Harry Potter et la coupe de feu

Based on one of the best books of the Harry Potter series, the film adaptation of 'Harry Potter and the Goblet' had a lot to live up to and I think it succeeded. As Potter fans will know, in GoF, Harry is now fourteen and in his Fourth Year at Hogwarts. When an ancient tournament between Hogwarts and two other European wizarding schools is held that year, a Seventh Year contestant is chosen from each school to compete but things go dramatically awry when Harry, three years too young to even be entered in the dangerous and challenging tournament, is somehow also chosen after his name is mysteriously nominated. GoF is a sharp turning point in the books as the tone darkens considerably and the characters themselves change from being rather wide-eyed innocent children to adolescents thrust the turbulent, uncertain adult world where being 'good' or even an innocent will not guarantee your survival. This shift is also reflected in the film, which was rated 12A (PG13 for Americans), the first of the HP films to be rated so high.

I have to say I did enjoy this film, although Prisoner of Azkaban remains my favourite of the four. Unlike the first two films, this did not attempt to condescend as much to small children in the audience. The tasks of the Triwizard tournament captured most of the thrills of the book, particularly the second water-based task where the merpeople were suitably creepy (now we know why none of the kids go swimming in the summer term!), but the first task over-ran for a minute or two more than needed. Light romance was touched upon yet wasn't over-emphasised and the Yule Ball will please those who enjoyed the scenes in the book but audience members over the age of sixteen might find teens ogling each other a tad dull (Hermione is very out-of-character and the scene does drag).

The acting of the adult cast is, of course, exemplary as always. Alan Rickman's Snape may only have had four or so scenes but he definitely made his presences known while Maggie Smith really captured the essence of McGonagall. Many people do miss Richard Harris' Dumbledore but I found that Michael Gambon has done an excellent job of moulding the role to make it his own. In GoF, Dumbledore feels very human in the way he carries the weight of the wizarding world on his shoulders and though he struggles at times, his concern for his pupils is paramount. I finally felt the close rapport between Dumbledore and Harry in this film that was missing in the previous three HP flicks. However, the prize has to go to Brendan Gleeson for his scene-stealing depiction of Mad-Eye Moody. Gleeson clearly enjoyed illustrating Moody's dangerous, feral edge.

The younger cast have also grown into their roles, improving from their previous outing. Rupert Grint, usually used to playing a comical and stupid Ron, had the chance to cut his acting teeth and show Ron's darker, bitter side and he did well. The Phelp twins have also improved dramatically. No longer do they come across as wooden cut-outs just reading from a cue-card and instead they are able to show the mischievous spontaneity of the Weasley twins. And I look forward to seeing more of Matthew Lewis, who was great at showing Neville's sensitive side without making him too klutzy. Out of the younger cast, though, Dan Radcliffe is the one who has progressed the most. In PoA, he was awful in the 'he was their friend' scene so he seems like another boy in the harrowing graveyard scene and the aftermath, depicting Harry's anger, feelings of vulnerability and grief. He still stumbled on occasion in other scenes but I, at last, have faith he might be able to do the Harry of 'Order of the Phoenix' justice when the time comes.

The film did lose points on a few issues. Although most of the young cast have expanded their acting skills as they have gone on, Emma Watson is waning. She has a tendency of over-enunciating her lines and being too melodramatic, which worked in 'The Philosopher's Stone' when Hermione was condescending and childishly bossy, but is just annoying by this point. She spent most of the film sounding as if she was on the verge of tears or in a hormonal snit, even in scenes which were not remotely sad or upsetting. There was also a choppy feel to the film, as if Steve Kloves struggled to properly condense the book into a two-hour film. Those who haven't read the books will have missed quite a bit and those who have read the books will feel the film is very rushed. Molly Weasley and the Dursleys were also missed, especially since I think Julie Walters would have been exceptional in the Molly/Harry interactions that take place aftermath of the graveyard scenes of the novel as the film didn't round off in a manner that reflected a boy had died and Harry would be traumatised by what he saw.

I think most Potter fans will enjoy this although they will remark that it could have been better. Non-fans will also get something from this film as I imagine it is hard not to be captivated by the many action and dramatic events but they may find themselves muddled by the story. I would recommend that parents of young children either keep away or, at the very least, check out the film firstly before deciding if their child is old enough to cope with it. When I went to see it, there was a small lad of four or five being dragged along and in the middle of a particularly fearsome incident, the silence of the moment was cut by a wee voice crying, 'Mummy, I'm scared' so, parents, be warned.

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.

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.

So this is the new, long awaited Harry Potter, the adaptation of the fourth part of the legendary magical book series. I've been waiting for this movie for, let's say a year now. And from what I've heard, seen in the trailer and the MTV Making of I was optimistic. Even more so because Mike Newell directed the film who also did one of my favourite films, "Four weddings and a funeral". And yes, I had high expectations.

