Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire..Reviews (1 Viewer)

[Dome Vongvises]

I thought the dorm scene at the end with Harry and Dumbledore was one of Gambon's better scenes.

 

[Jonathan T.]

How many of the films does one need to see in order to conclude that in his personal opinion the one that the one he has seen is not of the same calibre as the Lord of the Rings adaptations?

In any event, as I said above, the movie was just good enough to make me curious about the series and as of tonight I am half way into The Phiosopher's Stone and enjoying it very much. I am definitly sucked into the story, and see myself plowing through the series in short order.

I *STILL* think Rowling is a pedestraian writer, even for a children's writer. She certainly cannot come close to the cleverness of Roahld Dahl, or the sheer magic of C.S. Lewis. For instance, I find that in TPS all of the characters talk more or less the same, and her descriptions of places and people are very basic indeed. In contrast the the vivid worlds C.S. Lewis wrote about, and the incredible characters Dahl dreamed up, I found myself only able to imagine locations I had seen in the Gobelt of Fire movie. Locations I was not familar with, like the wand shop for insatcne, are barely described in the book, and i found it difficult to form a picture in my mind. I am told she imroves with every book, so I am looking forward.

 

[Steve Y]

I caught this in digital projection last week. "Goblet" is one of my favorite HP books (along with HBP), so I really enjoyed this one. All of the movies make missteps, which is understandable, considering the dance between source material and stand-alone entertainment. But this was mostly successful for me.

I like the changing of directors - this is the first movie where the humor felt completely natural and "real". That was perhaps Newell's gift to the franchise, just as Cuaron brought his graceful visual touches and edits, and Columbus... well, Columbus basically channeled the books, and that was fine.

I really like to think of the movies as being independent creations, with almost their own mythologies. "Remixes", sort of. I'm fine with that. I have the books to read if I want the purists' version.

However, I must chime in and opine that Gambon has it wrong with Dumbledore. He's created an interesting, compelling character -- the strong, flawed headmaster of a magical school! Yes! But it isn't Dumbledore -- not as written, not as I'd imagined. Richard Harris may have been overly "frail" in the role, but the scene where Gambon runs at Harry to ask him about the goblet was just menacing, not compassionate. And the scene late in the movie where he apologizes to Harry also seemed lacking the compassion of the character I've been reading for six books.

I kept expecting him to curse and sink to the floor and do push-ups.

If you listen to the CDs on tape by Jim Dale, you'll also find a calm, compassionate wisdom in Dumbledore's manner of speech which makes his power and doubt all the more powerful when they finally surface. And this is just totally worthless nitpicking, but while I'm at it, I didn't like the way he pronounced "tournament" and "beaubaton", either.

The scene when Harry arrives back at the entrance to the maze is completely heartbreaking. It's really the most powerful scene in the movie. As for the maligned ending: the filmmakers didn't want to clutter the end of the movie with "preparation exposition". Seeing a film is a different experience than reading a book. After the climactic scene, the audience needs to soak in what has happened, or else it will get lost in the shuffle of assignments and preparations, and dilute its power.

The movies, for all their visual splendor, will always be sparser than the books. That's OK. They're two different mediums, and in many ways, two different stories.

 

[Jason_Els]

I could burst because this is so true. Yet it's done so by design. The major supporting characters in the books change as the kids begin to grow-up. Like any adolescent they have to come to grips with the imperfections of the adults who stood so monolithic in their youth. In the earlier books we see the adults as the kids see them and then, bit by bit the kids become aware of the short-comings and frailties of the adults around them. We don't see these things early on because the kids don't see them. When they see them, then we will.

I can't say more without giving something away but it's important that Dumbledore be as impossibly implacable, omniscient, and powerful as possible at this stage.

 

[Simon Massey]

Are you talking about now at the end of Goblet of Fire or at the end of the first 2 films ? I have read the next 2 books and I would say it would be detrimental to the films if Dumbledore continued to be this way. The books have a lot more time to sow the seeds of doubt in Dumbledore's "omniscience". The films dont. Though I suppose it depends on how the 7th book turns out and presumably reveal more about the character. I dont think its something that should overshadow the character, but I think its important that there are questions in the audience's mind now as to whether Dumbledore is really going to be able to manage the "dark and difficult times ahead". The books may not need this at this stage, but I think the films do. I think the fifth and sixth film will work much better if the film audience doubts Dumbledore's abilities. I also feel from an actor standpoint it would be pretty dull for Gambon to not develop in any way from the previous films. The same would surely have been true for Harris had he been in the role for all the films.

