Goblet of Fire: Movie Review The Love -The Hate (SPOILER ALERT)

[Pithy Cherub]

Goblet of Fire, directed by Mike Newell was really great with visuals, tone and being disciplined about keeping the story to two and a half hours.

The Teenage Trio was wickedly funny, hormonally hyped up and filled with *all about ME* moments. Harry trying to get a date and to ask the quietly beautiful Cho in front of the most bird droppings anywhere except the beach or an aviary. Harry, stark naked in the bath with a "Moaning" Myrtle diving for um, sight seeing treasure.

The story without Winky, Percy, Sirius (fire scene only) Skeeter's hatchet job on Hagrid, the Dursleys and the ton tongue toffee's were understandably either left on the editing floor or ixnayed. The addition of McGonagall teaching dancing weirded me out. Snape smacking Harry and Ron was a funny add, too. Neville and the wingtips...:rofl:

What I absolutely HATED, abhorred, couldn't stand, despised, loathed, detested was the cretin who plays Dumbledore(Michael Gambon)acting like a Nervous Nellie and a fear monger. HATED IT! The late Sir Richard Harris would have never been in need of a copy of "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff" during filming. Ugh! They (director)let Voldy(Ray Fiennes) morph two clicks too close to Human. He was freaking me, two phases before his head became more normal. They also should have let Voldy speak more slowly and menacing instead of sounding like he was in a rush, like Snape (Alan Rickman)does. Voldy played cat & mouse with Harry in the book and it seemed that would have translated, but nooooooooooo.

The scenery was superb! What happened to the Horntail...that was an interesting twist, especially without Hagrid crying if what I think happened, happened. The maze photographs beautifully but it was bereft of certain horrors. The Goblet was at its best surrounded by the famous Age Line. The strap on eyeball was just not right, not right at all, but Moody was vastly entertaining in a John Wayne goes magical-in-a-snide way.

Overall, give it an A-:loveya:. What did YOU think of it? :popcorn:

[Mist]

1. I loved it--it was visually richer than the other HP flicks, and

the extended use of outdoor shots was great. I loved Fiennes as Voldy, though I agree he could have been more menacing. But the look they gave him was perfect. I have to agree about Gambon--in this one, he seemed too hyped-up. And more Snape would have been good. But for me, the visuals made up for a lot. I thought it was odd they made Beaux Batons an all-girl school (it was co-ed in the book). A detail: the Dark Mark was truly creepy--loved it! And Radcliffe's acting has really improved. Overall, I guess "A-" is about right!

[XemaSab]

4. Durmstrang's co-ed too

But it's subtle... at one point one of the Durmstrangs turns to the girl next to him, and it's implied that the girl's a Durmstang too.

Fleur had very few lines, so she wasn't well established for book 6.

Also, as I just said in a thread in the Lounge, the parting of the ways was missing. :(

[opiate69]

2. Loved it and hated it at the same time..

Loved it because visually, it was astounding.. (Hogwarts has never looked so good..) and the parts they did include we're phenomenally done. (With the possible exception of the maze... I wanted to see Skrewts and the Sphinx.. or, well, any kind of obstacle would have done) But at the same time, I felt right off the bat like the director was rushing.. (why a big lead up to the quidditch game but not even a measley 2 minutes of play?) the pacing didn't sit well with me... and I can't believe Rowling allowed the director to make Dumbledore damn-near choke Harry.. that scene was antithetical to Dumbledore's real character. Props for keeping the twins' attempt to cross the age-line in, but minus major points for ignoring the Giant aspect of Maxime and Hagrid's conversation.

[WhollyHeretic]

3. I could not stand Dumbledore in the movie.

I wasn't very impressed. Putting that book into a movie was a tall order but there were definitely things they could have done better.

[Pithy Cherub]

7. What would you have put in to make it better?

Because each film (exception first two)has a different director they interpret it differently for each film. I believe the Potter franchise/series is a prime candidate to remake in the future with one director a la LOTR and Peter Jackson. The consistency is missing because each director has to find ways to tell a 800 page story in 2.5 hours. My secret wish is that they do a two part movie in one year, release Part One and a week or so later release Part Two of the same story. That's never been done before. ;)

Order is going to be a real mess because they messed up certain things central to the plot in Goblet. Kreacher will be hard to expalin without Hermione having her hissy fit on Elf Right's. At the end of term at Hogwart's there was TOO much joy.

[radfringe]

10. I also have a problem with the "new" dumbledore

The Harris Dumbledore was more in line with my general impression based on the book - on the outside giving the appearance of a doddering old wizard, but with a keen mind working inside.

the new Dumbledore is just tooooo "energetic"

the scene after harry's name comes out of the goblet bothered me alot-- Dumbledore rushes into the room and back Harry up against the wall - practically accusing Harry of cheating. Sorry - this portrayal doesn't fly.

Yes, Dumbledore would have questioned Harry about it, but not in an "attack mode" fashion. The constrast between the two dumbledores is too extreme, continuity is lost.