The beginning is spectacular. I didn't mind that they left the Dursleys out – we had the Weasleys rescuing Harry from his summer holiday jail in the second Harry Potter film already. Then the film directly dives into the Quidditch finals and all the scary events surrounding it. Now, I thought, now we'll see the spectacular game! But would you believe it, after some impressions of the audience and a spectacular appearance of the two teams, the Irish and the Bulgarian, we are already taken away from the game. And so on, and so on. This is basically how the whole film goes: The director throws us into a situation and after some minutes takes us out of it without letting us time to understand or let it work. Don't get me wrong, the film has its moments. And Mike Newell shows that he has a good sense of humour. But Harry Potter is not a slapstick-comedy and we don't need a laughter every two seconds.

The fourth Harry Potter book has so many interesting moments and potential – the stunning Quidditch World Championship final, the dangerous tasks at the Triwizard Tournament and its tragic ending, the romantic moments at the Yule Ball. Those were the scenes I was most looking for and Mike Newell spoiled ALL of them. Where is the wonderful scene in the garden that takes place after the Yule Ball? Where are all (or at least some) of the great obstacles that Harry has to face in the maze when it comes to the final showdown between him and Cedric in the tournament?

In my opinion the best two adaptations of Harry Potter are still the first two films under the direction of Chris Columbus. Some say those films are way too kitschy, but they had something you love in the books but never find in the third and fourth film: A heart, a soul and – most of all – magic. Mike Newell himself said that the fourth book is a thriller. Yes, it is. But it is also a fairy tale and about magic. We can't find neither of these two qualities in the film. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" is nothing more than situations and impressions lined up after one another. Without emotion, without sense and without giving the viewer time to breath in between. So at some point you just lean back, switch your head off and watch the kids and adults work in their roles. But if this moment arrives during a film it's the worst thing this film can do. Besides, I don't want to criticize it just because I'm a fan of the books. I'm glad I read the book before seeing this film. Because if somebody sees this film without reading the book first he will get more questions than answers. For example – Harry's dream of the house, where he sees Voldemort, is never explained in the film. Yes, it is foreshadowing the ending but we all know that there is another link (and is explained in the book). If you don't know the link you ask yourself: Why the heck did he show this dream sequence? He might as well have left it out.

A word about the cast… Nothing to complain about the adults – they're gorgeous as usual. As for the trio – I really liked Daniel's performance – he's getting better with every film and this one was maybe his best so far. Rupert "Ron" Grint is the only one of the three who really goes through a change – he is no clown any more and not only a sidekick – he begins to question things (including his friendship to Harry) and to develop his own personality. Emma Watson – well, what shall I say? She's not a bad actress but thanks to the director she behaves like a hysteric little girl throughout the whole movie – which most of the time is absolutely unnecessary. In general I must say that the director really achieved making slapstick clowns of most of the cast. Hello, we're not in a Charlie Chaplin movie here! In my opinion the best performance of the film comes from a youngster that stayed in the background and was nothing but a laugh so far – Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom. He's basically the only teenager that could carry the character of the book to the screen and through the whole movie – he is a shy boy discovering the girls and maturing. His performance was really touching.. It's a good co-incidence and a good job by the young actor because in the next Harry Potter movie Neville Longbottom will play an important role. Nice performances also by the gorgeous and hunky Robert Pattinson as the tragic hero Cedric Diggory and the charming Katie Leung as Cho.

All in one "Harry Potter and the GoF" is a 3-hour-trailer: Scenes and people are introduced without letting them space to develop their character, we get hints and foreshadowings, surprises and impressions but you cannot really see a flow or a plot. So for everyone who doesn't want to think, doesn't care about magic or good cinema, this is the right film. I do and this is why I was very disappointed.

I liked this film very much. It is much darker than the previous outings, but not as faithful to the source material. The only thing I didn't like so much about the book, was the subplot about Hermione trying to help house elves. It was cute, but interfered too much with the dark overtones of the narratives. The film looks dazzling, especially the ballroom scene. Speaking of that scene, I adored that dress that Hermione was wearing, Emma Watson looked unrecognisable in that scene.Also the music by Patrick Doyle this time was beautiful. I don't think it's as dark as the book, and I wasn't too keen on some of the casting. Roger Lloyd Pack and David Tennant were fine in their roles as the Crouches, but their characters were changed significantly. I did wish they made Crouch's disappearance more mysterious, instead of giving it away, ruining the suspense that was quite compelling up to that scene. I am not too keen on Michael Gambon's Dumbledore, I just don't remember Dumbledore being violent as they made him. As I've said already, I much prefer Richard Harris as the character. I am also on the fence about Mad Eye Moody. Brendan Gleeson is a very talented actor, evident in films like In Bruges and The General. He looked the part, but his voice wasn't exactly what I had in mind for Moody. I have listened to the audio tapes by Stephen Fry, and I imagine Moody's voice as low and gravelly. Although Gleeson mostly succeeded with his role, I personally think he tried too hard. My brother also noted that he didn't like the execution of the three tasks. I didn't like the third task, and the other two were fine. I did think on a positive note that Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort was suitably scary, and with the exception of Dumbledore everyone else was well done. All in all, a flawed but quite engrossing film, that doesn't quite live up to the darkness of the book. 8/10 Bethany Cox