Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire

[Kal]

Made 36 million openning day... not bad!

[Raikus]

It was good, but could have so easily been great. The first part was just choppy. It seemed like they sat down in a script meeting and said "this book is just to long. Let's go to every 20th page and first the scene that's on it through the first third." Since I had read the book and liked it a lot there were a bunch of changed things that irritated me. I can understand leaving a lot out but they changed things for no reasons in some cases (having the kids not know they were going to the World Cup and not sitting in the Ministry's box with Malfoy at the game and instead in the "nose bleed" section so, what, Malfoy could get a jeer in?). The film settled a bit after the Goblet's introduction and got better.

It's definitely one of those movies where you could see easily see improvements. For instance, at the first challenge how easy and great would it have been to show the Champions coming back into the tent injured, singed and getting immediate medical treatment before Harry goes out? They added some suspence not showing anything that happened, but it could have been greater with that little scene.

Anyway, nitpicky things from me. I was expecting a better movie story-wise. Visually it was pretty great (although WHY IN THE HELL does a MAGICAL eye make mechanical whirly noises when it zooms in?) and the acting was pretty good with the exception of Watson who needs some acting lessons not garnered from the tutoring of William Shatner.

[grand theft sparrow]

the acting was pretty good with the exception of Watson who needs some acting lessons not garnered from the tutoring of William Shatner.

I was thinking "serious" Halle Berry more than Shatner but same idea.

Yeah, what the hell?  Something's got to be up.  She was better than Daniel Radcliffe in the first 2 and she was just as good in the third; her delivery of the line "Come and get the nice dead ferret," makes me smile every time.  I don't know if this was her own subtle protest for the producers cutting out the SPEW subplot but she really tanked in every scene she was in.  She had no chemistry with Ron at all, leaving it up to all the bits in the previous movies to remind us that there's a Han-Leia-like love-hate attraction there, so judging the movie on its own, you have no idea why she's being so nasty to him.  And her teacher's pettishness, which is really her defining characteristic, was just gone from this movie; she just became some annoying chick at Hogwarts.   

But something just hit me.  Everyone's been saying how it seems like she's PMS-ing the whole movie.  Well, she was what? 14 when they filmed it... maybe she WAS PMS-ing the whole shoot.

[Gold Trumpet]

I can't understand the people who read the books and then put so much stock in the films. All you see is failure when adaptation is an impossible task to begin with. Because I like the films a lot I will never read the books. This latest one is really spetacular. One of the best movies of the year.

[matt35mm]

This was the weakest film, for me.  The story was fine, and I was never bored since it moved along quickly, but the direction was lacking.  The action scenes weren't very well directed, and as was previously mentioned, some of the acting was off (I've always said that Emma Watson opens her mouth really wide when she speaks, but here it was like she was one movie away from eating someone's head).  She needed to be told to tone it down a few notches.  In that, HER direction didn't match up with the direction of others, thus making for a lack of any actual direction.  And this is off the point, but while I agree with everybody who says that Watson is getting quite pretty, I thought Ron's sister was more attractive, personally.  She needed more screentime.

I also thought it was stylistically quite plain, as opposed to the other movies.  I got the feeling that I was watching an illustrated, abridged Harry Potter rather than a movie in its own right.

But I still liked it.  The story was fun to follow along with.  Once.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Having never read a sentence of the books, I felt (once again, but much moreso) that I was watching cliffnotes. (I've heard that the first 400 pages were covered in the first 15 minutes.)

I'll echo the complaint I had of the first two films, and that I might have of the books if I read them... Harry Potter is a vacuous character. Mostly because he doesn't actually do anything. Even in this film, where he wins the Goblet, everything is done for him. He makes a couple moral (but screamingly obvious) choices along the way, but that's it. Even his magical powers seem to originate not from his character but from his nature and his history, about which he seems indifferent. His backstory is good, but his character is not significantly played out or developed by his actions. Harry Potter doesn't do anything... things happen to him.

And in the movies at least, that seems to leave a vacuum.

