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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 21, 2005
*Snip* (Double post.)

Dan
on Nov 21, 2005
Cordelia: Gotcha!
on Nov 21, 2005
I've been referenced!!!! Thanks, Dan!

Great post, and I agree with your assessment of Harry 4 the film, (and your assesment of film 3 but don't tell anyone. They may riot.) I must, however, beg to differ on Ray Fiennes turn as Voldemort. I thought he was fantastic! And scary as hell. I thought that was the best segment of the movie. But here's the rub...as with all things Potter related and beyond, everyone has their own idea of how things should "look" and there's no getting around that. So it goes.
on Nov 21, 2005

Brad, Cordelia, Sarah and Dan, and Ed and tom and rufus and cletus!

Uncle!  I promise to see it!  Based upon everyone's review, I would be a fool not to!

on Nov 21, 2005
One more note...I have seen Fiennes in "Red Dragon" and thought he was great there too. (Although I haven't read the book.) The film doesn't transcend genre like "Science of the Lambs" but as a thriller it's as good as they come.
on Nov 22, 2005
"Science of the Lambs"


Umm... "SILENCE of the Lambs?" Haha...

Dan
on Nov 22, 2005
Freud is in my fingers! Freud is in my fingers!
on Nov 22, 2005
Reply By: DraginolPosted: Monday, November 21, 2005
Cordelia: Gotcha!




I'm far too gullible.
on Nov 22, 2005
Frankly, this wasn't my favorite of the four. It was probably my least favorite. It wasn't so much about what was shown as what WASN'T shown. I could list over about ten scenes that were chopped to pieces or edited completely out, but I don't want to start offering spoilers.

To me, this looked like a superb 4 hour movie that had been edited by someone with ADD. A couple of spots felt like someone had bumped the "scan" button and jumped ahead ten minutes. I enjoyed the movie, and I think the acting and directing was good, but I think the editing was so random as to be crippling to the film.

On the bright side, I bet there will be an extra hour or so on the DVD when it comes out.
2 Pages1 2