out of scenes from trailers.  It sounds like this suffers from the same problem.

[Pozer]

...my one complaint with "Batman Begins" was how fast it felt, like they patched a two-and-a-half hour movie out of scenes from trailers.

Are you kidding me?  The pacing in that movie could not have been more perfect.

[polkablues]

...my one complaint with "Batman Begins" was how fast it felt, like they patched a two-and-a-half hour movie out of scenes from trailers.

Are you kidding me?  The pacing in that movie could not have been more perfect.

Dead serious.  Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie.  It just felt kind of like watching Canadians do Shakespeare on "South Park".

[Reinhold]

i saw it tonight.

i think it's by far the best of the movies.

interesting paradox-- it's a great movie by itself, but it's not so great if you waste a lot of time thinking of the sheer volume of stuff they left out of the movie from the book, but there are MAJOR plot holes if you haven't read the book.

i thought it was great. i expect this to be an absolutely outstanding dvd... quidditch footage and all that.

[grand theft sparrow]

Goblet of Fire is by far my favorite of the books.  But the movie didn't quite do it for me.  First off, I can't imagine anyone really getting into it if they haven't read the book already, or maybe I'm just saying that because I know what they took out.  The minor changes to cover up the cut out parts were done well but it should have been either a half hour shorter OR spread over two 2-hour movies.  As it is now, there's a lot of great sequences followed by drawn out scenes that advance the basic plot but worked better in the book.

The end of the book is on par with the end of Empire Strikes Back in terms of dramatically changing the trajectory of the entire series.  The end of the movie dropped the ball in that respect, though Ralph Fiennes makes a great Voldemort.

I liked it but Cuaron is still king.

[samsong]

i haven't seen the second or third since i hated the first one, but this was good stuff.  lots of fun, the scenes underwater i found genuinely disturbing and terrifying. i kinda wish it went balls out with the sexuality/adolescense stuff instead of reeling it back to family friendly or strictly comical but i guess that's the nature of the beast.  ralph fiennes is fantastic.

there's probably another thread for this but who else thought the superman teaser blew?

[Gold Trumpet]

there's probably another thread for this but who else thought the superman teaser blew?

Here here. There is another thread, but I didn't want to post my beef there. They are all in love on that thread so I figure let them be. Getting beyond the voice over, what I see in the film will be special effects comparable to Spiderman and a story that may be imitative of the original. Considering how I loath the corniness of Spiderman and relish the original Superman, this could be a film made for no reason.

[polkablues]

there's probably another thread for this but who else thought the superman teaser blew?

http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=167.300

And yes, it blew a little.  "Superman Returns" is to Richard Donner's "Superman" what Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" was to Hitchcock's.


And for the love of god, go see the third Harry Potter flick immediately.

[brockly]

"Superman Returns" is to Richard Donner's "Superman" what Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" was to Hitchcock's.

based on what? a teaser?

[modage]

i've never read any of the books and i really liked this.  i guess it was either my favorite or my 2nd favorite to the 3rd one.  which is funny because when i saw the 3rd one, i still thought the 1st was my favorite.  but i guess it was because i hadn't seen it in a long time and my memory of seeing it for the first time was really something special taking in everything.  in the sequels i never got that feeling because they took the 'wow' for granted and just had the plots to hang the film on.  but re-watching the 1st and 3rd film recently, the 1st film didn't hold up as well as i remembered it and the 3rd did.  so, thats the way it goes sometimes. 

i still can't get over how dark they made this and how PG-13.  when dumbeldore comes storming in the room almost threatening harry!?  that was crazy.  moaning myrtle in the bath with harry was pretty sexual.  ron saying 'piss off'!  i thought the humor here really worked too.  without it, all the darkness and brooding might've been overwhelming and i think newell realized that.  at 2 1/2 hours it still has to rush through things where i would've appreciated the 'down time' with the trio that i'm used to.  so i'd have to see it again but it might be my favorite. 

[RegularKarate]

I'd rather defend the Superman teaser in the other thread (because I might be the biggest fan of the original Superman on this board), but I have to say that basing all this dumb shit on a TEASER is ridiculous.  What the teaser does is show us that this will have the same overall feel as the original, but will have it's own look.


SPOILERS

I agree with a lot of what Hacksparrow said, except that I don't think the film "dropped the ball" on the ending.  I don't think it was as powerful, dark, and Empirish as the book, but I didn't expect it to be.

Overall, I actually really enjoyed the movie, but I think that has a lot to do with my love for the book.  I saw it with a couple who hadn't read the book and my friend fell asleep.

I think where this movie DID screw up was with Harry's relationship with Sirius.  There was only one little scene.  That was a tad disapointing.

[bigperm]

Your friend fell asleep? What an asshole  Maybe you should have offered him some candy.

[grand theft sparrow]

"Superman Returns" is to Richard Donner's "Superman" what Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" was to Hitchcock's.

Well said.

I think where this movie DID screw up was with Harry's relationship with Sirius. There was only one little scene. That was a tad disapointing.

Funny thing I just remembered. Of the 6 other people I saw this with last night, only one hadn't read the books or seen past the first movie.  At the end, he asks me "Where the hell was Gary Oldman in this movie?"  But I don't really remember Sirius being in the book that much outside of owl correspondence with Harry and the fire scene.

In any event, as long as they go Sirius-heavy in the Order of the Phoenix movie, all is well... in fact, if they're going to streamline the story like they did with this one, that should be top priority because there was such little Sirius in this one.

[Ghostboy]

Sirius shows up in person near the beginning of the book, and then is a pretty steady presence throughout (he flies in on Buckbeak later on). I didn't mind the compression of those scenes in the movie (the fire face was brilliantly executed), but now that you mention it, yeah, they're gonna have to really strenghthen that relationship in the next film.