Film: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

[StatuS tickleS]

this movie went above and beyond my hopes for it. it was great. ralph feinnes is scintillatingly seething as Voldemort

 

[L2R]

I didn't enjoy the first and was annoyed by the second and completely skipped the third (which i still haven't seen), but was convinced to see this on a date and enjoyed it much more than i expected. It was a lot funnier than i expected and much more exciting and interesting than the first two films.

I'll catch the 3rd on cable now...

 

[Tanuki_23]

this movie went above and beyond my hopes for it. it was great. ralph feinnes is scintillatingly seething as Voldemort

didnt even recognize feinnes but yea, he is mos def scintillating.

 

[physix]

Frodo=unlikely hero, Harry Potter/Radcliffe=lucky bastard.

actually, i thin you nailed it righ ton the head.

harry ALWAYS gets help.


from ron, hermoine, crouch, jr
the spirits of mum and dad
the DA
dumbledore

et al

Harry has never ever won a battle on his own.

except maybe Quittich.

this is why i've always taken to dislike things that allude to
how powerful he is (ie the petronus)... why would he be
powerful??? it seems like Rowling is just playing into the myth
that heroes have to be Superman-like in strength.


but Rowling has always been very obvious in her writing that
Harry has always relied (even if subconsciously) on the helpings
of others... which is why Dumbledore's death in book 6 was less
than a shock and more of a "that makes sense"....


but i've always gotten 2 different messages from LOTR and the HP
books... it's explicitly mentioned thru-out LOTR that it's about how
heroes can come from the most unlikely places.

HP has always been about family and friends and the bond that
shapes them. Even Harry's origins are riddled with that: Harry
survived because of his mother's sacrifice.... not because he was
a hero.

In that regard, I think Harry's "luck" holds even in the movies. I
think the only movie that strayed a bit from that was PoA (still
the best movioe as it is the only movie that can truly stand on its
own)... but it does take some liberties with the overall theme of
Harry-Potter-as-hero.

mo, of course.

Krum was fuckable though.

sho' nuff.

his acting is shit... but damn... who cares.


the twins are that ugly-beautiful.... they are kinda hit

but something about them.... mmmmmmm


and Cedric wasn't someone you'd throw out of bed for eating
fish n chips, either.

 

[Banquo]

i can appreciate how much they are trying to cover with each of these films. the books are very long (and, no, i have not read any of them). however, sometimes the movie scenes seem disjointed, almost like they are trying to cover too much. i wish the screenwriters would try harder to make the dialogue flow better, or maybe decide beforehand which scenes will likely be cut so that the editor doesn't end up cutting and pasting so much.

anyhow, i think Goblet of Fire was the best one that's been made. Newell gave it a great look and used some neat camera angles. the two male leads are good. but there are a couple points where hermoine seems to emphasize the wrong words -- and i can't tell if this is because of editing or a poor performance.

the film had some excellent special effects and thankfully lacked the annoying characters of its predecessors, like Doby. the girl wizard was cute too! a good Christmas matinee.

 

[Benefit]

This is easily the best film in the series. There were a lot of funny parts, the narrative was compelling, Mad Eye Moody is my favorite ancillary character, and the movie had an epic feel to it. The tone, subject matter and the kids are getting more grown up. And the acting isn't terrible; it's not jaw-dropping, but come on, I hope people aren't going to these movies because they want to see a complex character study. It's pretty neat that these teenage kids are working through typical adolescent issues, except the whole process is being reinterpreted through a kind of magical lens.

Michael Gambon is a much better Dumbledore than Richard Harris was.

I also like that the 4 movies have had 3 different directors. It gives the franchise more texture, and each director brings a unique interpretation to the story. There were a lot of beautifully composed scenes in this film, but the Prisoner of Azkaban probably edges it in terms of visual composition. Some really nice scenes in both films.

Just for a point of reference, I've never read any of the books and don't want to.

 

[physix]

Michael Gambon is a much better Dumbledore than Richard Harris was.

agreed

Just for a point of reference, I've never read any of the books and don't want to.

i didn't read the books until after i saw PoA. i had seen the movies with my digital effects class and really liked them. I vowed to not read the books until after all the movies were out. Alas, i couldn't wait. And I do regret doing it. It takes me until my second viewing to get to watch the movies rhetorically.

 

[Benefit]

Also, there is no way the entire series won't get made. Goblet of Fire made almost 900 million dollars worldwide, giving the franchise 2 movies in the top 10 highest grossing films of all time. At this point the next film could cost 1 billion dollars to make, earn absolutely no money whatsoever and the franchise would still be profitable.