Goblet of Fire

This installment of Harry Potter, in case you don’t already know yourself, is great. I thought the beginning was a little rushed, and I wasn’t completely happy with the ending (it varies from the book a great deal, I think). However, the rest of it was great. Definitely the funniest and scariest of the Potter films. And Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort was terrific!!

This entry was posted in The Big Screen. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Goblet of Fire

  1. Ric The Schmuck says:

    While I agree with you about how very good the movie is, my biggest complaint with it is how they are portraying Dumbledore, now that Richard Harris is sadly no longer playing the part.

    The new actor certainly looks the part, and is no doubt a very fine actor. But he plays Dumbledore as given to rash decisions, almost on the verge of panic at times. Not calm, measured and all knowing, they way Richard Harris played him. And they way that I picture him from reading the books.

    (We watched the second movie again last night, which confirmed my opinion.)

    On the other hand, the chemistry between Harry, Ron and Hermoine is simply wonderful. The Weasley Twins. Malfoy (both younger and elder.) Rickman as Snape goes without saying. McGonagall, Hagrid, Filch. Awesome casting.

    I wondered how they would squeeze the biggest book into one movie, and while it was obvious that they skipped a lot of material, most everyone watching it has read the book, and could keep up with out the material that was missing. And as one of my employees noted, not having to endure SPEW was OK… 🙂

    I’m already looking forward to the next book, and the next movie.

  2. statia says:

    Overall, I really did like it, but I was disappointed that they cut as much out of the book that they did. Some of it shouldn’t have been cut out. Plus, I think they rushed through a lot more than just the beginning.

  3. Solonor says:

    I agree with Ric on Dumbledore (my family likes the new guy better). I think they have the potential with the DVD for putting back scenes that will make it even better (as LOTR did). I am not sure they have really taken advantage of that in the first films, though.

  4. *** Dave says:

    As the books have progressed, Dumbledore has gone from being all-wise and remote to being far more human. I think that part of the portrayal in the movies is in keeping with that.

    That said, my biggest problems with Dumbledore was that his accent kept changing. Badly.

    There was (according to the IMDB trivia page) some thought early on to actually making this into two movies, issued several months apart. They decided against it, probably wisely, but that would have let the much more complex and painful personal interactions (and Snape backstory, etc.) more time.

  5. Sherri says:

    I enjoyed it well enough, but I’ve begun to think that, at last, I’ve had enough of books being converted into movies. Yes, the special effects are well and fine, and yes, very cool to see people doing things and, yes, isn’t is all so neat but…

    It still doesn’t match up to my interior theatre. Even though I don’t count the Potter series as Great Literature, they are still a good enough read, and perhaps they are better that way.

  6. geeky says:

    this was the first harry potter movie i’ve in the theaters. i liked it, but with all you people chattering about the stuff that was left out of the movie, i might have to break down and actually read the books. i was a little disappointed in Voldemort. in the movie he’s not a very nice guy, but he’s such a stereotypical bad guy (“i have my nemisis, and now i’m going to kill him slowly after revealing all of my secrets… oops, he escaped”) that i had a hard time finding him really scary.

  7. Ric The Schmuck says:

    OH heavens, read the book!

  8. Somewhat says:

    I too agree about Dumbledore: Dumbledore’s infallibility has been a given throughout all the six books so far – that’s what made the ending of Half-Blood Prince such a shock. I don’t like how they’re turning him into a doddering idiot. But I did like the Riddle tomb VERY much!

  9. bran says:

    in defense of Michael Gambon, didn’t he do a good job in Prisoner of Azkaban? he is a great actor (just think of Sleepy Hollow ) — i think it was the director, not the actor! i don’t like what Mike Newell did with this film. two points:

    1. Dumbledore does not grow furious and scary. He is calm — always calm, speaking in measured, even tones. which brings us to…

    2. Dumbledore certainly doesn’t raise his voice!

    3. Dumbledore is (until the end of book 5), infallable. he is our pillar of strength.

    (anyone else feeling totally sad about the missing House Elf sub-plot? ??? i understand about time constraints, but, but, but… where’s my Winky!!!@!@???)

    who finally got to see it and was disappointed with Dumbly-dore, but thought Madam Maxime was GREAT! 😀

    p.s. i totally agree with you, re: Riddles tomb
    p.p.s. the Death Eaters frightened me. HOORAH! 😀

  10. MCF says:

    Gambon’s not a bad actor, but I do agree he’s made a subpar Dumbledore in comparison to Harris’ original. Otherwise, the casting continues to be perfect. I hope everyone stays until the 7th film.

    I don’t think they left out anything crucial and hit the main points, and even though I knew what was going to happen, it was still pretty emotional, especially when Amos Diggory cries out “My boy!” It didn’t hit me as hard in the book…the character felt like a red shirt but here, the impact was felt. Good stuff.

    Happy Thanksgiving!

Comments are closed.