|
Directed by: Mike Newell Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson I guess I have to be the first to admit it... I saw Harry Potter today. Following in the trend of PoA, this movie is better than the last. While PoA was finally watchable, GoF launches HP into the realm of "Fun to watch" and "Good story." This film is well structured, and never loses it's momentum. The actors have gotten good, and it is possible to look beyond the fact that someone who is 16 years old is playing a 14 year old character. It might get worse in the next 3, but for now: not that bad. The only real problem is that John Williams did not do the score. It isn't that bad, until major villans come around. That's when it feels like the soundtrack isn't helping the film... it's crippling it. So, yeah. Go watch it. If you've never watched HP, this film doesn't make the first two worth it, but the fifth might at this rate, so you might as well get it over with. EDIT: With regard to what everyone else is saying: I've never read the books, but I did read LotR. Do you know how much they cut? How much they changed the order of scenes? How quickly they go from one part to another? the long cuts help, but they don't bring back everything. It's a movie, you have to account for time and necessity. Well, at least that's what I think. RATING: 4.0 PROS: They keep getting better CONS: It's still harry potter ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330373/ Yawgmoft fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Nov 20, 2005 |
#
?
Nov 18, 2005 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
Seconding Yawgmoft's opinion of the movie. It is certainly more watchable than the first two and the cinematic artistry is on par with Prisoner of Azkaban. Be warned however, if you have read the books, do not go into this movie expecting everything to be addressed. Harry's falling out with the Dursleys, the Quidditch World Cup, and some parts of the Triwizard events are just...cut out. Having read the books I was able to fill in most of the blanks but even I felt kind of jarred from the fast clip the movie took. It jumps from scene to scene without pretense or build-up most of the time and the conflicts between the characters are never fully explained, just assumed. The actors have certainly gotten better in that their acting is not as disjointed as in the previous movies. The scope of the actors has grown in that they can now convincingly portray their teenage angst without it seeming far too scripted. The movie is rife with humor, there's comedy gold every five minutes or so and, if you look hard enough, you can insinuate just about anything in the movie if you have the correct mindset (read:college banal humor). I went with two friends who have read the books and two who did not and all of them found it quite enjoyable and hilarious. Pros: Actors have gotten better, the movie's CGI is amazingly seamless Cons: Needed more buildup, needed a more conclusive ending as well Final Score: 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2005 09:43
|
|
|
Disappointing. I have not read any of the books, so the reason for my disappointment was not an unfaithful adaptation. The Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite of the series. It's the only one I have truly enjoyed. This movie felt chopped up, and the characters underdeveloped. I thought that the acting was better in all of the other movies than it was in this one. Moments seemed fake, and the scenes where emotion was needed to bring the audience in fell flat, and lacked depth. I felt very little for the characters, as the movie failed to develop any empathy for them. Twists, and Reversals in the plot seemed either cliché or they came out of no where. Pros: The comedy in the movie worked well. Cons: Underdeveloped characters which failed to gain any real empathy from me. Final Score: 2.5/5 numeric_atrophy fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Nov 18, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2005 12:12
|
|
|
I liked it quite a bit. I read the books, though. The opening scene was done perfectly. From the point of view to how the old man was discovered to the use of Avada Kedavra, it was great. The CG was excellent. I was stoked when the pegasus carriage flew in. I was a bit disappointed that they didn't go more in depth with Victor Krum's character at the Quidditch World Cup (WHY DIDN'T HE SAY HERMIO-NINNY?!)or in to Fluer's character. Also, they started to touch on how annoying the reporter was, but then stopped afterward. But even with that, they still managed to retain enough of the movie to make it very enjoyable. After all, if they added everything, the movie would have been well over 4 hours long. Maybe they'll add an extended version DVD like the LotR movies. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2005 12:54
|
|
|
Visually, it was fantastic, and there were some good scenes, but the break neck pacing was fairly jarring. Scenes jumped from one to another with no context or segue. Sometimes you couldn't tell if hours had passed in movie time or if it was days/weeks/months. The quick jumps served to take away much of the tension and meaning. Things just happened one after another so quickly there was no time to form any emotional attachments. There were some budget and time cutting tricks that were painfully obvious and pretty cheesy- "Here are the teams playing each other in the Quidditch World Cup, let the match begin!" -cut- "Wow, that sure was a great match!". I'm not a stickler for adaptations of books being absolutely faithful to the book. The Godfather, Jaws, Exorcist, and hell, the third Harry Potter movie come to mind as movies that made some fairly big changes/edits to the source material but were better movies for it. The changes really hurt this one. Dozens of details and excised sub-plots , not to mention a major change to the plot convinced me they should have pulled a Kill Bill and released this thing in two parts. It wasn't bad or anything, but coming off Azkaban it's a bit of a disappointment. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2005 16:45
|
|
|
