Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
4 out of 5
Published on November 19, 2005 By Draginol In Movie Reviews

I didn't know what to expect when I went to see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.  Of the books, GoF is my favorite and so I cringed at the thought of it getting messed up.  I was not happy at all with the last movie, Prisoner of Az which I think sacrificed too much of the story in order to turn in a "lean" movie. 

The first two Harry Potter movies were merely okay in my opinion.  American directors, for some reason, end up making movies that look amazingly clean and pristine. Not at all like the real world. TV and movies seem to get blurred. 

Then comes Goblet of Fire which, to me, shows what a truly talented director can do.  The movie had a much more...epic feel to it.  It was a real joy to watch.  And while the special effects were uneven at times, they helped drive the story as opposed to derail it (cough)Revenge of the Sith(cough).  Given how much had to be cut in order to make the running time, I was impressed with how well it remained true to the core story.

The movie isn't for little kids though.  Where my little ones enjoyed the first two, Goblet of Fire scared my 5 year old pretty good and my 8 year old, while enjoying it, definitely found it a lot more intense than the previous -- as it should be, Goblet of Fire is a coming of age story.

One criticism of the movie would be with regards to pacing. Some parts linger on and others feel rushed.  There is a significant segment dedicated to the formal "ball" that really adds nothing to the story yet felt very rushed leaving someone who hasn't read the book (or hasn't in a long time) scratching their head wondering why they included this part at all if they were going to rush through it. 

My other criticism has to do with casting.  The casting of Voldemort was dreadful.  Voldemort was not impressive at all and as he simpered his lines, I was thinking "Heck, I could take this guy..."  I was really surprised with the casting choices on Voldemort since I suspect most people have a fairly similar concept of what this character would be like and on screen other than looking vaguely like his description, he was played not at all like the one imagined.

Still, these are nits and I suspect that most Potter fans will find that this one is the best of the movies so far.  The candy land feel of the first two has been wiped away, replaced by a dark yet magical world that leaves the viewer hungry for more.

4 stars out of 5.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 19, 2005
Aren't you forgetting "Prisoner of Azkaban"? I thought it was pretty well done, too. I'm a Potter fan (much to the chagrin of my pastor), and have, for the most part, enjoyed the series in both its incarnations. Some aspects of the films have been a letdown, of course, but I expect this whenever I see a film based on a book I liked. Even the LOTR Trilogy, as brilliant and pure as it was, left something to be desired for us purists.
This is the reason I won't go see films based on Stephen King novels. I love King, and his books are usually so complex and detailed that it's hard to pack all of it into two or three hours, if that much. They ruin the stories for me. The Potter films, for me, while similarly "packed", have been adequately produced overall.
I can't wait to see GOF...I thought it was the best book so far, too.
on Nov 19, 2005
I was just going to say, speaking of nits to pick, I think you meant "Prisoner of Azkaban", not "Order of the Phoenix" (since OotP is book 5, and has not been made into a movie yet). Plus, "the last book" (i.e. most recent) is "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" whereas the "last book" (i.e. the one before Goblet of Fire) is again Prisoner of Azkaban.

on Nov 19, 2005

I heard that the reason for the "intense part" and the PG-13 is that they wanted to bring their original fans, who have aged like Harry, up to snuff.  And since Harry is over 13, so is the audience?

IN any event, I will see it soon enough.  But not this weekend.  my 12 year old son hates Harry!

on Nov 20, 2005
We saw this yesterday and I loved it. My husband also thought that it dragged in a few parts but he didn't read the book so I don't know if that kept my interest more than his. I haven't read the book in a while but it seemed to stay mostly faithful to the book. Usually movies made from a book are such a let down but so far I think this series has mostly stayed the course set in the books.

I will agree about Voldemort. I don't know if they could make him horrifying enough. I think they build such an expectation that you're almost bound to be let down. Ralph Fiennes I think could be great in the part. He is definately creepy. We'll have to see what happens in the next movie.
on Nov 20, 2005
A portion of Marguerite Perrin's review of the movie:

....Harry Potter is a Slagkick!!! Everything about the book and movie is unGodly and tainted. It's full of Gargiles, Slagkicks and other Dark-sided stuff. He's not a Christian!!!!!!!!!!!! I want my God and I want my family!!!!

