Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - - (Spoiler zone)

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, it was Hitleresque. I thought the actor who played him did a good job. (Not so good a job that I can, alas, remember his name).


Oh, and have fun with spoiler "tags" if you like, but this thread is a free spoiler zone.

[libraryvixen]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Oh, and have fun with spoiler "tags" if you like, but this thread is a free spoiler zone.

I just followed GC

[Jazzman]

This is my review cross-posted from MC.

WARNING! Longer than I intended!

We saw the midnight premiere last night and had a lot of fun, but I can’t decide yet if I actually liked it or not. It had pretty high quality production values and the acting was superb throughout, which is all definitely good, but there were a few things that I just didn’t quite agree with.

Spoiler:

The Good

- I continue to be amazed at how perfectly they are able to match the characters’ on-screen representations to the images I’ve created in my mind. Every time a new character is shown on-screen they look exactly the way I imagined them. Cedric, Mad Eye, Voldemort, Fleur (Ahhh, lovely, lovely Fleur) etc. And they filled their parts wonderfully. Even more than LoTR this series has been, to me, like the books come to life.

- I have to mention how much I adore the score. It didn't change much, but I still get chills when hearing it, and the films have all succeeded greatly in using the music to enhance the scene without becoming overpowering or annoying. John Williams is truly a master of leit motif, and his Potter themes are some of his best, which is saying a lot. Added - Patrick Doyle arranged the score for this film, but his source material was still the motifs crafted by Williams for "Sorceror's Stone."

- The first task was incredible and, I feel, even surpassed the book’s version. The dragon was fantastically rendered, and the same is true of all the CG shots, such as the merpeople, Voldemort’s rebirth, etc. George Lucas should hook up with these FX artists, because this is what CG effects should bring to a film. I never had to drown in suspension of disbelief in order to “buy” the effects; they fit like perfectly matched puzzle pieces.

- The tone of the movie also matched the book’s tone quite well, which I appreciated. The filmmaker’s could have easily toned it down and kept it aimed at kids, but they had the cajones to keep it true to the story and preserve the spirit of Rowling’s tale. The wizard world is now at the brink of war, and this chapter in the saga is where that dramatic transition begins. The innocence of “Sorcerer’s Stone” is gone, and as Harry told Hermione, things are all about to change. If this film hadn’t been as dark as it is, then the following films would either be thrown completely off by having to be lightened accordingly, or they would be made appropriately “dark” to match their respective books and the change between this film and them would be clunky and jarring.

- Some of the most dramatic moments blew me away. Cedric’s death unfolded exactly as I think it should have. Watching Harry tearfully throw himself protectively across Cedric’s body, and then listening to the wails of despair coming from Cedric’s Dad just tore my heart out. I never expected a Potter film to bring tears, but this one made me misty a few times.

- A huge, HUGE thumbs up to the extended screen time given to some previously neglected characters; the twins especially. They’re so much fun, and just fill the screen to overflowing whenever they appear. I loved every frame they were in. Neville was also a scene stealing gem. “I just got in! Me!” I actually let out a heartfelt cheer for him. Neville is such an endearing character, and it was fun to see him on-screen radiating that same lovableness which he has in the books.

- The little comedic moments were so well timed that it felt like those cool summer breezes that come along on a really hot day and make you stop, smile and bask in the moment. Whether it was the ferreting of Malfoy, McGonagall’s dry quips, or anything the twins said or did, I couldn’t help but laugh out loud and not once rolled my eyes or groaned. No cheese = all good.

[u[The Bad[/u]

- Above all I have to bemoan the horrible casting of Dumbledore. Michael Gambon may be a fine actor, but this part is nowhere near the right one for him. I of course don’t expect anyone to step into Richard Harris’ shoes, but someone at least close would be appreciated. Harris was able to capture the essence of Dumbledore; the awesome power flowing just beneath the surface, obvious yet not overshadowing the serene calm of the kindly, sometimes goofy, old man. Gambon, however, fails in this completely, and his stomping, brooding and shouting is completely out of character for Dumbledore. When he dove into Harry, nearly strangling him, after the Goblet spit out his name I rolled my eyes nearly out of my head. Absent entirely was the fatherly concern and love fueled worry that Dumbledore exhibited in the books. Instead he just look like an old geezer throwing a fit. Lame... I remember a scene in the “Chamber of Secrets” where Dumbledore shouted “Silence!” over the heads of the students. There was such commanding authority in his voice that even the viewer sat up straighter. They tried the same trick a few times in this film and it was just grating and irritating. It reminded me of a substitute teacher trying to bring a class to order. Totally lame and ignore-able. Dumbledore is such an important character that it’s sad to see him acted so poorly. I have to wonder if “Half Blood Prince,” when it’s filmed, is going to impact anyone at all.

- I understand that running time is a huge concern, but at 157 minutes this was not a long film by today’s standards. So much had to be cut from the book that even another fifteen minutes would have been greatly appreciated by those of us who love the books so much. As it is we lost characters like Winky, Bagman, Mrs. Weasley, the Dursleys, Percy and Peeves; plot points such as Riddle’s past and the death of his parents, the gravity of the trials, and the tragedy of Neville’s parents; and things like the Blast Ended Skrewts and the Sphinxes, among others. If anything, the huge success of films like the extended LoTR editions show that audiences, if the story is compelling and beloved, will watch for hours and still want more. If the Potter saga isn’t compelling and beloved, I don’t know what is. Hopefully they’ll open up “Order of the Phoenix” enough to really give us what we want. It will be a huge success of they do.