Well, they did it. They condensed a 700+ page book into a two-and-a-half hour film. And god drat it, it STILL felt rushed. Ah well. The beginng of the film suffers the most, jumping from Harry's dream to the world cup to the Death Eater attack in about 15 minutes. There's no footage of the World Cup. None. I can understand that it's not really essential to the plot, but the way it's built up and then not even shown is cinematic blueballs. There are some beautiful shots in the rush, though; Harry & company walking up the hill to the portkey while the sun rises in the background, the tent city around the cup stadium the morning of the match, and the stadium itself is fantastic looking, for the whole two minutes you get to see it. Once the crew arrives at Hogwarts, the movie really hits its stride. The pacing finally locks down, and until almost the end of the movie, it does a great job of going through the meat of the book and condensing it without feeling the least bit rushed. But when we hit the end... Once Cedric and Harry arrive in the graveyard, everything speeds back up a little. It's not enough to really bother you, but when Wormtail starts up the resurrection spell, it feels rushed. After Voldemort returns and starts loving with Harry, it feels rushed. Priori Incantatum feels rushed. This is the one part of the film that really should've taken more time with itself. I guess I just wanted more Voldemort. Speaking of which, despite the odd pacing, Voldemort's return was loving AMAZING. I guess when it comes down to it, my biggest gripe with the movie is the uneven pacing in the beginning. More than anything else, it detracts from the movie. I understand that this is still probably considered a kids movie despite the PG-13 rating, and that the longer you make a kids movie, the fewer peole are going to see it. However, the film is already a little over two and a half hours long as it is; would another 15 minutes to have smoothed out the pacing really been such a bad idea? PROS: Amazing effects, the acting gets better with each film, VOLDEMORT VOLDEMORT VOLDEMORT CONS: Breakneck, uneven pacing in the beginning and towards the end. RATING: A weak 4.5/5 Dr. Sheaus fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Nov 18, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2005 18:37
|
|
|
Easily the worst movie so far. The only way you're going to enjoy this one is if you have read the books before and don't mind that the movie basically leaves out all of the explanations for pretty much everything. Character development (beyond "holy poo poo they're all getting old and are afraid of boobies") is nonexistant, and the plot is rushed. Every single one of my friends who saw it with me and who haven't read the books hated this film. I read the book so long ago that I could hardly remember the plot going into the movie, and I hated this film. I even I really wanted to like it. It seemed like it was only made to give a "this is the way things looked when they happened in the book" kind of experience, instead of actually trying to tell the story. It essentially felt to me like the script was written by giving the book to microsoft word autosummarize. Only the plot points that randomly got picked were actually kept in the movie, and the rest was ignored. The characters suffered from the book-movie information loss as well. Their middleschool level spats are easy to figure out, but its hard to care since the movie hardly gives you reason to. The new dumbledore fails at being the aloof, unknowable dude he's supposed to be, as well. He only seems to yell well in this movie. All of the hogwarts-based potenti-villains sucked too. My suggestion to whatever company is doing these movies is to just say "gently caress it" and hire Peter Jackson to do all the remaining movies, including a remake of this one. This could have been a brilliant film if given three and a half hours and a decent director. All in all, this movie's major failing was that it just never made me CARE about much of anything that's going on. There's no pervading sense of danger or excitement - everything's just presented and you're expected to care. Pros: The effects are pretty good and the tournament scenes are excellent. Ron's starting to look like a stoner. Cons: Needs more background information on the plot, the King Kong preview was more emotionally involving. Rating: 2/5, for a couple cool tournament scenes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2005 20:04
|
|
|
Having never read the books, I was extremely confused by this movie. Characters that felt like they had grand backgrounds were barely touched on. This was especially true for all three of the other 'champions' who I just didn't care about at all. I also didn't get why Ron was so pissed at Harry. It was pretty clear it wasn't his fault he was in the tournament but they faught anyway. Who was the asian chick? She had like what, 3 lines? But she seemed 'important' and just wasn't. Nothing seemed to matter. I thought it was a poor translation of a book I've never read because, well, I didn't care about anything. The last 1/3 of the movie was pretty decent though. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2005 22:06
|
|
|
Best of the three so far. It felt very rushed in the beginning but then had a far more gradual progression to the end. I'm actually very happy that they rushed in the beginning because I don't think I could muster any enthusiasm for yet another Quidditch match and making all three films have a match is just a boring broken record. And the dragon sequence had all the flying you really need. The film is better written and more interesting for someone like me who hasn't read the books. The humor is well interspersed and I was happy the film had such a dark tone and ending which is rare these days. Special effects are also roundly good. I'd say they found a good combination - Newell turned out great ('wait, the Four Weddings guy is doing Donnie Brasco?!?') although the lead actor still has a bit more work to go as he still doesn't feel natural enough in the role. By next film I'd think he'll be very good and hope it has as much good material to work with. I'd give it a 4 (with Azkaban getting a 3.5 and Stone getting a 2.5).
