Harry Potter e o Cálice de Fogo

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

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.

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

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.