I did like the movie. Special effects were good. And I understand why alot was probably left on the cutting room floor -- however if you haven't read the books the movie was probably difficult to follow.

The minor changes bother me a bit too -- in the book:

--- Barty Crouch Jr. was NOT in the room with Voldemort, harry's "dreams" did not include Crouch Jr.

--- Crouch Sr. was not present during the competition trials, Percy was sent in his place

--- Neville didn't give Harry the gilly weed, Dobby did

and there was nothing about how barty crouch jr - 'escaped' from azkaban

I would have been willing to sit through a longer movie if it included more of these details.

[MalachiConstant]

5. i don't like the fact that

they completely abandoned the original target audience. these were children's books (frankly, i think they're children's books first and fantasy lit second) shouldn't this also be children's movie? other than that, i do think they should have explained a few of the more important things and cut, or shortened a few of the extraneous jokes ( the extended harry and myrtle bath tub scene comes to mind).

[XemaSab]

6. How did they abandon the target audience?

How would you change the movie to make it a children's movie while being true to the original plot?

[MalachiConstant]

8. when i saw it there were kids in the audience

that were scared to death. i think there are many ways or making it and still being true to the plot. compare the two charlie and the chocolate factory movies. they are both very different movies, tim burton just made his truer to the original book. however, the plot in both of them remains quite similar. i'm not a director or a producer but i think they could have made a film that represented the text just as well (maybe better) and made it more "kid-friendly." personally, i think the last film was equally as grim and dark, but much less scary.

[MountainLaurel]

11. At this point it's a YA book

YA = young sdult

Harry and his cohort are 14, and the books are becoming much darker, in addition to throwing in the usual sorts of teenage issues (e.g., surliness and hormones). I think the tone of the film matched those older themes. As for parents bringing kids who are too young to see a movie, that's the parents' fuckup.

[LWolf]

9. Without reviewing other posts,

I can concur with most of your review.

I, too, was pissed at the way they played Dumbledore. I don't know if that was the actor himself, or the director, or the screenplay; he played Dumbledore in "Azkaban," and did a fine job. I felt like they really drifted way too far from his character in this one, though.

I was also a little disturbed by the gillyweed coming from Neville; call me a purist, but I don't like it when one character does another's part. I guess if they were going to cut house elves out completely, someone had to, though. And in that case, Neville was probably the right choice.

The deatheater scene at the quidditch match reminded me of a KKK burning/lynching scene; black robes instead of white. I don't remember them burning the campground down in the book, and I didn't see them torturing muggles here. A small point, perhaps, but I would have liked to see a minute or two of the quidditch game, they didn't seat Harry etc. correctly, and ran so fast through the after-events that if I hadn't read the book and known what was supposed to be going on, I would have found it confusing.

I thought the movie was mostly well done, with the exception of Dumbledore. I was fine with Voldemort, although I think you are right about the cat/mouse thing. Voldemort was perhaps a little too reactive.

The horntail was superb; the water scene a little on the short side, and I thought that, having left out whole subplots in the book, they could have given us all the parts of the maze.

Ron's dress robes...mildly entertaining in the book, painfully funny in the movie. Did McGonigall teach them to dance in the book? I don't remember that part, but it's long enough for me to have forgotten some, lol. I wondered if that was part of the "british school experience" that the director was adding. That and Snape trying to keep them focused on his class; as a middle-school teacher, I enjoyed it immensely.

Overall, an A-, which is probably great considering what had to be cut out of the book to achieve one long movie.

As a side note, after reviewing it, my son and I took my grandson to see it. There were kids younger than he in the theater. He curled up into a ball and covered his eyes with his hands in the graveyard with Voldemort. His dad leaned down to talk to him and he shushed him, peeking through his fingers at the action. He walked out of the theater grinning and chattering about all the "cool" parts, so I think he handled it fine.

[politicat]

12. Not happy with it....

Though Dumbledore was not my problem. I'm okay with Gambon. Dumbledore in book 4 isn't perfectly calm, capable and rising above it all - that's where we start seeing the transition that all children make in growing up from thinking the adults around them are infallable to realizing that adults are humans too. I think Gambon nailed that and Harry reacted well to it. I also didn't see him as nervy; more that he knew on gut instinct that something was not right and that he knew he had the pieces to figure it out, but that it was not coming together. Having been in such situations of having to condense meaning from the vapor of nuance, I saw how Gambon was playing it. (I don't like the more grizzled beard, however, but that's me.) I think what can be perceived as nerves or dilly-dallying was more a sense that "my old friend Moody isn't acting entirely like my old friend Moody, and my old friend Barty Crouch is behaving oddly, too, and I don't know why."

What I hate is how the director slaughtered the book - it's like they weren't even thinking about the big arcs for book 5 and intents were scrambled all over the place.

