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

[Drince88]

I saw it at a matinee yesterday.

GC - I believe Fleur mentioned Harry saved her sister when she was first brought to the surface.

I was somewhat disappointed in some of the things left out - like how the others got their eggs from the dragons. They could have left out all the Rita Skeeter (or whatever her name is) parts to summarize those (like Ron telling Harry about it, or something if they didn't want to hint at that before Harry had his go with them. Would also have explained how Harry and Cedric could have been tied going into the maze.

I agree, the maze was really boring. "Don't fall down and keep moving" seemed to be the only trick in getting through it.

I had envisioned Sirius in the fireplace as more 'real' and less charcoal-y -- was it this book, or one of the later ones where a hand comes out and tries to grab his head -- that's going to be hard to do with this 'style' of special effect.

The story (maybe editing?) was choppy to me -- Fight dragons, be uncomfortable teenagers at a formal dance, (and ALL those kids would rather stay at school for a dance then go home for Christmas???), rescue people from drowning, go through a maze, fight the bad guy, and "oh no, our world will never be the same" loss of innocence. Yes, I realize it's a formula-ic story overall - but I didn't get the cohesiveness. Like the reporter stuff, and why were the three walking with Hagrid through the forest?

I'm a believer that you shouldn't have to read the book to 'get' the movie - in fact, if a movie is coming out soon when I'm about to read the book, I'll wait and see the movie first so I get the suspense and surprise with plot twists, since the movie should be more, I don't know, kind of visceral - but that's not quite it. THEN I read the book to get the nuance and detail that I know they can't put into a reasonable length movie.

Also, there weren't enough "Mothers" in it -- Mrs. Weasley as Harry's surrogate mother worrying about him in the tournament - Cedric's Mom at the end (she was there in the book, wasn't she?) - This is dangerous stuff, yet I didn't feel any 'worry' over the characters.

Finally, WHY does the girl have to fail the most in the tournament? Even Hermione is relegated to 'girl' stuff, and her ultra-book smarts is not a factor.

And to end on a frivolous note (yea, unlike the rest of my post), they didn't pronounced the Baton part of Beauxbaton the way I did in my head. Maybe I'm picking up more Cajun pronunciations then I thought living in New Orleans?

[SusieP.]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

So tell me, why do the other schools only have 8 students (or so) and how does coming in second get you tied for first? And why is Harry Potter such a waste of space?

In the book, each school brings a full contingency of students. There were even boys that came with the girls from Beauxbaton. I think we're supposed to figure that they only brought the best of the best to compete in the tournament.

And the dragon challenge, there was no first place winner. They weren't competing against each other, I don't think. It wasn't a time challenge or anything, so the goal must have been just to finish the task. They didn't start ranking them until after the underwater challenge, and then Harry got bumped up due to his heroism (or whatever.) So maybe the dragon thing was scored somehow like the Olympics and then that evened the playing field or something. I'll have to check the book.

I felt it went really fast through a lot of stuff, and if you hadn't read the books you missed things. Like, if you didn't know Neville's last name, there was no way you would catch the part about his parents in the trial, and you wouldn't have the explanation as to why the cruciatus curse disturbed him so much.

I really liked it though! And I was glad that Daniel Radcliffe's acting was much improved this time out, not so much of the huffing and puffing and stammering.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

And why is Harry Potter such a waste of space?

Harry Potter is sort of an accidental hero. He is not extraordinary- the things that have happened to him are, but he is just a kid, nothing more. As the books progress and the plot unfolds, you see this more clearly. He's more a victim than anything up to this point; as he ages he matures and starts to take on a more proactive role, particularily after he discovers some unpleasant news in book five.

[Alex]

That's fine, but it is an awfully weak structure on which to build 10 hours of film.

But, really, I'm just sharing the view of someone who hasn't read the books. The movies have done nothing to make me want to read the books (nor anybody I know who has seen the movies but not read the books). Sometimes a good adaptation is a great movie and hints at the greater depth in the book. These don't.

I'm not trying to convince anybody they shouldn't like the movies.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I loved it. From beginning to end, it was an enormously good time. The Trio were in top form and keep getting better/more attractive. Maggie Smith had stuff to do this time around, and was terrific. What I loved most about Azkaban and this film were the add-in touches, making the films their own experiences. My favorite scene was the study hall scene in the Great Hall, when Snape kept hitting Harry and Ron, and "Oi, Angelina!" was kept in!

Azkaban is a flawless movie, save the Shrieking Shack scene which was destroyed for no apparent reason considering ALL the necessary dialogue was in the book.

The only missing item from GoF that really stuck out for me was a better explanation of Neville's parents, and Snape showing his Dark Mark to the Ministry of Magic. But even those things didn’t really bother me until after the credits started rolling; whereas, in Azkaban (which I do consider a superior film) the Shrieking Shack’s brevity was jarring and irritating as I was watching it.

I loved the teenaged angst fest in Goblet. The first two movies introduced Rowling’s world to the screen, and saccharine though they may have been, I give Columbus a lot more credit than most of my friends for doing a darn good job at establishing the story, the world, and for the incredible job he did casting. Plus, I can't lie, it wasn't until after seeing Chamber of Secrets that I decided to finally give the books a try.

Azkaban went on to really *make* the wizarding world a real place. From the bus ride to the Leaky Cauldron to Honeydukes and the Whomping Willow, Rowling’s world looked like a completely realized vision.

Newell, in my opinion, really made it feel like a school. Funny, really, since this is the first movie where only one classroom scene was featured. It just felt really populated by students of varying ages. It had that private / prep school vibe going for it and I totally dug it.