- Following on that, I felt uncomfortably rushed. I understood the need to get going, but the way it was executed made me feel like I was watching the movie on fast forward. Ten minutes in and were over half way through the story? What the...? Perhaps the problem was in editing. I’m not sure, but it seems to me that the same film could have been put together in the same length without feeling like a ride on a bullet train. The way it was, I pitied anyone who hadn’t read the book. They really had no time to get their bearings or work things out and just had to hang on for the ride.In fact, Steph was getting annoyed because the lady next to her kept asking, “Now who’s that? Why is he upset? Who are they? Why are they doing that?” It was painfully obvious how lost she was because she hadn’t read the book.

- The maze. Sucked. They totally blew it. Instead of a dynamic, Sphinx and giant spider filled labyrinth of doom, we got a windy hedgerow filled back yard growing with Evil Dead vines. Lame.

- Sirius’ face in the fire was really lamely done too. I was a bit surprised, as the effects had been otherwise exemplary. It’s too bad that our only glimpse of Harry’s godfather was as a glowing pile of Kingsford’s charcoal briquettes.

- This really can’t be helped any more than they did, but the aging of the kids kept jarring me back into reality. Someone on-screen mentioned that Harry was fourteen, and an audience member piped up, “Uh uh! He’s twenty three!” to uproarious laughter. I’ll just have to deal, I know, but it’s still a factor.

- Ron. I love Ron! Why did they relegate him to mainly the role of “funny sidekick?” A couple of plot driving moments aside, Ron basically sat there going, “Bloody hell! Blimey! Bloody great! Piss off! Huh..?” I just didn’t feel that the screenwriters did Ron justice. Hermione was allowed to grow and mature (and boy did she!) Why not Ron?

Those are the biggest points I can think of right now. I’ll probably (hopefully) enjoy it more the second time around, in IMAX! One thing’s for sure though. I cannot wait for the next film!

[wendybeth]

I'm not going to bother with spoiler tags, as there is a warning in the thread title to beware. Also, I'm lazy.

I love Ralph Fiennes, but I am not sure I like his Voldie. In my mind's eye I keep seeing Daniel Day-Lewis in the role. I don't know why, but I do. Maybe it's his character in 'Gangs of New York', or just what sort of visual he would impart- dark, thin and intense. Fiennes seems a bit too healthy; it seems to me that Voldemort would be a bit more skeletal after his regeneration.

The fire was lame, too. But I still loved the movie, and we are seeing it again tomorrow!

[Alex]

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.

[wendybeth]

Alex.

(Sigh)

If you had read the books, the majority of your questions would be answered. You wouldn't have even thought to ask them. Instead, you would be wondering why such and such a thing was left out, or why something you knew not to be in the book was present, etc. I read a review by someone at CNN earlier today, which reads something like yours. I am at a loss as to why on earth someone would review a movie based upon a series without reading the book, but there you have it. I've attended movies in the past with people who hadn't read the book the film was based on, such as 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' and more recently 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. They didn't get it, and I felt badly at the time they had wasted, not to mention the money. Perhaps some films should come with a disclaimer "If you want to understand or enjoy this film, read the book first!" Peter Jackson said he decided to operate on the assumption that people had read the LOTR's, primarily because he didn't feel like explaining the whole damned history of Middle Earth to them.

[Jazzman]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I love Ralph Fiennes, but I am not sure I like his Voldie. In my mind's eye I keep seeing Daniel Day-Lewis in the role. I don't know why, but I do. Maybe it's his character in 'Gangs of New York', or just what sort of visual he would impart- dark, thin and intense. Fiennes seems a bit too healthy; it seems to me that Voldemort would be a bit more skeletal after his regeneration.

I very much enjoyed Fiennes performance, but Day-Lewis would have been an interesting choice indeed. He has a certain intensity about him that would suit Voldy well. Cool idea for speculation!

[Alex]

More than half of the movies released in a year are based on books and for each only a small fractionof the audience will have ever read the book. I've never read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (tried, but didn't care for it) but enjoyed both movies quite a bit. I liked the first two Lord of the Rings movies very, very much even though it had been so long since I read the books that I really didn't remember anything from them (the third one is almost incomprehensible without close knowledge of the books). The Exorcist is a great movie though I've never read the book. As is The Bridge Over the River Kwai. Does it require having read the book to enjoy Gone with the Wind or The Wizard of Oz?

No. Because a movie should stand alone from the book. Either that or they should do what you suggest and be upfront in saying "this is simply an annotation of the books."

Anyway, I'm giving my view as a non-reader of the books. Obviously it is a different experience for those who have read the books. But if you haven't, the movie, simply as a movie, is crap.

[wendybeth]

I agree, Alex. If you haven't read the series, the movies are difficult to get in to. I have a different take on movies, though- particularily movies that are derived from books: The movies must convey at least a sense of what the books do. I've seen all the movies you mentioned, and yes, some stand on their own. They do not adhere to the books, but they are fine movies. Like the LOTR's, the HP books are simply too full of information to put into movie format in a timely fashion. There is so much that has to be left out for brevities sake- and you would know what I speak of had you read the books- that it seems the filmmakers were left with the same choice Peter Jackson had- try to explain everything , and lose precious minutes, or just assume that the viewer has at least a rough idea of the storyline.