हैरी पौटर और आग का प्याला

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

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.

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.

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