 

[Adam_S]

Every now and then I run across a review I completely agree with, here's one by Orson Scott Card, who is pretty damn crazy in his taste in movies, but occasionally he gets it right:

 

[Ricardo C]

You weren't speaking of just the films in your last post, however. You were judging the quality of the bloody novels by your opinion of the film. That was, and remains, an uninformed opinion.

 

[Jack Ferry]

There might be some interesting deleted scenes that will eventually show up on DVD. There were several times when a line or two of off camera dialogue explained something that wasn't shown. Given the length of this film they were probably looking for cuts wherever they could find them.
There was an obvious disconnect between Fleur swimming in the lake and suddenly sitting on the dock, for example. I bet they filmed her being attacked and rescued.

 

[Holadem]

She was attacked underwater in the movie. Her rescue needn't be shown.

--
H

 

[Bill Griffith]

I liked the review, Didn't agree with all of it, but most of it was on the money for me.

Thanks for the link never new he reviewed movies, He is one of my top 3 sci-fi writers, Can't wait to see how EG comes out as a movie.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The thing about Orson Scott Card is that he is a fantastic writer, and forthright enough with his opinions that they are easily disernable as his opinions. I only ocassionally agree with him, but I always enjoy reading him.

 

[mattCR]

Yep. I keep waiting for "Ender's Game" to become a movie (though I don't know how eager people will be for an R rated kids movie in which the protagonist kills two other children) but that's as it is..

In regards to this film, the more I have thought about it, the more I appreciate the "flow" of the book in comparison to the film. The film is exciting and powerful on it's own, but the book has a certain "feel" of suspense that is seemingly missing from the movie.

And that's the element that gets me. There just doesn't seem to be enough time to build up suspense because the secondary characters are rushed through quickly, and the suspense regarding the graveyard is there, but not without the other not as significant as it could be.

Still, I enjoyed the film.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The graveyard scene wasn't nearly as harrowing as the one in my mind's eye first read-through, but I still feel like this one captures the feeling I had with the book better than the others.
That said, one thing I think many people (OSC included) forget when bashing Chris Columbus is that he had the task of creating and populating this world. The look of Hogwarts is spot-on perfect, in my opinion, and I doubt Newell on his own could have crafted it so. Many of the most inspired casting choices (Alan Rickman as Snape, Jason Isaacs as Lucius, Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid) were Columbus's decisions. He laid a rock solid foundation for Alfonso and Mike to build upon.

 

[Paul Case]

I loved this movie and would rate it the best in the franchise so far. Does it have flaws? Absolutely, but no more than any other entry in the series. I found this film to be the most mature and emotionally gripping of the bunch, and the acting alone has gone up several notches in quality. My biggest gripe, like many, is the odd portrayal of Dumbledore. Hopefully it was idiosyncratic of the director and will not be present in the next movie.

As for Chris Columbus, I have to agree with Adam. His two films were fairly lackluster overall, but he did an astounding job of recreating Rowling's world and casting its characters with the perfect actors. For that alone, he should be applauded. It's no mean feat to cast such universally beloved characters in a way that pleases the majority of the audience.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Words cannot describe how happy this news made me.

I think the current movie is by far the best of the bunch (the films have got better each time IMHO) and after the rather saccharin, paint it by numbers approach to the first two films, the last two have been revalations of what a sensitive director can do to bring a book to the screen.

 

[Paul Case]

He's the perfect actor to play Harry Potter, yes. That was my point.

 

[Simon Massey]

Had I only seen the first 2 Potter films I would have to disagree on Daniel Radcliffe being the perfect Potter. I would have said his only usefulness to the film was that he looked like Harry Potter, he could look surprised and memorise the lines!! The character is supposed to get the audience's sympathy - he's had a pretty awful childhood up to 10 - but I didnt really care about him in he film. IMO any sympathy that was felt towards the character was from reading the books beforehand.

Having said that I have been much more impressed by his performance in the last 2 films, the highlight being his scene with Lupin on the bridge at Hogwarts in Prisoner Of Azkaban. That was the first time I really felt for Harry Potter and what he had been through. I am sure Radcliffe's increasing maturity and experience as an actor will have helped as well. But Columbus surely has to take some of the blame (as well as the praise for his other casting decisions and the performances he got from them) for the casting and performances he got from Radcliffe in the first 2 films.

 

[DavidPla]

Well, it almost was Haley Joel Osment as Harry Potter at one point. The acting would've been great but... try to imagine it.

 

[todd s]

I can see it now. Harry sitting with Ron at the dining table....

Harry-"Ron, I see dead people"
Ron-"Big whoop. Thats Nearly-Headless Nick. Everyone sees him."

 

[andrew markworthy]

Todd