Dark-sided!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!........


on Nov 20, 2005
You know Ubob it's funny because so many Christians have a problem with Harry Potter. I say it's a story of good versus evil and Harry is good. I don't see that it's any different than Star Wars or any other good vs. evil movie or book theme.
on Nov 20, 2005

You know Ubob it's funny because so many Christians have a problem with Harry Potter.

And so many more do not!

on Nov 20, 2005
You know Ubob it's funny because so many Christians have a problem with Harry Potter. I say it's a story of good versus evil and Harry is good. I don't see that it's any different than Star Wars or any other good vs. evil movie or book theme.


I'm with you all the way on this. I posted the pseudo-Marguerite quote more as humour. Really, I think the Harry Potter series is good instruction for children on the difference between good and evil. And it’s a nice bit of fantasy and escapism for the rest of us.
on Nov 20, 2005
I was a bit surprised at how "not menacing" Voldemort was, but I assume that he'll get more powerful as the series progresses. Hell, he just came back to life.

Moody looked almost like I pictured him, except a bit younger-looking.

Very enjoyable.
on Nov 20, 2005

You know Ubob it's funny because so many Christians have a problem with Harry Potter. I say it's a story of good versus evil and Harry is good. I don't see that it's any different than Star Wars or any other good vs. evil movie or book theme.


I'm not an HP fan, but I find the "Christian" objection interesting, especially since it is a virtual rehash of precisely the same objections uttered 60 years ago to a now beloved classic, The Wizard of Oz.
on Nov 21, 2005
I actually thought Ralph Fiennes did a great job. I recently listened to the Jim Dale version of the Audio book, and I suspect Ralph Fiennes did as well while prepairing for the movie. His Voldemort voice is almost exactly the same as Dale's.
on Nov 21, 2005
My wife and I really enjoyed it. The third book is my wife's favorite, so I think she still prefers that movie. However, I think this was definately my favorite of the movies. (I agree that 1 and 2 are merely OK) I thought the pacing was about as good as it could be, considering how much material they had to work with.

I, too, really liked Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort. I thought he did a fine job and will become more menacing as he continues to gain power.
on Nov 21, 2005
I thought this was the best Harry Potter movie ever, but that isn't saying much considering what I thought of the first few movies. It certainly did have some action and some funny moments and some quite sad ones.

Not to get too off topic of course...

American directors, for some reason, end up making movies that look amazingly clean and pristine. Not at all like the real world.


What an odd statement to make. I thought you liked Serenity - directed by Joss Whedon, American. Here are some others:


Matin Scorsese - From New York (GoodFellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver)

Francis Ford Coppola - From Michigan (The GodFather trilogy, Apocalypse Now)

Steven Spielberg - From Ohio (whom I don't actually love, but there is no denying he knows what he is doing. Directed Indiana Jones, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List)

Stanley Kubrick - From New York (again, no love from me, but a popular guy. Directed Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, Dr Starngelove)

George Lucas - From California. (Look, I don't know what happened on the last 3 Star Wars movies, but he did direct the first 3, plus American graffiti)

Oliver Stone - From New York (Natural Born Killers, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July)

Joel Coen - From Minnesota. (Raising Arizona, Fargo, The Big Lebowski)

Dennis Hopper - From Kansas (Easy Rider)

Quentin Tarantino - From Tennessee (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, Sin City, Reservoir Dogs)

Not a complete list of course. Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "...Clean and pristine, not like the real world".
on Nov 21, 2005
Not to get competely off-subject, but did anyone see Fiennes as Francis Dolarhyde in "Red Dragon"? He did pretty well with that, though physically he was nothing near to what the book described.

Steven Spielberg - From Ohio (whom I don't actually love, but there is no denying he knows what he is doing. Directed Indiana Jones, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List)
---Cordelia

And let's not forget his other classics, "Close Encounters" and "ET". Very "messy" movies as their stories progressed.
"1941" was a mess...but for other reasons.
on Nov 21, 2005
I thought it was pretty well done. I thought the Quidditch event in the beginning was a little choppy, and that Herminione is, as Sara-girl said in her article, a little flat (it seems that flatness of character is inversely related to breast size...), but I enjoyed the movie thoroughly.

Except that Voldemort wasn't scary enough. I wish Anthony Hopkins played Voldemort...

Dan
2 Pages1 2