tbthorn's Full Review: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Synopsis: Harry Potter continues with year 4 at the Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardy. In this episode, Harry takes part in the Tri-Wizard Cup against competitors Fleur Delacour from Beauxbatons, Viktor Krum from Durmstrang and classmate Cedric Diggory from Hogwarts. He battles dragons, mermen and the evil wizard Voldemort himself! Based on the book by J.K. Rowling.
Harry Potter will be a recurring theme when VH1 produces a show called "The Turn of the Millennium Strikes Back." HP, as Harry is affectionately known by his most dedicated fans, is a vast media empire of books and movies whose profiteering is excused by the character's origin in the mind of British everywoman J.K. Rowling. Everyone cheers for the underdog, even when she stands atop the shoulders of sterile corporations. It's a multi-million dollar franchise with a human face, more forgivable than Disney. Why is this important? Knowing that The Goblet of Fire was produced to maximize profits is key to the reason that the film could never be 5 stars, but I'll save that bit of kibble for later.
The visuals are breathtaking. The attention to detail, from the intricacies of the Great Hall to the towers and lakes of the castle, is striking. Each scene is visually crafted to ensnare the audience and never let them go. However, the castle still seems somewhat hollow. Very few locations within the castle are shown, a natural result of the slashing and burning of the sub-plots and side-stories that made the book so enchanting. The vastness of Hogwarts is underplayed and the illusion all but dissipates. The film is technically perfect, but psychologically unfulfilling.
The cast, mostly a carryover from previous films, is world-class. It's a casting decision that the producers only had to get right once, with the exception of Michael Gambon who replaced the late Richard Harris as Hogwart's headmaster Albus Dumbledore in Prisoner of Azkaban. Gambon only suffers by his comparison to Harris, who more faithfully portrayed Albus Dumbledore as an aged, slow-spoken wizard of great wisdom. By no means is Gambon mediocre; he simply speaks a little too fast and a little less wizened. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson continue to excel as the heroes and heroines Harry, Ron and Hermione. The darker characters, like Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) and Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), get the job done without the support of a complete script. Their presence is felt despite their marked absences. Even fan-favorites Rubeus Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) are hardly given a leg to stand on. Once again, the cast is technically outstanding, but there is still emptiness.
Goblet of Fire also brings in some great new talent. Predrag Bjelac is dastardly and perfect for the role of headmaster of Durmstrang, Igor. With the help of a little make-up, or perhaps poor oral hygiene, he is easily an evil death-eater at heart. Frances de la Tour is easily taken as the female-Hagrid and headmistress of Beauxbatons, Madame Maxime. Clémence Poésy is expectedly cute enough to be playing Beauxbatons-champion Fleur but, if I'm not being too shallow, Katie Leung is a tad ugly to be Harry's secret crush, Cho Chang. Of course, the appearance of Voldemort in half-human form was the one to watch. Ralph Fiennes was stupendous, although his computer-generated likeness left something to be desired.
As CGI technology improves and movie budgets expand, it becomes more and more necessary to discuss the fidelity of novel-based films. Scenes from books that once seemed impossible are now rendered flawlessly. If anything, Goblet of Fire proves that there are no limits. It's all believable, whether it's underwater or in-flight. With respect to the action-sequences and major plot-lines, director Mike Newell and screenplay author Steven Kloves do a tremendous job. The film has a dark atmosphere despite some rather glaring omissions (and some rather interesting creative licenses) from the book. They succeed in achieving the minimum statutory requirement of a good adaptation.
Thus, Goblet of Fire doesn't suffer from it's lack of fidelity to the book. Everything that must be there to advance the story is there. However, the book points very clearly to the film's most glaring imperfection -- the lack of character development. Many of the smaller confrontations and much of the angst were mercilessly cut in order to achieve a two-and-a-half hour running time on such a large novel. I aired a similar complaint about Prisoner of Azkaban, where the characters are left no more developed and no wiser than when the film started. Rowling's greatest skill is developing complex, dynamic characters, but the characters in the film seem static by comparison.
Through her books, Rowling has always been able to generate 'real' characters with 'real' problems. After all, she is a 'real' person. There are many points in the novels when your allegiance and sympathies switch from Harry to Ron to Hermione, and even to Severus Snape. Rowling makes you feel things that seem illogical, something natural to human emotion. The film Goblet of Fire paints Harry as the one and only protagonist, which only seems improper when compared to the book. Like I said, the film is excellent, but it's not the book. Much like the works of Stephen King, also a master of character development, a mini-series would be required to do the book justice. A mini-series would generate tons of revenue, but would never generate the profits of a theatrical release and is therefore out of the question. I hope, although I doubt, that the DVD release will plug in some of the holes. It would become an entirely different experience.
There seem to be two camps with respect to Harry Potter films. There are those who prefer the character-driven films, Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets, and those that prefer the plot-driven films, Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire. Clearly, I fall into the first camp. Goblet of Fire could not have lived up to the first two films in my eyes. Nevertheless, Goblet of Fire is a must-see film. It's an exhilarating ride and doubly satisfying, if only superficially.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.