[picolas]

I'll echo the complaint I had of the first two films, and that I might have of the books if I read them... Harry Potter is a vacuous character. Mostly because he doesn't actually do anything. Even in this film, where he wins the Goblet, everything is done for him. He makes a couple moral (but screamingly obvious) choices along the way, but that's it. Even his magical powers seem to originate not from his character but from his nature and his history, about which he seems indifferent. His backstory is good, but his character is not significantly played out or developed by his actions. Harry Potter doesn't do anything... things happen to him.

that helps explain why i don't like the books. the first two i've read.

[RegularKarate]

that helps explain why i don't like the books. the first two i've read.

Which really explains why you don't like the books.  You've only read the first two.

What JB says is kind of true for the most part of the first two or three books, but the movies kind of mask his depth after that (so far, they're going to have to change that soon).

[grand theft sparrow]

I'll echo the complaint I had of the first two films, and that I might have of the books if I read them... Harry Potter is a vacuous character. Mostly because he doesn't actually do anything... things happen to him.

I wouldn't call him vacuous simply because things happen to him.  Most characters in similar stories (i.e. Luke Skywalker, Frodo Baggins, Neo) are more interesting because they don't know how to deal with everything that's being thrown at them; we can relate to them better than someone who does everything right.  The becoming is more interesting than the being... and Harry is still becoming.  This why I prefer Superman The Movie over Superman II... and The Last Temptation of Christ over The Greatest Story Ever Told.

And RK is right: the movies really gloss over his achievements. The only movie that shows you he can do something is the 3rd one but he's delivering the goods in the last couple of books.

[picolas]

that helps explain why i don't like the books. the first two i've read.

Which really explains why you don't like the books.  You've only read the first two.

why do people keep reading if the first two books stink? i got the first book a few months before it was a fad when i was in grade 6 or something and i didn't like the first 30 pages so i stopped reading. then other kids said it was amazing so i read the rest of it and it wasn't. then a couple of years later i decided to read the second book and it wasn't amazing again. i don't understand how other people could've made it far enough for it to get amazing without turning away first. if everyone gave other authors that much of a chance to convince them they were telling an amazing story the world would be crazy with book selling all the time. why does it have to happen to this? why did you keep reading after the first two RK?

[Ghostboy]

I found that they were just really enjoyable (the first two) and that was enought to keep me reading until the third, which was when things got a little amazing.

[RegularKarate]

why did you keep reading after the first two RK?

Pretty much the same reason that GB stated.  I enjoyed them, I thought they were kind of fun and they only took a day or two to read.  I don't think they stink, so maybe you wouldn't like the third, but I feel that's where the series changed from cute to great.

[picolas]

oh. i thought you meant it was normal to not like the first two.

[Ravi]

I felt this was the weakest film in the series so far, though still a good film.  I like that the trajectory of the series so far gets slightly darker with each film, and this one is particularly dark.  However, it did feel like the film left a ton of stuff out.  Considering that I thought the first two seemed like a laundry list of stuff in the book being checked off, this is an odd complaint.  I thought the 3rd film was very good.  I'm sure it left out things from the book as well.

I agree with GB's point about the score.  I watched the third film a few hours before seeing the fourth one, and the score from Goblet of Fire was weaker.  Only in the end credits did I see that it wasn't John Williams doing the score.

[Pubrick]

but the direction was lacking.  The action scenes weren't very well directed, ... In that, HER direction didn't match up with the direction of others, thus making for a lack of any actual direction.

ah, but the director directing the direction directed the direct directive directly to the directees, so the direct --- *head explodes from lack of meaning*

the SPEW subplot

what is that?

worked
-the second and third challenges
-the part when the hedges almost engulf them
-when hermoine screams at ron at the end of the ball (but where the hell did that come from?? she was acting as if he'd been bothering her the whole nite but all we saw was him making a couple of smart ass comments early on.)
-fiennes, so fine.

failed
hermoine's eyebrows
comparison to azkaban which still rules. (this is second)

winner
the asian girl's accent