Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Watched Harry Potter And The Goblet of Fire

Mentalist

Administrator
Staff member
harrypotterandthegobletoffire6.jpg




I have been looking forward to this movie since before I read the books. After Prisoner of Azkaban which was a really good movie in its own right I have been waiting for the next episode in the saga.

Last year I finally caved and read all six books in about a month. Prisoner of Azkaban is where the story really gets going in the books and Goblet of Fire blows it out of the water. Still, more so than Order of the Phoenix and The Half Blood Prince --Goblet of Fire is my favourite Harry Potter book, so this movie had to deliver.

Luckily it did.

Now, I like others were worried about how the hell they were going to cram the 635 pages of Goblet into a two hour film. The book is afterall the length of the first three combined.

And, well.. the movie didn't fully escape the cutting room nightmare. First off, no Dursleys!

Understandable why they cut them but it was sorely missed here, I especially like the Dursley chapters in Goblet so that was a bit of a let down.

The first five minutes of the movie basically throw you through about 100 pages of the book. One minute Harry wakes up, then 30 seconds later they are at the port key then another 30 seconds later you're at the Quidditch World Cup. It is a little disconcerting.

By the time you get to Hogwarts it slows down a tad but still zips at a fair old pace. The movie is very true to the book, this is a plus, you can follow the book visualized perfectly; except Mad Eye Moody looked NOTHING like I imagined him. But Gleeson plays him fantastically and is far and away the best in the movie so it's forgivable.

003_brendangleeson_danielradcliffe_harrypotterandthegobletoffire.jpg


Gambon's Dumbledore leaves me a little cold. I just don't see Dumbledore the way he portrays him. Richard Harris nailed it and it is sad indeed that he has passed. Gambon isn't bad by any means though and I grew to like his version of Albus more throughout the movie. But still.. It wasn't quite right.

The Tri-Wizard cup is done so faithfully to the book you can see why they cut so many corners to get the time required to tell it properly.

The movie has a great visual style that takes after the darker tones of Alfonso Cuaron's Azkaban and it was welcome. Newell in charge is no bad thing, though I think I would of preferred Cuaron to take up the reigns again.

The kids are definitley improving acting wise. Not so many horrified looks from Ron and Radcliff is far and away improved in his delivery as Potter.

Emma didn't need to improve. Well, except physically. And the word is out and it's good news, all those curves are in the right places, jaws off the floor lads!

Yeah, I know, I'm terrible.

Anyway:

The movie is far from perfect and now it's time for the whingy part:

Not enough Draco. He gets one decent scene. Thats It. This is totally unacceptable. The film suffers from the loss of Draco's constant snipes at Potter.

As said before a LOT was cut. The movie feels trapped by it's running time and this is a film that is going to benefit GREATLY from an extended cut. Hopefully they shot the footage because the Special Edition needs a lot put back in. This should be a 3+ hour film. Simple.

And now.. A personal gripe about Voldermort. He wasn't fucking scary! The Make-up was great but he lacked presence, his voice was far from shudder inducing and it just didn't really get me. Ralph Feinnes is a good actor and doesn't really do anything wrong, I'm going to go with the way it was directed as the problem. In the book the last scene in the Graveyard is fantastic and is responsible for finally letting this jaded 22 year-old take Harry Potter sort-of seriously. In the book Rowling nailed every line, it was harrowing, it was scary, it left you scrambling for the next book. It was Rowling at her undeniable best, and she is, lets face it, hit and miss.

The end scene wasn't all bad, it couldn't be really but it didn't live up to the book.

Oh, the Dance.....


The Yule Ball.


Despite having Emma Watson looking like an angel with great tits it was horrible. I was praying that the movie would just totally divert from the book and that Voldermort would pile in the room and massacre everyone. I was really digging the dark side and the killing of all those pesky kids through that painful scene would of been sweet release. Alas....



Needed more classroom scenes. The problem is that by zipping through at such a pace you invariably end up hopping all over the place at speed. The movie had trouble settling down and feeling like an enjoyable ride in this respect.

danielradcliffe23tb.jpg


I am a firm believer that movies and stories of any kind must have things that are not necessarily part of the main plot. Lets slow down a minute and get to see this environment from as many angles as possible. GOF just needs more scenes. It needs more time to get there in a comfortable manner.

I really hope they release an extended cut. Many of my gripes will vanish with an extra 20-30 minutes in the pot.


Still, none of these problems defeat the fact that this is the best Harry Potter movie and a great movie in general.

Oh, and Emma Watson is fucking hot.


Yeah, we knew that.



8.5/10
 
Very good summation. Mine always end up sounding like a squee fangirl's because I just loved it so much. Plus I haven't read the book.

I still may search out a moviehouse in the city that's playing it, if any. Three times wasn't enough for me.
 
Personally, I don't see a great deal of difference between Harris' version of Dumbledore compared with Gambon's.

This fourth movie, however, is by some distance the best of the four so far, and truly whets the appetite for the fifth.
 
I saw it last week, and liked it ok. To be honest, I never found any of the films to be "great". Chris Columbus' two films were far, far too literal. Cuaron's was moody and very suspensful (and featured a stellar performance by Gary Oldman), but a bit disjointed.

Goblet was good, but I fear that you'd be lost if you hadn't read the book.

That being said...damn, that Cho Chang is FYNE! An Asian with a burr, I think I'm in love!
 
I will say this about 4 (and 3): Seeing it in a moviehouse was a vastly different experience from seeing it on an average sized TV. Some of the more nuanced transitions get squashed when you're not immersed in it, theatre-style. Which to me is a compliment to Newell and Cuaron, since they were making movies for moviegoers. Columbus' entries seem flat enough to play the same in a theater, on TV and/or on an iPod.
 
I honestly can't remember if I saw Azkaban in the theaters. When did it come out? If it came out after June of 2004, then I definitely saw it on DVD. But your point is well-taken.
 
Azkaban was released in the US June 4, 2004. Right around your cutoff date.

I saw Azkaban in IMAX format. And might I say, wow.
 
I must've see it on DVD then. My son was born on 6/25/2004, and I don't remember my wife even wanting to leave the house about a month before he was born!
 
Good review.......I found the movie to jump around alot....but for the most part is was good, and tried to be true to the book. Except for Winky being gone....*sigh* Why cut the house elf?
 
Top