Examples: At the World cup, Our Beloved Crew is supposed to be in the box with the Malfoys because that's one of the perks of Mr. Weasley's job. It was supposed to be an outing that shows that the ministry employees are just as valued as those with money. Instead, by not showing that, it again messes up what should have been a fun occasion. And the riot, leaving a burned out field of tent carcasses but a pristine Harry? Uh, no. And where the hell are the house elves? They're critical not only in 5, but in 6, and we have to have the Winky/Dobby contrast to Kreacher. This wouldn't have taken much screen time. Killing Mr. Crouch? Why? there's no reason for it. Not killing him is more useful to the overall arc of the full plot.

Where the hell is Percy? That's a huge plot issue in 5 and 6, and yet we never see the set-up of Percy being all caught up in his job to the point where he will renounce his family over it. The foundation for that is all built up in GoF, but I don't think Percy was even on stage.

We never see Rita Skeeter as a bug. Um, hello, but that's what Hermione is going to use to get her to write for the Quibbler... that story arc just got dropped. Newell introduced Rita and left her unresolved. He did the same with Flitwick - Flitwick is all over this movie, but has few lines and just seems to be shoved into the shot because he happened to be on set. Newell did this many times - he kept bringing the Chekovian gun on stage in act one, but he never fired it.* It makes the film seem incomplete and poorly conceived. (Or maybe I've been watching too much Joss Whedon, who is really picky about that sort of internal consistency....)

I liked Moody but the Moody-Snape conflict never showed up, and that one is more important than just the fact that in books 5 and 6 they have to rub each other badly; Crouch-as-Moody would be openly hostile to Snape because he sees Snape as a deserter; Moody-as-Moody would be equally openly hostile to Snape because he would see Snape as (rightfully) untrustworthy. (I still think that casting Alan Rickman as Snape was a terrible mistake because it has made so many people fall in love with Snape... I'm perfectly willing to consider him an abusive, evil tempered, sadistic rat-bastard who would sell out his own Muggle blood for revenge for stupid high school crap even if he wears Alan Rickman's face.)

The kids were fine. I didn't like GoF much because 14 year old boys are hard enough to cope with when you're 14, but really difficult at more than twice that. (That said, I'm not looking forward to the angsty, hormonally challenged Harry and Ron of OOP.... I'm so glad they got past that in HBP...) Malfoy is turning into a right ugly little snot, I'll be interested in seeing how well the Cho story goes (she's cute).

I'm sort of bothered that Hogwarts seems to be the only coed school in Europe - that wasn't the case in the book. I did not like the Beaux Batons entrance. It was ... icky. Durmstrang's was better (fitting) but still weird.

The ball was a waste of film. It could have been cut and should have been cut to no more than 5 minutes of sceen time. (It currently runs about 13 minutes all told.) It doesn't advance the film much other than to show the basis for the the future Ron-Hermione romance (which never worked for me anyway - I don't see what she sees in him...) It was nice to see Neville as the Belle for once, but those minutes could have been used so many other places. (The set was gorgeous, though.)

I hope they get someone better for OOP. Newell was just too scatter-shot.

*For those without the classical drama education, the playwright Anton Chekov had a maxim for staging that said basically if you're going to introduce a plot element in the story, you have to use it later in resolution. Basically he's saying to not leave loose ends.

[opiate69]

13. A couple of issues with your assessment..

First, Dumbledore was indeed far too emotional in this movie.. I;m thinking in particular of the scene immediately following the GOF chosing Harry.. in the movie, DD comes racing into the room, grabs Harry by the collar and damn near chokes him..in the book, Rowling specifically says DD looks Harry in the eye and calmy asks if he put his name in..this is an important distinction because DD was, in fact, performing legilimency on Harry..
Second, Crouch died in both the book and the movie. Although I pretty much agree with the rest of your points...

[politicat]

14. I re-read the chapter with the GoF, and while I do agree that

there is a massive difference in interpretation, I'm willing to live with it for the sake of compressing what would have been a long scene otherwise. Admittedly, the better way to deal with it would have been to have Maxine and Whatshisname from Durmstrang and the minister and all others to be babbling and arguing over each other until, after a bit of legimancy, Dumbledore shuts them all off... but time constraints are time constraints - to convey the impressions of the whole mood of the chapter (which is pretty much "WTF, harry?"), I can see it as a legitimate, if not perfect choice on the part of the director. Compared to the other stuff, it was minor for me.

I have not re-read all of GoF recently (I'm re-reading the Dark Tower Series to map out the idea of a 2 season TV program for HBO, Showtime or similar so that's consuming my reading hours), but I did check chapter 28 (The Madness of Mr. Crouch) and at the end of that chapter, he's missing, not dead, and as I skimmed the rest of the book, I don't see any mention of his death. Would you be so kind as to point out where he dies?

[opiate69]

15. At the end, after Harry comes back from facing Voldemort,

DD uses veritaserum on Moody/Crouch Jr... it is there that he admits to having killed his father.. He says he killed him, transfigured the body into a bone and buried it in the forbidden forest.

[politicat]

16. Thanks.

So many words, so little time!!

[XemaSab]

17. It's amazing how on rereads

the eye contact between people becomes so evident!