Today I went to Harry Potter and the Hooded Fang…er…the Goblet of Fire. I didn’t go on opening day because I’m a huge Harry Potter fan (in fact,I’m not one at all). It just happened to be the most promising movie which I hadn’t seen in the time slot I had available.
IMPORTANT: If you haven’t read the books or heard about the casting of this movie, this review contains minor spoilers. I stuck the whole thing after the jump, to be safe. [more]
More of the same. That’s what a Harry Potter movie promises these days, and that’s largely what it delivers.
Absurd game of quidditch? Check. For the life of me, I don’t know why each team just doesn’t deploy seven seekers, so that the game becomes a fourteen player game of Chase the Bumblebee. After all, you catch the little thing, you win the game.
Hogwarts is infiltrated by gruesome figures with nefarious intent? Check. You’d think the school would hire a couple dozen rent-a-cops and a private detective.
Popular British actors are unrecognizable under incredible makeup? Check. Why is the English Patient hunting Harry Potter?
Though the stars are growing up rapidly, the movie still seems aimed exclusively at children. There’s an onslaught impressive special effects, chase sequences and flashy bits of wand wielding (why don’t they just give them Glocks and be done with it?). There’s nothing wrong with a movie just for kids, but there are plenty of examples of movies which work on multiple levels and are entertaining for both kids and adults. The Incredibles springs immediately to mind.
This is too bad, because the two male leads–Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint (1976 called, and it wants its hair back) are becoming better actors, and have much more natural chemistry. Unfortunately, they rarely get to chat. Between the introductions of new characters, dragon avoidance and long shots of sweeping, foreboding vistas, they rarely get a moment to themselves.
Hermione Granger is an increasingly cruel role for Emma Watson. She struggled in this film, having little to do but huff and puff at Harry and Ron in turn. There’s a pissed-off-teen-girl-at-the-dance scene which fails miserably. This isn’t all Watson’s fault, the script and the direction fall flat as well (not to mention the utter undesirability of poor Ron). This is despite the fact that there are dozens of examples in teen films of the last two decades to draw upon. Watson acts through Goblet of Fire like she’s completing a particularly tedious homework assignment.
The adult portion of the cast is excellent, though a little wasted as each gets so little screen time, and in such short scenes. Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) pronounces, McGonagall (Maggie Smith) tsk-tsks, Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) worries, all briefly and effectively.
I haven’t read the books, but each film has felt, to some degree, overly loyal to the text. Which is to say, about a half hour too long. The plot centres on Harry completing three tasks as part of the Triwizard Tournament. Unfortunately, we have to wade through the World Cup of Quidditch, an undead Ku Klux Klan attack, and a dream sequence to get there. The same goes for the epilogue, which doesn’t commit the felony of Return of the King, but deserves to be charged for a like-minded misdemeanour.
If you enjoyed the other Harry Potter movies, I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t like this one. I was occasionally entertained and occasionally bored. Maybe the films will get more adult with teenage stars. If so, hopefully we’ll see a little more conversation and a little less action.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
Harry Potter with a Glock. Sounds like something straight out of a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip.
I haven’t laughed that hard in a while…
oddly, I found Michael Gambon’s performance of Dumbledore not just bad, but completely hideous. Dumbledore doesn’t scamper. What the hell was with all the scampering?
I miss Richard Harris.
I have a theory, albeit poorly thought out and completely unsubstantiated, that to like Harry Potter one needs a connection with children.
My experience has taught me that:
1- predominantly women enjoy HP
2- men who like the movies/books are school teachers (I’m serious, all 3 men that I know that like it are teachers)
Even the SNL skit about Harry Potter was uninspired.
The best Harry Potter satire is on the Family Channel kids’ variety skit show, called “All That.” (If you don’t have kids, the only people you might know who started on that show are teen star Amanda Bynes and Kenan Thompson, now on SNL.) On that show, they have a running skit called “Harry Bladder,” which skewers HP quite well.
That said, I enjoy the Harry Potter books well enough — they’re plotted well and run along. The movies are, as Darren said, too faithful to the books. Because of that, I haven’t yet bothered seeing the last two.
Although I appreciate that it got kids reading I’m not the hugest Harry Potter fan in the world. The movies have been fun, but to me this last one was somewhat dissapointingly anti-climactic, and did not feel like it did that “step-up” as others had. I found this less frightening than the previous HPs. Altogether it was unfortunate becuase I really was expecting something a little more sophisticated; something, as Darren says, for an older audience.
It also felt too much like a lead-up to the next film (which I am nearly positive will be made), and that turns me off.
As for Fiennes, I think he was victim of the story/audience. To me, Voldemort as an idea of disembodied powerful evil, was *far* more frightening/impressive than a slight guy with a slit nose and billowing black robes. They either should have made him more frightening (guess they didn’t want to scare the kiddies), or kept him hidden and to one’s imagination.
Best scene: Moaning Myrtle flirting with Harry in the pool. I also like the twins, but they were a tad *too* present.
I find your lack of faith dissapointing.
I thought that this was, by far, the best Harry Potter Movie ever.
I do understand your frustration though, I went and saw it at midnight and had I not been an avid potter fan I would be utterly confused.
However, the books are exceptional. I would Highly reccommend reading them.
Just because you catch the snitch in quidditch does not mean you win. As a matter of fact, in the book, the bulgarians catch the snitch but the Irish still win, this is because the Irish have racked up enough points with the quaffle that the 150 points added to the Bulgarian team’s score was not enough to win.
To sum it all up, in response to your critticism of the movie:
I throughly enjoyed it, and allthough you say it lacked “step-up” and climatic effect, it is because you have not read the books. The books make the movies even more enjoyable. They will also clarify the fourth movie that was cut so short.
I love Harry Potter, but I must admit I had been very dissapointed with the movies up until this one.
READ THE BOOKS!! Then watch it again and see if you can still say you Hate Harry Potter.
I am a Harry Potter reader and a fan. The complaints I’ve heard from other readers is that the movie strayed to far from the text. Though, I attended the movie with a friend who does not read the books and he felt it was too detailed. The movie was good but not great in my opinion, in this case, I felt the book to be more exciting than than the movie. I too was bored on some occasions.
Oh I’ve read the books and they are fine (not spectacular, but worth a flip), and this book did go darker – however the movie didn’t. Well it did in content, but not in how it *felt*. This last film also really reinforced in me about how different the two genres are. Books can be be much broader and throughtful, whereas most movies need a defined climax and conclusion (artsy types may object). They tried to make this film as broad as the book, and it doesn’t work as a stand-alone film.
Regarding Quidditch. The team that finds the golden snitch doesn’t actually automatically win. The game ends and the team is awarded 150 points. If the other team is more than 150 points ahead, then the snitch-grabbing team has sealed its own defeat. This actually came up in the Goblet of Fire novel.
Sad that I know that, I know, but… Harry Potter fan fiction rocks!
The only interesting part of the whole movie was during the actual Tri-Wizard Tournament. The rest was dull and I was very dissapointed by the level of immaturity this movie reached. As a movie primarily for children it was fine but put a little something in for the others too!
I’ll keep an eye out for your, “sure I ordered tickets on the net days in advance so I could see it on opening day but I still don’t like Harry Potter and here’s why” review of ‘Order of the Phoenix’ in 2007.
Declan: I’m sure that was tongue-in-cheek, but I was surprised at how empty the matinee I attended was. Mind you, it was at about 12:15, but there were plenty of seats available.
Indeed, tongue-in-cheek, but I’m surprised to hear there were seats available. I wanted to see GoF on Saturday but when I went to buy tickets (in the afternoon), I found that all the evening shows were already sold out many hours in advance (except the really late ones).
I am a Harry Potter fan, but “why is the English Patient hunting Harry Potter?” is the funniest comment I’ve heard about the film to date.
Iloved that movie so why don’t you all just shutup!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Harry Potter is my favourite film,especially emma watson,she is so wanderfull,I think I like her very much and i’d like to meet her one day,she is brilliant and the most good actress ever,even Daniel and Rupert.keep it on!
Harry Potter is sooooo awsome.I want to talk to Daniel Radcliffe right now!!!!