Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

It's unfortunate that so much of the book needed to be cut for time and the movie is still nearly 2 1/2 hours long. The rule of movie editing is when you must trim for time you remove the sub-plots. A lot of story and character development isn't there.

But what is there is a great visual treat. If the movie leaves you with questions just read the book or get the audio version on CD. It would have taken a minimum of another half hour to flesh the movie out and that simply wasn't going to be done by a studio whose primary target is a younger audience. (Note how no studio wants to release an animated film longer than 90 minutes for this reason.) Perhaps Alphonso Curon would have done a better job of cohesion but there really isn't much more that could have been done in the time and the script would have been essentially the same. This movie begs for an extended Lord of the Rings type DVD, another 30 to 60 minutes to give you what was left out for theatrical release.

See it and spend the bucks to see it on the big screen.

Mike Newell is forgiven for cutting out so much detail from the book, and JK Rowling is forgiven for writing wonderfully rich books. However, fans of the book cannot help but feel like riding a roller coaster that is so fast there is no time to enjoy the ride. I predict the huge void between book and movie will spur remakes in about 10 to 20 years. Even if the movies must be 5 hours long, Harry Potter fans are willing to sit through them. This movie doesn't get a 10 because it leaves me feeling like something is missing, but it does deserve a 9 for being the best possible portrayal of the book given a 2.5 hour limitation. All said and done, this is the shortest 2.5 hour movie I have ever watched.

Goblet of Fire is of course, well done and beautifully shot. Not having read any of the Potter series, I wasn't disappointed in the movie at all. From what I have heard, many underlying plots and characters may have been skipped to streamline the movie and keep its focus, so the readers might be disappointed, I don't know. "Fire" is darker than the rest of the movies. Seemed to lack some of the humor that gave the previous films some levity. Great storyline, fabulous effects. LONG though. It's about 2.5 hours long, so make time for it. It's worth it to watch and goes quickly. Throughly enjoyed it, but not my favorite of the bunch so far.

I must say I am extremely sick of this movie, though not for conventional reasons. Nine reels is a lot to put together and screening a three hour movie can be exhausting, especially when you're trying to write several term papers during the same week it is coming out. You see, I am a projectionist and getting this movie ready for a midnight show was part of my job. I realize that the fact that I was paid $14.50/hr to watch this movie on Wednesday night might give rise to feelings of jealousy among some, but I am currently wishing I could manage to get more than five hours of sleep sometime soon.

All that said I must say this was by far the greatest Harry Potter film so far. Although it was long, it did not drag on. It had a nice, tight feel to it. It progressed from scene to scene with a smoothness that I find to be lacking in many movies adapted from books. The acting has noticeably improved from the first three, and the more adult feel to this one really drew me in. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this movie was the fact that it felt like a mix of genres. It had an epic feel to it. After all it is about good v. evil and battling the dark wizards, etc. This movie,however, also felt like a high school movie. It had the issues of coming of age, which makes sense as the characters begin to mature. Ultimately it came off a lot more loyal to the book in theme than I think the last one did. (The first two, while loyal, I found to be relatively campy and childish.)

This movie, like many, does have its shortfalls. I believe that Dumbledore was portrayed as a little too intense, like an old Al Pacino. Instead of the benevolent, kind, and good-humored old man I have always loved in the books. As someone that has read the books, I must say another shortfall is that this movie banks on familiarity with the story. Having read the books, I found it very easy to follow, but I could understand how one who has not read the books may feel a bit lost, as some important information was left out and some back-story was left mostly unexplained.

All in all I would say this is definitely the best movie in this series so far, and if the next three are on par with this one then I would be content.

I'd hate to face the task of condensing a 700 page book into a movie - even a two and a half hour movie, but they've managed pretty well with this installment of the adventures of Harry Potter.

For fans of the movies, you'll find this installment a little darker, a little grittier, and a little more involving. The characters are growing up and are now facing more adult situations with more adult outlooks.

For fans of the books, you should find this adaptation a commendable reflection of Rowling's tale. Naturally, some parts had to be modified or cut entirely - there's no way to avoid that without making it a 10 hour movie - but the parts that were cut were either not critical to the story line, or will be easy to account for in the films to come. Unless you're an obsessive nitpicker about every last detail, you should find this a satisfactory film version of Goblet of Fire.

Goblet of Fire works well as a stand-alone film, as a film version of Rowling's book, and is in my opinion quite easily the best Potter movie yet.