
Day Four: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (88%)
From the very beginning of this fourth film in the Harry
Potter series, we know that we're in for a much darker film than we've
previously seen. The opening scene of the film shows us the hapless caretaker of
the long-abandoned Riddle estate being murdered via a magical curse, or at least
that's what Harry has been dreaming about. This nightmare of Harry's is a sign
that we've entered into a much more mature territory.
Director Mike Newell has the unenviable task of following
Alfonso Cuaron's
excellent
Prisoner of Azkaban, so far the high point of the series. Newell's
Goblet of Fire isn't quite the achievement that Azkaban was, but it's a fine
film nonetheless.
That leads me to a something that I'm increasingly aware of as I watch each one
of these films; each installment of this franchise (so far) is a great movie.
The first couple of films have their flaws, but
Sorcerer's Stone and
Chamber of
Secrets are excellent introductions to Harry's world, and they are both very
enjoyable films. And I must give credit were credit is due; the wonderful
Prisoner of Azkaban reaps the benefits of the time spent in the first two films
establishing the on-screen version of Rowling's universe.
Freed from the necessity of introductions, screenwriter Steve Kloves (who's been
adapting this entire series so far) makes some pretty drastic cuts to Rowling's novel
in order to stay focused on Harry. That means we don't see the Dursleys at all,
we never see the original connection between the murdered caretaker and
Voldemort, and Hermione's elf activism (a major subplot in the book) has been
cut too. Granted, none of these details take away from the story, but serious
fans of the novels may have lamented their removal.
The plot centers around Harry's participation in the Triwizard Tournament, a Olympics of sorts for wizards. Although he's supposed to be too young for the tournament, someone conspires to put Harry's name forward anyway, and he becomes the Hogwarts champion alongside none other than Edward Cullen, I mean Robert Pattinson. As Harry tries to meet the challenges of the various events, the wizarding world is dealing with the aftermatch attack from the Death Eaters, former henchmen of the dreaded Lord Voldemort.
One of the more interesting aspects of this film for me was that, for the first time, I felt like the wizard world wasn't stuck in Olde England. Previously, wizard-only areas like Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade Village have had a very Victorian feel, and having characters talk about "parchment" and the like just reinforced a feeling that the wizarding world was rooted in the past (in spite of anomalies like the Weasley's flying car).
But now we're seeing much more sophisticated aspects of the world of Wizardry. The Quidditch world cup at the beginning of the film is as much a spectacle as the Super Bowl, complete with Diamondvision-style displays. We're also seeing Harry, Ron, and Hermoine take their first steps into the world of Teen Romance, and it's just as dramatic and perilous as it is for muggles.
Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson continue to grow as actors, and they're really able to make us believe in the evolution of their characters' relationships with each other. In particular, we see a new confidence from Harry, particularly when he's celebrating the completion of the first part of the tournament. Michael Gambon is settling nicely into the role of Dumbledore; as events really begin to worry and tax the Hogwarts headmaster, Gambon is deftly able to balance authority and humanity. And we finally get to see a bit more out of the great Maggie Smith. Goblet of Fire shows her best scene in the entire series so far; prepping the Gryffindor house for the Yule Ball, which she calls an opportunity for "well-mannered" frivolity, she threatens the students, saying she won't have the good name of Gryffindor ruined by a "babbling, bumbling band of baboons!"
The parade of British actors continues in this installment; Jason Isaacs returns, as does Gary Oldman (or at least his voice), and although he wasn't so famous at the time, it's nice to see Robert Pattinson play something other than the brooding vampire. Brendan Gleeson makes his first appearance as the fearsome Mad-Eye Moody, the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. Miranda Richardson appears as the conniving gossip reporter Rita Skeeter. David Tennant (recently of Dr. Who fame) plays a Death Eater sentenced to Azkaban. And then there's the great Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort. Fiennes has played villains before, and he really captures the arrogance, malice, and violence of the dark lord.
In the end, I think Newell was really trying to follow Cuaron's previous installment. Like Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire is a dark film, but he overdoes it at times. For instance, the weather around Hogwarts is often rainy, and even the sunshine looks wan and pale. And cinematographer Roger Pratt seems to be trying to create some of the same types of shots that Michael Seresin had created for Cuaron in Azkaban. Indeed, a couple of shots are exactly the same; you might not notice this in the 12 months between film releases, but when you're watching the movies back to back it's glaringly obvious.
