Harry Potter und der Feuerkelch

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'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.

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.

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 did enjoy this movie, but being a huge fan of the books, I was frustrated with a lot of the things that were touched upon, but not really followed though with.

First things first, I give Mike Newell and Steve Kloves credit for finally giving Fred and George the screen time they deserve. I'm glad the movie audience finally got to see what truly great characters those two are.

Daniel Radcliff and Rupert Grint (Ron saying "Bloody Hell" when Hermione woke him up at the beginning was hysterical) play the perfect awkward teenage boys as well. They had great comedic timing in delivering lines and tripping over themselves around girls.

Cedric, Cho, Fleur, and Viktor were all perfectly cast, but had too few lines.

Alan Rickman, as always was Brilliant as Snape. It was also great to see Professor McGonagall as a more fully developed character. Neville getting more screen time was good as well.

Cedric's death and Voldemort's return was very powerful.

As far as things that were in and things that were cut, I think that the things that made the film should have been finished on. Like the Quidditch cup, the Stadium and campground were really cool, but why show all that then skip the match. I felt like the filmmakers were shaking a pop can and when they opened it, there was a mere hissing noise.

Why put Rita Skeeter in at all if they aren't even going to reveal that she is an animagus? That's important in book five. That would have been a much better way to end the movie than Hermione saying things are going to be different now aren't they? Gee Voldy's back, Captain obvious to the rescue! Oh and Ron's reaction to Fleur kissing him was great, but where was Hermione's jealousy. They put in the post Yule Ball argument, so why not enhance it? It would have taken two seconds to show Hermione's jealousy, and it would have been funny.

The wands connecting was important, but the Phoenix song was never explained, and are people who have only seen the movies going to remember the wand core thing from the first movie? And Hermione is a character I feel the filmmakers have not properly interpreted. I mean the Yule ball scene bugged the crap out of me the way she came down with that smug look on her face! Ugh! I liked Hermione better in the book when she was smiling sheepishly, she was just more endearing that way. And her dress and hair made her look more like a five year old playing dress up, as opposed to a blossoming teenager. They should have followed JKR's description when designing the costume. Periwinkle would have been more flattering than pink, IMO.

I'm glad Ginny got a wee bit of face time here, but she'd better not get the shaft in the OotP movie, if they give Hermione her lines there, I will be POed.

Anyway I did enjoy this movie overall, but being a huge fan of the book, I couldn't help but nitpick, LOL