Lounge of Tomorrow - View Single Post - Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire -

Alex · 11-19-2005, 11:08 PM

We saw it today because Lani wanted to. I've never read the books so I am looking at them completely as standalone movies.

Most boring 2.5 hours I've experienced in a very long time. Harry Potter is an empty shell who in about 10 hours of movie has not shown one reason for people thinking he is such a great thing, in every situation he has to rely on others to solve his problems.

The framework of this movie, the Triwizard Tournament, may have been well done in the book but is thoroughly nonsensical in the movie. First, why do the other two schools only have 8 students each (or did the headmasters abandon the remaining students for a year?).

Second

Spoiler:

But I was extremely bored about 20 minutes into the movie (at least there wasn't another horrible prologue with Harry's muggle family) so I had extra thought processes to spend contemplating the problems.

These things may be interesting for people who have read the books but as standalone movies each one has been crappier than the previous (at least the first one had some sense of discovery but we've been pummelled with essentially three additional repetitions of the same story.

I'm sure there is something about the writing that makes the books unique and wonderful, but at core there is nothing particularly revolutionary about the story being told (it is common in epic fantasy, particularly young adult literature; see also Luke Skywalker) and the movies provide absolutely nothing new for the genre other than fair special effects (which weren't much improved over movie 2 and probably not as good as 3).

Hopefully when the next one comes out, Lani won't feel compelled to see it. She didn't much care for this one either, but feels she has put in enough time seeing the earlier movies that she should see it out.

As much as I hate ever agreeing with Rex Reed, I'm completely in synch with his review (link). I was honestly amazed when the movie ended and I found we hadn't passed the 3 hour mark.

Perhaps for the future movies they could cut out the Harry Potter character and focus on the other people, he's the most boring character in them.

11-19-2005, 11:08 PM	#25
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	We saw it today because Lani wanted to. I've never read the books so I am looking at them completely as standalone movies. Most boring 2.5 hours I've experienced in a very long time. Harry Potter is an empty shell who in about 10 hours of movie has not shown one reason for people thinking he is such a great thing, in every situation he has to rely on others to solve his problems. The framework of this movie, the Triwizard Tournament, may have been well done in the book but is thoroughly nonsensical in the movie. First, why do the other two schools only have 8 students each (or did the headmasters abandon the remaining students for a year?). Second Spoiler: If all four completed the first tast with no indication of an ordering in their finish, and then Harry Potter got second place on the second task (for a very stupid reason, like the people in charge are going to drown innocent bystanders if they fail the task) then how in the world is he tied for first place when they start the third task. Also, it is interesting that despite the eternal importance placed on this tournament none of the adults involved seemed to have any problem with the blatant cheating done in Harry's favor. But at least I didn't have to watch another Quiddich match. But I was extremely bored about 20 minutes into the movie (at least there wasn't another horrible prologue with Harry's muggle family) so I had extra thought processes to spend contemplating the problems. These things may be interesting for people who have read the books but as standalone movies each one has been crappier than the previous (at least the first one had some sense of discovery but we've been pummelled with essentially three additional repetitions of the same story. I'm sure there is something about the writing that makes the books unique and wonderful, but at core there is nothing particularly revolutionary about the story being told (it is common in epic fantasy, particularly young adult literature; see also Luke Skywalker) and the movies provide absolutely nothing new for the genre other than fair special effects (which weren't much improved over movie 2 and probably not as good as 3). Hopefully when the next one comes out, Lani won't feel compelled to see it. She didn't much care for this one either, but feels she has put in enough time seeing the earlier movies that she should see it out. As much as I hate ever agreeing with Rex Reed, I'm completely in synch with his review (link). I was honestly amazed when the movie ended and I found we hadn't passed the 3 hour mark. Perhaps for the future movies they could cut out the Harry Potter character and focus on the other people, he's the most boring character in them.
	Submit to Quotes