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2005 22:10
|
|
|
i don't read the harry potter books, i just watch the movies. and this is THE best out of the four, hands down. although the acting wasn't top notch, i didn't find myself nitpicking at it at all throughout the movie. i was too caught in the hilariousness (is that a word?) as well as being put into cinematic glee at some of the shots, seriously some were really well done. my only real gripe with the film is it didn't make me care much about the new characters. this is something that, had it been done, would have made this harry potter installment overly and exhiliartingly emotional. other than that, i thought it was a well-rounded, fun movie to watch with a group friends, and i did just that. fun movie. 5.0/5.5
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2005 09:54
|
|
|
This movie was awful, pure and simple. Everything that makes the books enjoyable is absent from this film. Characterization? Practically none. The mysterious and intriguing atmosphere of Hogwarts? You forget the movie even takes place there half the time. The suspense of wondering how things are going to turn out? Pretty much every plot element besides the tournament and Voldemort storyline is introduced and dispensed with in about 10 minutes. Familiar characters act in ways that are completely different from how they are shown in the book and in previous films. Dumbledore comes off as an angry, impatient old man and seems afraid and indecisive. Snape is mostly ignored, but one of the few scenes he is in can only be described as comic relief. The same goes for Malfoy. These are the characters who, besides Voldemort, provide the vast majority of the conflict in the novels, and they've been little more than paper dolls in the last two movies. The special effects are good, but they tend to detract from the feel of the movie rather than add to it. Sometimes they are used to add scenes that were not only not in the book but do not make sense in the context of the movie. The director and screen writer obviously have no idea how to tell a story. Important plot elements were glossed over or omitted completely. I don't mean the sort of omissions that would only bother serious fanboys, I mean the sort of omissions that make the story confusing, non-sensical, or just an utter waste of time. I understand that the length of the book made it difficult or impossible to give everything the treatment it deserves, but if this is the result then I don't know why they bothered trying. Very dissapointing. I hope that they do not ruin the next three movies by making the same poor choices. Pros: The special effects were good, easily the best in the series so far. Also, Emma Watson. Cons: Everything else. 1.5/5.5
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2005 10:59
|
|
|
I was terrified that this book would be utterly destroyed in film form. I honestly did not think they could pull of such a huge book in two and a half hours. Well, I am beyond impressed with the job they did. I didn't expect everything to be shoved in and am glad they didn't. I agree with what they cut out, and the minor plot alterations make sense for film. Still, I wish it could have been even longer. Some events could have used a little more explaining for casual fans. The amount of comedy was a very pleasant surprise. I found myself cracking up quite often for a film that isn't a comedy. Best parts were Snape slapping Harry and Ron, and the Moaning Myrtle sequence. In great contrast, the graveyard sequence was pretty intense. I'm glad it was done so well. And when Harry arrived back with Cedric's body, that was done spectacularly and captured the mood well. My only real gripe was the very ending. I'd have much rather it followed the book so that we'd seen Dumbledore handing out missions to Snape, Hagrid, etc.. The book had much more of a dark, foreboding ending which I loved, but they just tried to wrap it up real quick with the film. They cannot do that from now on. From book five forward, the mythology and conspiracy and plot and everything just explode into high gear. If they execute the next two books properly on film, most casual reviewers will probably rate it as "boring," especially the clusterfuck that is book five. I really hope the rest of the film series is made "for the fans." PROS: Shockingly kick-rear end vacuum pack of an epic book. They actually packed most of it in. And well, I might add. CONS: Should have been three hours, and the very ending should have follwed the book closer. 4.5 Edit: I'd like to add that while I am pretty defensive of the books, I do enjoy them and the films for different reasons. I know they cannot match each other perectly. It's nearly impossible and I do not expect it. I am glad with what they did, for the most part. Foppish Yet Dashing fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Nov 19, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2005 11:08
|
|
|
As others have said, this movie was rushed. Not just a little, either. The Quidditch World Cup, which is a major portion of the first third of the book, is maybe 5 minutes long. There is zero actual Quidditch. Then it jumps to Hogwarts, where Dumbledore is, for some reason, an angsty intense weirdo, instead of the whimsical person from the books and from the Richard Harris performances. Every single side story that is not 100% related to the next book in a significant way, as in it affects Harry, Ron, or Hermione in a major way, was removed. no S.P.E.W., although I didn't mind that, no Hagrid/Madam Maxime half-giant conflict, not even a single house elf. This film was 100% major plot points only, and yet wasted time on things not in the book that weren't necessary, like dancing lessons. A long, drawn out dragon fight could have been cut by a few minutes, or at least made INTERESTING. There was zero character developement outside of the main 3 kids. I don't think Fleur even spoke until the second task. Now for my REAL gripe. This film slaps you in the face so hard with who the bad guy is, a retarded 3 year old could figure it out. Zero suspense. Within a 5 minute span in the middle of the film, you are flat out TOLD who is who and what is what, and the film then has the audacity to try and make some suspense at the end with that character. Completely unnecessary, and poorly done. The comedy was solid. Fred and George, as usual, are the highlights in that department. Hopefully Warnor Brothers can be convinced to either make film 5 into a 3 hour or longer film, or cut it in half. The stories are interesting because of the side plots that are tangentially related to the main arc, and without them, the films are falling flat. Plus, they STILL haven't explained to the people who haven't read the books who Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs are. 3.5/5.0 for rushing through a story so fast you almost miss the point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2005 11:30