I loved Moaning Myrtle in the bathroom. I just laughed and laughed and had such a good time. It wasn't as intellectual as Azkaban - not as meditative – but it was a really lovely action movie. I remember enjoying the book a lot, but after Azkaban it felt a bit of a letdown...didn't seem as thoughtful or precise. The second time I read it I absolutely loved it, because it was so much fun. Fun that was necessary considering the absolute darkness of the book’s end, and because of the dreary place she planned on going in the 5th installment.

It was the first truly ensemble film of the Potter series, I think. Krum and Fleur didn't get much in the way of dialogue but their presence was felt. Cedric was PERFECT. Oh, how I sobbed when Harry transported them back to Hogwarts and Harry couldn't let go of his body.

Grint was wonderfully subdued in his pissy anger. Loved their reconciliation and Watson's "Boys." remark. Ginny did stuff, too!

The friggin' twins were EVERYWHERE! Man, I love, love and love them.

The Yule ball was brilliant, minus the annoying rock band - though I liked the idea of having a rock band there. Neville's surprise and delight at coming home in the morning. Neville being the first to get up and dance, and the practice dancing in his dorm room. Sweet, brave Neville! I think it was those little perfect moments that made up for some of the other things that were lacking. I did think it strange that the Foe Glass was brought up and then not used again in the scene where Albus, Minerva and Severus foil Barty Crouch, Jr.’s plans.

The maze was a bit disappointing, but it was leading up to what we were all waiting for anyway. And the graveyard scene was far from disappointing. I loved Ralph Fiennes' semi-gay portrayal of Voldemort, with his effeminate wand waving. The Death Eater’s shooting out of the Dark Mark in the sky was terrifying, as were their bone-like masks. Awesome!

Gleeson's performance left me gleeful.

I don't know how I'd feel about the last two films if I hadn’t read the books first. My father really enjoys them, and no plans on reading the books. But I think if I hadn’t read them, some parts would feel very underdeveloped. As large as Goblet was, I don’t really feel like complaining.

Still completely baffled as to why the filmmakers have left out so much about the Mauraders and Snape, though. Given where the story is headed in Book 6, that seems almost irresponsible not to have made that at least clear in Goblet. However, since so much of Book 5 is Harry’s internal angry monologue, they can probably cut some of that out in favor of a bit of delayed exposition.

[Gemini Cricket]

Fiennes' Voldemort was a little gay now that you mention it. He steps on Cedric's face and says something about him being handsome. Whoa.

I kept thinking how cool his (Voldemort's) face looked. No nose. How did they do that? Fiennes has a biggish nose...

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Drince88

GC - I believe Fleur mentioned Harry saved her sister when she was first brought to the surface.

Yes, I saw that part. But I meant beforehand. So that when you saw the four underwater you realized who she was and could feel how griefstricken Fleur was because she just left her sister behind. Without that piece of info, she's just some kid underwater.

Also, I think Alex mentioned this, in the books they explain that the teachers weren't going to just leave the kids underwater.

[Sheila]

I saw the film on Friday night, and I have to say, this was also my second-favorite of the four (number 1, my most favorite).

I think that what Alex may be missing is that the appeal of Harry Potter is not really in that he is this nascent wunderkind sorceror, but that he is a decent, loyal and quick-thinking young man who is kind and caring to friends and teachers alike.

It's my personal opinion that why the Potter series is so popular is that the three main characters are true to each other, in a way that we all wish we could be and that our friends would be also.

Although I had a similar reaction to GoF that Potter seemed to rely almost completely on ex deus machina interventions to get him out of peril, on reflection, he really only gets out of peril because he is a decent person. His "karma" that he has created by rescuing others and being decent allows him to reap the rewards of those same people helping him in turn.

I think the Harry Potter series is a wonderful series of books that let us imagine we live in a world where good is rewarded, evil is punished and we are ultimately surrounded by family and friends that love us.

[Alex]

I think that what Alex may be missing is that the appeal of Harry Potter is not really in that he is this nascent wunderkind sorceror, but that he is a decent, loyal and quick-thinking young man who is kind and caring to friends and teachers alike.

If the phrase I've bolded is true of the books it hasn't been translated to the movies at all. I don't think I've yet see him think his way out of trouble.

And he wasn't saved by his karma where others rewarded him for past good deeds. He was manipulated by evil who needed him in the competition and manipulated things to their desired end (and this whole set up is assinine since there is no reason given in the movie for why what happened at the end of the tournament needed to be done in the tournament and couldn't have been achieved through more straightforward means).

But I promise to stop now since as I think more about the movie I find myself liking it even less.

In good news, in preparation for Narnia I did read two of those books and they were good enough (if awfully blunt in their recasting of Christian mythology). I have hopes for the movie.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, 'natch the reason that the evil plot was done convolutedly through the tournament (rather than, say, having one of Harry's socks be a portkey) was that ... wait for it ... there wouldn't be a movie otherwise.

Really, one could have the same criticism for dozens of fantasy/adventure tales. It may be logical, but it's simply not too valid. Suffice it to say that maniacal villains bent on ruling the world have an incurable penchant for diabolically convoluted plots.

Having seen the film again, its flaws are still quite apparent. But the fun and adventure win out for me. It's really the funniest Potter movie, and I enjoyed laughing so very much. Yeah, it's got a choppy structure, the maze sucked tremendously, I didn't like Feinnes as Voldemort, and there was a severe drop in the style, editing, pacing and story departments since the last film. But there were fun characters old and new, some great visuals, and I found it an enjoyable romp.

I happen to agree with almost all of Alex's criticisms, but I just don't think they matter much in the context of Harry Potter movies. I know people who like them and haven't read the books, so I'm not at all convinced that reading the books is a prerequisite for this film series.