The real strength in this film, though, lies in the Newell's more original elements. The entrances of the Beauxbatons and the Durmstrangs are artfully (if a bit sensually) staged. The chaotic Death Eater attack at the Quidditch Word Cup is appropriately scary. The challenges of the tournament (dragons, mer-folk, and a malicious hedge maze) are exciting to watch. And as Harry finally faces the reborn Voldemort, we get our first look at two wizards locked in mortal combat, and it doesn't disappoint.
Like Cuaron, Newell doesn't return for another installment, and although Goblet of Fire is a good film, I'm not disappointed that he's not coming back for another film.
Deconstructing Harry Dates:
- Day One: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
- Day Two: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
- Day Three: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
- Day Four: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
- Day Five: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
- Day Six: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
|
De4ective Detectiv3 writes: on Jul 13 2009 11:17 AM How many more of these stinkin movies do they have? J.K. Rowling = poor man's Rhoal Dahl. (Reply to this) |
|
Amalgamate writes: on Jul 13 2009 11:30 AM No one agrees with you-sad... At least spell the guys name right! It's Roald Dahl You're the poor man's dictionary...hee hee (Reply to this) |
|
whitey_mcwhite writes: on Jul 13 2009 11:40 AM David Heyman hasn't adapted any of the movies in the series, Steve Kloves adapted them all except OotP which was done by Michael Goldenberg. Just wanted to make sure you got your facts straight. (Reply to this) |
|
whitey_mcwhite writes: on Jul 13 2009 11:54 AM In my opinion this was the weakest movie of the series. Newell overdramaticized a lot (did they really have to have the dragon break free in the first challenge, that didn't happen in the book and that could have left space to add in something that was left out), and the characters didn't feel right at all in some instances. Why did Dumbledore look so angry, like he was going to hit Harry after his name came out of the Goblet? I thought Barty Crouch Sr. was just complete crap, and why did they make Barty Crouch Jr. seem so evil so early on? One of the great things about the book was that you didn't know he was really a Death Eater till the end, but we knew who he was and what he was doing practically from the first scene of the movie. Also, in the book there's a sufficient explanation as to how he got out of Azkaban, for people just watching the movie and haven't read the books you have to somehow grasp how Barty Crouch Jr. just happened to break out of Azkaban unnoticed when the whole movie before that is about the one man who escaped from Azkaban, and it's such a security risk that they put Dementors all over Hogwarts. I'm sorry, but that right there is a huge plot hole. They could have done without all the overdramaticizing and explained how Jr. got out of Hogwarts. (Reply to this) |
|
whitey_mcwhite writes: on Jul 13 2009 11:56 AM In reply to this comment (#2526164) CtrlAltDestroy: And if you're not interested in the movies or the books why are you bothering coming on here making a comment that doesn't add to the discussion about the movie? Seems counterproductive to waste your time bringing a page up and typing a useless comment about something you are in no way interested in. (Reply to this) |
|
mclabyrinth writes: on Jul 13 2009 12:06 PM In reply to this comment (#2526178) I do belive Mr. Heyman Produced all of the films, so the names right just the wrong job. And I could go on and on about what was left out, and what I wanted to see in the movie but alas it had to be shortened, In the end I enjoyed it just as much if not more than the first to, but not as much as PoA. Saw a sneak peak of The Half Blood Prince, and whoa, Its now IMO the best. Much more from the books are in it and the acting and look of the movie is great. (Reply to this) |
|
Paints Hz Shirt Red writes: on Jul 13 2009 12:08 PM In reply to this comment (#2526181) weaker of the movies? man i thought it was the best one so far, the first 2 i think were the weaker ones. (Reply to this) |
|
fargo_viper writes: on Jul 13 2009 12:08 PM Dumbledore sucks wand. (Reply to this) |
|
Tyrant writes: on Jul 13 2009 12:13 PM In reply to this comment (#2526191) My thought's exactly. (Reply to this) |
|