|
|
|
I have only read the first 3 books, and enjoyed all movies before this. I thought this was a huge disapointment. Not only was the pacing completely insane, only slowing down near the end when it jarringly picks back up again, it was shot like a comedy. The last movie was amazingly shot, with pans that went on forever, and grand sweeping scenes that took you through the whole castle sometimes. This was just standard looking stuff, and never captured the feel that I wanted this movie to have, never gave it that epic fantasy feeling. My biggest WTF moment with the shooting had to have been the post emotion packed eulogy at the end, which pans up to the ceiling for some reason, then just jarringly cuts to a close up of a door, completely killing any feeling that the previous scene might have given you. Not to mention there was NO character development...Do they even go to school anymore? Classes? Besides the seemingly mandatory "Here is your new Dark Arts teacher look how spooky" class they have every year there was absolutly no time setting any kind of atmosphere. The effects were a mixed bag, the dragons I thought were VERY well done, as was the pegasus carriage and maze. The fireplace effect left me cringing however, and the CG snake never looked right. When you cared about them, the actors did a very good job, but most of the time I didn't understand what some of them were doing, nor did I give a drat. 2.5 because even a bad Harry Potter film is still enjoyable in parts, but this should have been a 5 film based on the others. They really dropped the ball.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2005 22:17
|
|
|
It sure is irritating reading the other reviews on here about how the movie was "too rushed", and how "*particular event that occured in the book* was left out!". I'd like to see you guys manage a multi-billion dollar franchise and write a screen adaption to a 500+ page novel that fits within the time frame given. With that said, this is the most well recieved Harry Potter film to date. The critics are raving about the acting, the story, the visuals, the music... everything. And rightfully so. I'm a huge fan of the series, and as the movies have been released I've come to realize that some sacrifices have to be made in order for a quality film. Sure, it sucks that Dobby and the Dursleys were cut, and I wish the Quidditch World Cup game had been shown... but at the same time I am able to take in account that in order for those things to have appeared on screen, that would've cost an additional 10 to 20 million dollars. If you stand back and look at the movie as a film on it's own and not an adaption, and that it is a part of a CONTINUING SERIES OF FILMS (like LOTR), the beginning of the movie does not feel rushed. Instead of spending the whole thing bitching about what is there and what isn't, you see a lot of amazing scenes that WERE left in. All in all, Goblet Of Fire is the best film yet, and I adored it. + Acting, + Voldemort's Return (loving AWESOME), + More character depth than usual 5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2005 00:58
|
|
|
Acting wise it was the best so far, but like everyone is saying, it was too rushed. Pantalaimon, I agree when you say it's hard to fit everything in when it's 2.5 hours already, but they cut out some of the most important stuff. Like the whole Rita Skeeter deal, who plays somewhat of a large role later on. They should've balanced it out more. Like in the First Task with the Horntail, they milked the poo poo out of that, I thought it lasted way too long. They should've cut some of that out and shown at least ONE creature in the Third Task. The comedy factor was surprisingly well, Fred and George were funny, and Ron's "Bloody Hell" line was always good. Kind of a shame that Fleur didn't speak much and that Krum didn't speak at ALL. They kind of brushed off Karkaroff too, you could've taken him out and you wouldn't of noticed. Gotta admit though, the acting made up for it, Hermione's pissed off scene at the ball was drat good. My favorite movie of the lot so far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2005 02:38
|
|
|
The movie was exceptionally well done. The acting have become increasingly better. Did they have any character development? No, but they didn't need to. They've had 3 movies to develop the characters and the point of this one was to show that they have grown up, not tell us who they are. I think they did a good job of getting that point across. The Voldemort scene was probably the best in the movie, I think it captured the exact feel and look the book portrayed. I also think that this scene was the point of the entire book, without this scene, there would be nothing to lead into the next book/movie. Do I think all the other parts were rushed? Only if you knew the book and if you really cared. Yes there was no Quidditch World Cup, but how important was that to the story? nothing. When I was reading the book, I was thinking, this is cool but at the end of book I realized how useless this was to the story (other than the introduction of Death Eaters). 4.5/5.0 Pros: Excellent acting, special effects, Voldemort scene Cons: If you read the book, it felt rushed (or more like you know they left out scenes)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2005 02:59
|
|
|
I thought it was decent, but after the past three movies (honestly, I still like the first the best), I expect better than decent. If there's one thing I hate when watching a movie or show, it's abrupt transitions between scenes or plot elements, and this movie had in it spades. It seemed less like a continuous movie and more like a bunch of shorts ingeniously combined into a movie, if that makes sense. I don't like the change in Dumbledore's character from the earlier movies. And, it seems like getting a new dark arts teacher is becoming the cliche of this movie series. I haven't read the book, so maybe a new dark art's teacher shows up in all of them as well, but when that's like the only class they ever show... Good points included the humor, general artistry and special effects, the TriWizard Tournament was pretty fun, if a bit short, and the ending was intense. I suppose the actors did a good job as well, but they were kinda limited by the script and direction in this movie. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2005 04:23
|
|
|
Yeet posted:Kind of a shame that Fleur didn't speak much and that Krum didn't speak at ALL. Krum spoke. He only said a few lines, but he spoke. Anyways on to my quick review. I admit that the movie was fast-paced, but I'd rather use that term than "rushed" as I liked the movie a hell of a lot and 'rushed' is a bit negative. As for the scenes/parts of the book that were left out, I'm not too upset by what was left out. I was excited to see every single scene in that movie; it never lost my attention for a second. The humor, and especially the action, certainly kept my eyes on the screen. PROS: -Top notch acting so far from everyone in the cast -Seamless effects -Fantastic action -A melancholy ending that fit well with the tone of the movie -Wonderful comedy CONS: -Wished there could have been a 10 second scene at the end with Dumbledore, Minerva, and Snape 5.0/5.5 (easily my favorite out of the four. Azkaban follows closely behind, with Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets coming next, respectively.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2005 06:24
|
|
|
Well, I just got back from seeing the movie, and I am kinda dissapointed. Does anyone else wish they would release extended editions like they did with Lord of the Rings? Anyways, Here are my gripes: (The following have to do with time issues, which kinda make me mad but I understand). -No Dursleys!? -I wish they would focus on teachers more. To many good actors playing them. -Rita Skeeter wasnt developed at all Also things I didn't like: -I still feel Harris would have done a better job as Dumbledore. Especially with the Pensieve and the end of the movie. -After Harrys name came out of the cup, I think they made Dumbledore way to mad and angry 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2005 07:07
|
|
|
Great Movie, but not on par with the 3rd. This one suffers from the same malaise as the first two, poor editing. The whole movie was chopped up and rushed. Transitions were jaring from scene to scene. The scenes them selves were amazing, ones that stand out are the first task and the graveyard scene. Granted the staff had an impossible task in fitting the book into a 2 1/2 hour movie. They really should have made it 3 hours. I am sure they had enough left on the cutting room floor for that. The 3rd movie, in my opinion is the best so far, soley because the director took it and made it his own. This episode just didnt have an individual rythym and fell back into the "present scenes from the book" editing that the first two movies had. rated 4/5
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2005 07:48
|
|
|
I've never seen a Harry Potter movie, and I've never read one of the books. However, I found this movie to be very entertaining despite being overly long. I felt like an hour of material could have been cut out with no real loss to the movie. The ending was the best part and I wish there could have been more time spent on voldemort............................... The movie worked well in explaining who the characters were and what the story was, despite it being the 4th movie in a series and not really being obligated to do that. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2005 17:10
|
|
|
This movie was bloody brilliant. Daniel Radcliffe actually felt like Harry Potter in this film, it seems that the main cast have gradually been evolving when it comes to acting. Daniel is starting to fill the shoes in for what Harry should be like. I was pulled in from the beginning, and even though I noticed a lot was skipped over I still didn't let that ruin the overall film. Best out of all of them. It seems that you either HATE this movie or LOVE it. I'm glad I can see the greatness of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2005 22:34
|
|
|
They cut way too much, the whole subplot with Barty Crouch, Bertha Jorgins(sp?), Barty's mom, etc. was needed. I didn't mind no Dursleys and no SPEW, but come on, no scenes of the Quidditch World Cup actually taking place? As others have said, this was way to choppy, I loved PoA, but this was nowhere near as good. I'd like to either see a 3+ hour movie or the remaining movies done in two parts, this wasn't nearly long enough. 3.0/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2005 23:17
|
|
|
Well, four movies in to this lucrative franchise and I'm still not really sure what the appeal of Harry Potter is. When did fantasy and British whimsy become so phenomenally popular? Or are people just going for the special effects? Like the Lord of the Rings movies, the level of public obsession with these stories are bewildering to me. Goblet of Fire is stagnant and lacking any emotional anchor. This movie introduced loads of pointless characters and ignored most of the established ones except in tangential sorts of ways. The characters bend, as in the other movies, to the plot in dull or unbelievable ways. Watch in surprise as the professors barge in just in time to save Harry! The appeal is in the adventures I guess, but those aren't very interesting either. I mean, that platitudinous old wizard warned what a profound, life-altering challenge the tournament was going to be, and what did we get? Some cackling squid and a magic forest. And Voldemort, the hideously evil wizard who looks like he should be playing bass for Placebo, sure lets his evil plans get derailed in contrived, predictable ways. His ressurection was supposed to be some sobering event with grave consequences for the school and all the little elves and goblins within, but I didn't feel anything but the piss burgeoning from this movie's five-hour length. In spite of some shallow cosmetic changes, this is the same movie as the third one, and the fifth, sixth and seventh in all likelihood. Rowling and her franchise is coasting on reputation and profitability now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2005 23:20
|
|
|
Good film, good adaptation. Very satisfying and gripping at times. It's been a few years since I read the book so I've forgotten a lot of the details, but what I remember was all represented here and done so very well. Despite the rushed-ness that everyone else has so thoroughly emphasised, I'm very pleased they didn't try to split it into two films. Some things should have been longer some things should have been shorter blah blah blah... ultimately very entertaining, and managed to keep the story surprisingly coherent. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2005 02:05
|
|
|
Definetly worth my money, i loved this movie just as much as the others. I think the Yule Ball could have been nearly cut out in this movie, it WAS a major plot point in the book. But that was only because we 1) Learned that Kakaroff<sp?) had the Dark Mark on his arm 2) Someone heard Hagrid ask Madame Maxine about being a giant (Left out of the movie completley..) Neither of these happened, therefore it was mostly pointless and probablly made no sense to a non-book-reader. Also.. what, in the world, does a Blast-Ended skrewt look like? I guess i'll never know... Pros: It's a Harry Potter film.. Cons: It wasnt the five hour film i would love to have watched. Final Score: 4.7/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2005 02:27
|
|
|
I haven't laid hand on the books yet, primarily because I want to read them as one whole set when they're done in a few years. It's interesting to think that the children that started reading this series will likely be in college by the time the tale has ended. It's like the new Star Wars generation. As for the film, I have to say that plotwise, it's my least favorite in the series thus far. There's an amazing amount of emotion the Wand-lock scene was amazing, but that's very compressed. Most of the film tried to juggle adolescent awkwardness (OMG BOOBS OMG I HATE YOU OMG), which can be pretty grating. The TriWizard tourney seems like an afterthought or minor inconvenience, akin to scheduling laundry. And what the hell with the end: HE'S BACK, VOLDEMORT'S BACK! oh my a student was killed chip chip how awful. Shouldn't something like that send people loving running scared shitless? I agree that the focus on the characters is odd. It's very Harry-centric, pretty much ignoring Snape, Malfoy, and even his allies at some point. Hermione is reduced to creaming her cloak when a guy looks at her. Some of it was just... creepy. Though I suppose it's supposed to stress the awkwardness of the teens. Prime example is the broom closet scene with the reporter. Sure it's worth a laugh, but it was groan inducing. Why not slash it and build more on the characters instead? Dumbledore was mysterious, sly, and belied a kind of dark cunning in the first 2. Now he's just awkward and odd. In particular, I wasn't too impressed with the artistic direction this one took. The opening magical leprecahaun fireworks reminded me of something done in Flash. And the mermaid stained glass image looked like it belonged on Adult Swim or a damned Cel-Shaded videogame. Horrible. This probably deserves a longer cut Director's dvd. Can Cuaron come back for the 5th? 3.0/5.0 /sorry if anyone caught my bad forums coding... Very sorry, but if you've seen the trailer I didn't mess much up. Sorry again FilthyImp fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Nov 22, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2005 04:17
|
|
|
Overall, not bad, maybe after I watch it on DVD it will be better. Definitely my favorite out of the four mainly for staying close to the plot. There were quite a few things that struct me as bad decisions and not ones that were necessary "left out" or "should have been included." Cons: Barty Crouch in the Riddle house at the beginning. Ruined the twist. And the subsequent alteration of the Crouch family story - not terrible, but Crouch Sr. didn't come off as menacing or terrible as he's portrayed. Gambon's take as Dumbledore - he had it more spot on in PoA - bullying Harry? What was that about- he's a character more whimsical, eccentric and insightful. Harry and Ron fighting was like watching an episode of Degrassi. As noted by others, felt rushed - even my GF thought so and she hasn't read the books and felt lost as there was so much crammed in to it. The pacing at certain times should have been slower (Court Room, Graveyard and Closure [w/Crouch & veritaserum] Scenes). And only 5 Death Eaters showing up? There was at least 30. Made it seem like some school bullies and not a Dark Order. And there wasn't enough time with Voldemort - Fiennes can be excellently evil and charismatic - which is what Voldemort is - but there wasn't enough time devoted to it to show that. "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours"  It was a cut on his arm - this made no sense at all.Pros: More Fred and George Moody - started off a bit rough, but rounded out nicely. I'm glad they left out the Hagrid / Maxine fallout Comic relief was well timed and well spread out. Ron & Hermione at the ball was well played out. Special Effects and their Take on Voldemort snakelike look. Voldemort - and makes me hope they do something spectacular for DD/Voldemort in the next movie. 3.5 / 5.5
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2005 17:38
|
|
|
I thought overall, the movie was pretty good. I think that the movie appealed to a wide range of people, and they did an incredible job of condensing the book, though I must admit the Barty Crouch with Voldemort and Pettigrew was a horrible way to start. I thought the new Dumbledore did a great job. What really hit me in this movie was the addition of more humor. This added to my enjoyment a lot. My favorite quote: Hermione: Viktor's more of a....physical person. That sure got lots of laughs. Special effects were amazing, and I'm glad they left several irrelevant/annoying parts of the story out (SPEW, Rita Skeeter, etc.) This is my favorite one so far, but I haven't seen PoA. I'll have to see that 4/5 BTW: Emma Watson is hot
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2005 05:30
|
|
|
Let me start by saying that this is the first Harry Potter related thing I've seen. that's right, I didn't read the books, and only saw a couple of scenes from the first movie, that's it. Now, some might argue that, being a Harry Potter newbie, I'm unfit to properly judge this moive, but I say au contriaire! I can't compare it to the books or the other movies, so I can evaluate it as a movie rather than a part of a hype. By the way, I dragged along and accompanied by some friends who know Harry Potter - seen all the movies, read all the books, that stuff, so I was quickly filled in on the background story. Right, that's all for the introduction...let's review...ready? It's shallow, overproduced, overhyped but completely watchable entertaining rubbish. The acting is, with almost no exception, bad. The characters aren't developed, the dialogues are often awkward, and the story is a mix of horrible, predictable chichés and events that make no sense whatsoever. Some may say that this isn't important if you've read the book, but gently caress it, I didn't read the book, so to me, the story seemed like it was written by some toddler. Still, it was watchable. Entertainment value a 4, actual quality a 1.5. That's an avarage of 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2005 23:05
|
|
|
I had a good time watching this movie, but it felt like Goblet of Fire lite compared to the book. It's a shame that while the book was quite a big step forward in characterisation and developing the plot, the movie takes a few steps back compared to the previous three movies. There's a lot to cram in, so the movie moves at a breakneck pace. Characters are introduced and promptly forgotten (Rita Skeeter) or completely underdeveloped (Fleur and Krum.) Even established characters get sidelined, Snape has around 2 minutes of screen time, the ghosts don't appear at all, and neither do the Dursleys. The screenplay gets the major plot points on to the screen, at the expense of the details that made the book enjoyable. It's all "this happens, and then this happens, and now this happens" all the way through the movie. The one set piece where the movie slows down and lets the audience enjoy the detail is the Yule Ball, which is really entertaining and certainly pleased the audience I was with. So although the plot is rushed and the characters reduced almost to caricatures, I still found this movie ridiculously entertaining. The acting by the three leads is pretty much at acceptable standards now, after the weak efforts in the previous three movies. The action scenes are handled well, the special effects are decent and never really jarring, and the movie is probably the funniest so far. Well worth a watch, but the lack of detail will displease both fans of the book and those who have never read the book. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2005 10:44
|
|
|
If you're 18 or older this movie will bore you. The new characters felt like they were siphoned out of a focus group. The scenes intended to feel gripping end up feeling contrived. For some reason they decided to dedicate 15-20 minutes of this movie to a high school dance, yes a high school dance. That should show you how far they went to appeal to their target demographic. The movie is another lazy adaptation of a well recieved book. Don't see this movie. 0/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2005 00:17
|
|
|
Lloyddy posted:I had a good time watching this movie, but it felt like Goblet of Fire lite compared to the book. It's a shame that while the book was quite a big step forward in characterisation and developing the plot, the movie takes a few steps back compared to the previous three movies. Respectfully, I disagree with the "development" of plot. The first three books were pretty much standalone adventures, you could read any one of them first with only a little trouble comprehending it, there were very little references to the other books. Only in the 4th one did the actual story progress, and the 5th and 6th book built solely off what happened in the 4th. Then in the 6th book Rowling brings up "The Prophecy," which pretty much came out of nowhere, but will have a huge impact on the series. I saw this only as a way to connect the first 3 books to the rest of the series.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2005 09:45
|
|
|
I havn't read the books and I really didn't have a clue what was going on for most of the movie. Charactors moods and emotions would completely change from one scene to the next with no explaination. There was also atleast 20 minutes of highschool-style drama that was full of charactors that were never explained and had nothing to do with anything else. I can't really think of anything good to say about this movie other than the cinematography was better than normal. The dragon CG was excellent, especially when it was walking on the roof, but the rest of the CG was mediocre at best. I found the previous movies much more enjoyable. Avoid this one if you havn't read the book. 2.0/5 scavok fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Nov 25, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2005 10:02
|
|
|
It was a pretty good movie, better than the first two, but definitely a step backwards from Prisoner of Azkaban. I haven't read the books yet (I'm waiting until they're all out, then I'll take a few months off, build an igloo in the Arctic, and stay there until I've read them all, or something), so I can't say how I think any of the films compare to the books. What I liked: Moody, no boring Quidditch match, the graveyard scene, the pervy ghost. What I disliked: The pacing, couldn't get emotionally involved in the story. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2005 17:06
|
|
|
quote:There was also atleast 20 minutes of highschool-style drama that was full of charactors that were never explained and had nothing to do with anything else. quote:abrupt transitions between scenes or plot elements, and this movie had in it spades. It seemed less like a continuous movie and more like a bunch of shorts ingeniously combined into a movie, if that makes sense. I've read the books, and it struck me that they were rushing through so fast that they weren't explaining some things. They didn't explain Barty Crouch's body. Even I, who had read the book, was confused, and I had to lean over and ask my daughter what was going on. And I sat there wondering how Barty Crouch Jr. got out of Azkaban, and it wasn't until I got home that I remembered from the book. And they left out the whole Rita Skeeter subplot, which I suppose was necessary for purposes of length, as it wasn't germane to the "This Story Is About Harry Potter" mindset, but still... Sorry to see Ralph Fiennes basically playing his part "by the numbers", but then, he wasn't given much to do, plus being expected to act through a snake nose is probably quite a challenge. This movie is rated PG-13 for a reason--I thought there were scary and frightening elements that were unsuitable for very young children. I give it 4 out of 5. And one more vote here for "looking forward to an Extended Release" on DVD.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2005 01:22
|
|
|
Well, I guess it wasn't awful.. I have a real problem with Steve Kloves, who has written the screenplays for all four films. I don't feel like he really grasps what makes the Potter books enjoyable, and as such the movies are out of whack. They all seem to be primarily concerned with moving the plot forward, and having as many things as possible crammed together. The result is a film that has no pacing, focus, or natural flow. There was never any time to develop Harry as a character, or go into his perspective and what he's feeling when we just go from task to task. The book has a great deal to do with impending doom, tedium, free will and the morality behind the choices we make. I would have gladly preferred they just cut down stuff like Rita Skeeter or the second task, which serves no real dramatic purpose, and used the time to do justice to the scenes they did use. That said, it was entertaining to watch to some extent. The last scenes with Voldemort were good, but it was kind of ruined by how much the ending was hosed up. It's sort of important to have that sense of a war beginning, Snape and Sirius coming together to go on missions, Crouch getting demented, Fudge denying Harry's account... That's all great dramatic material, and wouldn't have taken more than 5 minutes to go through. It also sets up the next film beautifully. I just don't understand, which is my complaint for most of this film. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2005 05:01
|
|
|
i saw the movie a few days ago and thought it was pretty terrible. the pacing was really off, i had no idea what the hell was going on half the time and there were way too many plot holes. like the fact that the whole school turns on harry after the goblet spits out his name as the 4th contestant for the tri-wizard tournament. hey, you loving tards, he SAID he didn't enter his name in the tournament but nobody believes him because obviously, even after 3 books/movies, they for some reason think that harry potter is a deceitful little liar who can't be trusted. even his best friend ron gets pissed at harry. consequently, his fellow students make loving buttons that say poo poo like "potter stinks"...what the gently caress is up with that? did they forget that he's the loving chosen one who's saved the whole drat school on multiple occasions? if i were harry i'd have gone around and zapped the poo poo out of every single one of those ungrateful little pricks. then there's the perverted aspects of the movie, like the news reporter and moaning myrtle. in her first interview of harry, the reporter and harry are literally face to face in a tight doorway and she says something like "mmm, this is cozy". then moaning myrtle tries to get a glimpse of harrys dick. what was up with that, SERIOUSLY. if i were harry i'd have let her take a peek just to not have to hear her annoying squeaky little voice. i think the director had the intentions of taking certain aspects from the book(the bath scene, the news reporter) and making it more risque so that adults could "get it" while the children didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. even if that wasn't his intention, it's not done right and it's slightly twisted at least to me, and i'm pretty liberal with stuff like this. then there's the little things like, why doesn't mad-eye moody who's really that other evil dude just stab harry potter in the neck and kill him since he gets to be all close with him for the entire duration of the movie? why not seize the opportunity and just get it over and done with right there in his office when they're alone? i bet voldemort would give you a nice paycheck for that one. on top of all this, the pacing and flow was completely off, really abrupt cuts and large chunks of time were missing. a whole lot was left out from the source material as well, some good, but some not so good. I give GoF a 2 out of 5. temujen fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Nov 26, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2005 08:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
I would say this is the worst so far. While I was watching it I was cracking up at how bad it was. The visuals were pretty decent - things like the dragon fight or the Durmstrang boat were really amazing, while some of the other stuff, like the dancing leprechaun fireworks at the quidditch cup, was awful. Some of the scenes were painfully out of place. The most obvious right now was the little synchronized dance intros of the French and Russian magic teams, complete with CG'd baton twirls for some reason. Also almost the entirety of the bath scene was completely unnecessary - Moaning Myrtle's lascivious manner was a bit inappropriate and I had no idea why there was a stained glass mermaid other than "hey check out this neat CG we can do" (shown earlier with the inexplicably crying stained glass figure). There's more, but if you've seen the movie you know what I mean. I watched this with a friend who didn't have any intricate knowledge of Harry Potter - he had seen the first movie and read none of the books. He had absolutely no idea what was going on throughout the thing. Characters were not introduced, scenes went completely unexplained, it was obvious that Newell assumed you had read the book. Even though I read the books I was thoroughly confused with some scenes. What the gently caress was up with Barty Crouch lying dead in the woods? What was Karkarov doing when he suspiciously entered the Goblet of Fire room? These were never explained. It seemed to me like Newell was just sort of going through the motions of a Harry Potter movie without bringing anything really new to the table. Dramatic scene, maybe a joke or two, some CG magic, a majestic pan of Hogwarts (there were a lot of these), then repeat. Also I thought it was odd how, since the book was so long, obviously they should be focusing mainly on the story-important bits right? That was mainly true except for about 45 minutes consisting solely of pointless high school drama which was, like the rest of the movie, paced retardedly. It seemed Ron was angry at Harry for some reason for around ten minutes. There was no sense of pacing whatsoever. There was zero flow - it was just a bunch of scenes crammed together. There was no character development - there wasn't enough time with all the unnecessary scenes put in just to satisfy the book fans. I know that it actually is just fan service but it seemed like the movie was boldly parading that fact instead of trying to hide it inside decent filmmaking. As I said before, I watched this with a friend. If I had been alone I would have walked out. 1 out of 5. Salt Block Party fucked around with this message at 10:15 on Nov 26, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2005 10:01
|
|