KoshKing777 writes: on Jul 13 2009 12:14 PM I have to say, after rewatching this film yesterday, this movie does not hold up as well as I remember. Although the tone is singularly, and appropriately, down and depressing, certain scenes and elements have a flamboyant cheesiness to them that even OotP didn't stoop to. I would agree with Whitey that this is by far the worst of the series. Just as a movie many scenes were just too over-the-top, without any justification of being so (i.e. the first and third tasks, and the entrances of the two schools to the Great Hall). These scenes just strained the fabric of credulity. However, I would argue that, as soon as harry and cedric touch the goblet at the end, the entire movie is 10/10 fantastic from then on. It's astonishingly, refreshingly good for those last 40(?) minutes. Which is too bad, because it seems a bit brought down by the mindless gallavanting throughout the rest of the film. I have to say, though, that I like Daniel's performance in this one, more than his in OotP. It seems like he's a lot less bored in this installment. (Reply to this) |
|
whitey_mcwhite writes: on Jul 13 2009 12:16 PM In reply to this comment (#2526189) mclabyrinth: I wasn't worried about what was left out, but some of the overdramaticizing just didn't work for me. And we could have done with a better explanation as to how Jr. got out of Azkaban without a notice. I mean, Prisoner of Azkaban was all about how no one ever escapes from Azkaban and how everyone was so worried about it, in Goblet of Fire there's no hint that he ever escaped from Azkaban, but how could that be? And the characters just felt off, Dumbledore would never act like he did in this film. Barty Crouch Sr. just didn't seem right at all (did he have a French accent or something while his son had a British accent?!), and why did Jr. seem so evil to begin with? I wasn't upset with what they left out, I was upset with the treatment of some of what they left in. (Reply to this) |
|
KoshKing777 writes: on Jul 13 2009 12:16 PM ^by Daniel I meant Daniel Radcliffe. (Reply to this) |
|
whitey_mcwhite writes: on Jul 13 2009 12:20 PM In reply to this comment (#2526191) Paints Hz Shirt Red: It has it's moments but I still think it's the weakest of the series. I actually really like the look of the film, and I love the way he treated the school and it's students. The school felt the most real of any of the series (Yates actually does a great job with that too) in this movie. I also thought that Voldemort was handled very well, and the last scene was killer. I just can't get past the faults on this one though. (Reply to this) |
|
whitey_mcwhite writes: on Jul 13 2009 12:24 PM In reply to this comment (#2526198) KoshKing77: Yeah, I think this was Daniel's best performance in the series, and the end was amazing, second best in the series next to the duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore in OotP. (Reply to this) |
|
THECOWBELLHASSPOKEN writes: on Jul 13 2009 12:30 PM the only thing that bugs me about this movie is gambon shouting his way through the role of dumbledore. and hermione saying shes not an owl. other than that i loved it. (Reply to this) |
|
Daniel H. writes: on Jul 13 2009 12:38 PM Goblet of Fire was obviously the worst in the series so far. It was poorly made and choppy. (Reply to this) |
|
Paints Hz Shirt Red writes: on Jul 13 2009 12:41 PM In reply to this comment (#2526201) @ whitey, ya i agree with the picture of the film, it really set the tone of the story, but the first 2 for me were, well too nitpicky polished. if that makes any sense... (Reply to this) |
|
Paints Hz Shirt Red writes: on Jul 13 2009 12:44 PM In reply to this comment (#2526206) i like gambons dumbldore, he needs that comanding leadership voice. i cant remeber the previous dumbledores name(rip) but he just seemed to old and quiet. it looked like he was gonna fall over if he moved to fast or something. (Reply to this) |
|
whitey_mcwhite writes: on Jul 13 2009 12:52 PM In reply to this comment (#2526213) Paints Hz Shirt Red: I kind of agree with you on Dumbledore, but I think that at times Gambon can come through like an old fool (he has those moments in PoA) and mean (Gof and OotP). There is a point in CoS that Richard Harris does have to shout and is very effective and sounding authoritative. I also kind of agree with you on the first two movies, they were over polished and they show how tedious a movie can be if you try to follow the book too closely. At the same time though, the characterizations are brilliant, and there aren't any holes I can find. That one plot hole with Jr. escaping from Azkaban with no effect is BS. If they would have not overdramaticized things too much they could have explained how he got out which was a brilliant plan actually. (Reply to this) |
|
Paints Hz Shirt Red writes: on Jul 13 2009 01:02 PM agreed,the best thing that came out of the first 2 films is the characters were established very well. and yes your right about the plot hole with Jr. escaping Azkaban. (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |













