ROTTEN TOMATOES: Deconstructing Harry, Day 4: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Comments

Deconstructing Harry, Day 4: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

by Matt Atchity | July 13, 2009

Summary

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. Back to Article

(1-76 of 76 posts) | Reply

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)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Jul 13 2009 01:14 PM

"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."

Wanted to highlight this bit because I tooootally agree and have tried saying the same less succinctly in the past.

As for GoF, I didn't think it was as bad as folks make it out to be. Definitely not as good as PoA, but on the flip side, I think the end's graveyard scene is one of the best of the entire series.

(Reply to this)

Dachshund96 writes:
on Jul 13 2009 01:26 PM

I could care less about the movie. I just go to dream about young Emma Watson wrapping her legs around my head and much, mucha, more.

(Reply to this)

Splitter writes:
on Jul 13 2009 01:28 PM

Edward Cullen dies and the Doctor is a Death Eater

I daresay Goblet of Fire is the most unintentionally hilarious HP movie thus far.

(Reply to this)

Odd Persona writes:
on Jul 13 2009 01:39 PM

You people are hard to please. This movie ( as I remember it) is great. These films keep getting better and better, the crowning achievement being Order of the Phoenix. And if the tomatometer is any indication The Half Blood Prince is set to continue that tradition.

(Reply to this)

brunomen writes:
on Jul 13 2009 01:55 PM

I haven't seen the "Half-Blood Prince" yet, but for me the "Goblet of Fire" was the best of the other five. Mainly due to the actors, but also the great direction, amazing CGI effects and the fact that it was based on the best book of the first five also.

(Reply to this)

Magic is Might writes:
on Jul 13 2009 01:56 PM

This one is the second best right behind HBP. There is one thing that i do find funny and that is harry's hair. He goes from a little messy hair in the first two to shaved and neat in the third(which is not how the character is like in the books) then is a dirty hippie in the fourth then again it is cut and tidy in the fifth, they need to freaking make up their minds.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 13 2009 01:56 PM

This is definately the most action packed and fast paced of the movies, but it doesn't have the feel of a Harry Potter film. Too much was left on the cutting room floor and it was much more noticeable than in other installments.

(Reply to this)

collex writes:
on Jul 13 2009 01:56 PM

The main problem that I have with the movies starting from the third onward is that they keep getting shorter while the books keep getting bigger. Why is OotP the shortest of the series while the book is the biggest. It doesn't make sense and it means that some things that should not be left out are. For example, in PoA, there is no explanation on who created the Map and why Lupin can read it so easily. Even worse, in GoF, Priori Incantum isn't explained at all. Dumbleore mention it, but he don't give any explanation. I remember my brother (who hasn't read the books) asking: But why did Haryy and Voldemort wands did that weird stuff? It's not said anywhere.

(Reply to this)

KoshKing777 writes:
on Jul 13 2009 02:10 PM

For me, the difference between the first two and the most recent two (GoF and OotP) is that, in the Columbus films, everything plot-wise that happens has some sort of effect on the characters or the atmosphere.

However, in GoF and OotP, it is my opinion that, whenever something happens...at all...in the movies, there is often little appropriate reaction to them. I feel like I'm being fed cotton candy in GoF and OotP...there's a big OOMPH to every scene, mood and action-wise, but I think some believability is lost when something drastic happens and the movie goes on its merry way like nothing happened.

Take for instance the murder of Barty Crouch, Sr in GoF. Does ANYTHING happen as a result of that? What about the Yule Ball? The Rita Skeeter articles? Everything seems to be a series of unrelated events in the movie, whereas in the books, every chapter had something important happen, plot-wise, and then Harry would meditate/mope about it, or take some some sort of action.

It is my perception that the Columbus films, and certainly PoA, are all populated by real, breathing characters (however badly-acted in some cases). This sense that the characters were somewhat realistic was, for me, somewhat tarnished in the later films.

Although, Radcliffe truly gave an inspired performance in GoF (I daresay he and Fiennes were the only ones who truly gave it their all), and in OotP I really enjoyed Ron, Luna, Umbridge.

(Reply to this)

Superzone writes:
on Jul 13 2009 02:49 PM

@ fargo_viper

Are you seriously still posting that same comment? You're like a five-year-old who keeps repeating the same sentence to get attention from his parents. We get it: you don't like Harry Potter. Now go get a life outside of writing obnoxious comments on the internet.

(Reply to this)

Superzone writes:
on Jul 13 2009 02:51 PM

Anyway, I really like GoF. I think it's the most well acted of the first four (the fifth one and probably the sixth one beat it out) and the visual effects are great.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 13 2009 02:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#2526246)
collex: I don't think those things needed to be in there, it doesn't really leave any holes and could be left up to the imagination of the viewer. Goblet of Fire leaves out the biggest omission which really hurts the plot of the movie in my opinion, and I've said it several times and I'll say it again: how did Barty Crouch Jr. escape Azkaban unnoticed, when in the last movie there was a massive wizard hunt for Sirius Black because he was first to escape ever?! Not only that, but if you were to go by the way he escaped in the book then his character appears to evil and Barty Crouch Sr. would have never let it happen. But we're meant to believe that he just randomly escaped from Azkaban without any detection, even Dumbledore says, "Contact Azkaban, I believe they will find they are one prisoner short." I'm sorry but this huge, massive plot hole really bothers me.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 13 2009 03:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#2526273)
Superzone: Outside of Dumbledore, Barty Crouch Jr., and Barty Crouch Sr. I would agree with you on the acting, but those were acted so horribly I still cringe every time any of those three characters are on screen.

(Reply to this)

dj Mark writes:
on Jul 13 2009 03:03 PM

As a movie, I found it to be somewhat more rambling and unfocussed than POA, but I enjoyed the character interactions much more in this one. It certainly isn't the worst in the series (After Chris Columbus' lousy first films, a HP film now would need to be a certifiable disaster to carry that title).

(Reply to this)

Craig M. writes:
on Jul 13 2009 03:32 PM

I'm wondering about the movie taste of the people who are saying this is the worst in the series. It's far better than the snoozefest that was Sorcerer's Stone or Order of the Phoenix, which was high on montages but low on plot and character development. The end of this movie, from the maze on, is the most well done part of the series so far, bar none. Radcliffe was also far better here than in any of the other four.
Did it skip important things? Sure, but I never missed stuff like the House elf subplot or most of the beginning stuff. I do wish they had given a better explanation for Crouch Jr getting out of prison, but it's a far more forgivable than leaving half of the book on the cutting room floor for no apparent reason (OotP, once again, which could have easily added 30-40 minutes and suffered no loss of box office success).

(Reply to this)

rottenb writes:
on Jul 13 2009 03:52 PM

If the dragon scene was shorter and not so exciting you guys would just complain about how explaining Crouch's escape from Azkaban was too boring and slowed down the movie. So there was no way to win. I though they did a great job adapting this one.

(Reply to this)

Redbeard writes:
on Jul 13 2009 03:55 PM

GoF was fun, but it was choppy, rushed, had big plotholes (priori incawhatum?), the acting was over the top (someone seemed to be yelling in every single scene) and sometimes the lighting was just plain ugly. (blue does not look flattering on gambon's facial features).

But the worst thing for me remains the first task. The dragon breaks loose and followes Harry around hogwarts and there is NO-ONE who tries to save him. Not his friends, not the teachers, not the ministry officials, not dumbledore. They're all just looking like:"Oh my, I hope he's gonna be allright," in this slightly worried fassion. HE'S BEING CHASED BY A FRICKIN' FIRESPITTING DRAGON WITH RABIES! DO SOMETHING! In the book, there were security measures. The fact that everyone there just would have let him die without a second notice just almost ripped the heart out of the franchise for me.

But for the rest, GoF was fun. Great special effects.

(Reply to this)

David A. writes:
on Jul 13 2009 03:56 PM

Until this film, I was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a Potter fan. Had it not been for my friend's persistence, I would've never given this series a second. No really, she forced me to watch the previous films.

Although it was long, it did not drag on like the previous installments. It was memorable. C'mon, what about that ending? More importantly, it brought to the table things that were sorely missing from the previous films- maturity, humor, magic and fun.

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Jul 13 2009 04:14 PM

Best Harry Potter...FACT.

(Reply to this)

Redbeard writes:
on Jul 13 2009 04:18 PM

Please don't try to force-feed your opinion as FACT. Atleast I admit that what I say is just my opinion. Agree or disagree as you like.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 13 2009 04:20 PM

Wow 98% If it keeps this pace up it'll get to 100%. Just like my girlfriend reclaimed her virginity before our marriage.

(Reply to this)

rottenb writes:
on Jul 13 2009 04:33 PM

In reply to this comment (#2526300)
Agreed. Cinematic value gets an A
What other Harry movie has that?
POA was more mode, tone, and steady-cam than a great piece of film making.

(Reply to this)

Wayward Sean writes:
on Jul 13 2009 04:46 PM

I definitely felt this was the weakest movie of the series. Snape and Filch were reduced to poor comic relief. Hermione is hysterical the whole movie, I feel like everyone is tense all the time. Everything is darker than necessary. Important points were dejected, and random actions scenes were added for no reason. If I hadn't read the books, I would have been really lost as to what was happening. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie, just the worst of the Potters. They did many things well, but many things poorly.

(Reply to this)

cy r. writes:
on Jul 13 2009 04:46 PM

This is a great movie of the year

Todd D.
http://www.cybertheater.com/category/discount/

(Reply to this)

cy r. writes:
on Jul 13 2009 04:47 PM

This is a great movie of the year

Todd D.
http://www.cybertheater.com/category/discount/

(Reply to this)

cy r. writes:
on Jul 13 2009 04:49 PM

Great movie!
http://www.timberfrog.com/phpBB2/portal.php?page=5&index.php?CA&news=Non-profit

(Reply to this)

Harrison H. writes:
on Jul 13 2009 04:53 PM

There's only a couple things I disliked about this one. Its a good film but I think it lacked some of the things that PoA got right.
First I found the music lacking and forceful in some places. It was very good sometimes and not so great sometimes-almost blurting out suddenly, not to mention a couple new themes that I thought were over played.
The lack of subplots- It was mostly a straight forward plot in which there was only one story without any subplots to help us along. The whole compilation of scenes to ball music- madam maxim picking something out of Hagrid's beard- come one, the interesting subplots seemed to be sacrificed for silly things.
Dumbldores not so quite authority- I like Michael Gambon's approach much more than Richard Harris, yet after a lot of yelling in this movie, I think he sacrificed some of his wise old man for cranky old man. He also revealed a lot of emotion which I didnt like, I like Dumbledore being wise and almost expecting whats going to happen, but him assaulting Harry to ask if he put his name in the goblet, lost some of the wise old man.
Great Film, not as great a Prisoner of Azkaban

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 13 2009 04:53 PM

In reply to this comment (#2526283)
Craig M: While I would have liked to see more of OotP, they honestly didn't leave any holes with what they left out. But as Redbeard said, the first task was ridiculous with the dragon getting loose and chasing Harry and no one doing anything about it. That wasn't in the book! There were parts of the second task that were in the movie that weren't in the book either. So they could have pared those down, made Barty Crouch Jr properly and added in the subplot where

(S P O I L E R A L E R T)

Jr.'s mom took polyjuice potion, and he did as well, during a visit to Azkaban so that she could take his place in prison because she was dying and her dying wish was that her son could be free. Of course with the characterization in the movie this doesn't work because in the book she believed him to be innocent, and in the movie we know he's guilty.

(E N D S P O I L E R A L E R T)

I have to admit though, I'm too hard on this movie. I actually can watch this more than the first two which I have a hard time sitting through admittedly (and even make reading the books hard for me). So I will rearrange my ranking:

Prisoner of Azkaban - 9/10
Order of the Phoenix - 8/10
Goblet of Fire - 6.5/10
Chamber of Secrets - 5.5/10
Sorcerer's Stone - 5/10

rottenb: I don't think there has ever been a movie that I complained of as being too boring or slow. I would complain a lot more about plot holes, and this is a legitimate plot hole, before I'll complain about a movie being boring or slow. Besides, the way he got out was ingenious and wouldn't have proven boring at all because it could have easily been explained quickly during the veritaserum scene towards the end of the movie.

(Reply to this)

Chris B. writes:
on Jul 13 2009 05:07 PM

In reply to this comment (#2526192)
are you serious dude? every time I read one of these articles, you always post that same comment. just stop being a doucher for a little while.

(Reply to this)

Magic is Might writes:
on Jul 13 2009 05:11 PM

I love how whitey forgives PoA for its many many many chopped out plot points but is pissed about a very minor plot point in GoF

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 13 2009 05:36 PM

In reply to this comment (#2526323)
In fairness dude there's a ton cut or changed from Goblet. Durmstrang and Beaubaton not being co-ed, The Crouch story line which made no sense in the movie form, The Dragon, No Dobby, No Winky, No S.P.E.W., Ron never tells Harry about the Dragon in any format in the book, Cedric isn't remotely likeable (in the book that's what makes his death tragic and Dumbledore's speech about him at the end seems like lipservice), No Ludo Bagman or that storyline, What's up with the twins taking bets on if Harry will live or die? Some points as you say are minor, but some are pretty major. In the end I think the absences and performances hurt the narrative more in Goblet than they did in Azkhaban. Neither of them like any of the latter movies is a faithful adaption of the books, but PoA is a better movie on it's own merits.

(Reply to this)

Matt L. writes:
on Jul 13 2009 06:14 PM

the funny thing is that the 1st movie was the most faithful to the books and made the most money. since then each movie has strayed further from the books and the hardcore potter crowd continues to get alienated.

the funny thing about that is the movies don't explain enough stuff for the stories to make sense to non potter fans.

bottom line, with the amount of book sales there were, which far exceed the movie ticket sales, they would have made more money simply following the books more closely.

(Reply to this)

Eric A. writes:
on Jul 13 2009 07:21 PM

For me, PoA was the weakest, not because of weak direction, but I think because it most detracted from the story. Perhaps it was because it was my favorite book at that point, I was looking for a bit more to it then what was shown on screen. Especially the reason why Harry's patronus charm took to the form of a stag or even the significance of who made the Maurader's Map. I remember being disappointed by the movie based off that alone.

However, in GoF, it seems they touch on most of the important aspects of the books, though sometimes without the proper context. For instance how did Barty Crouch Jr. escape? And though I understand the reason they cut out the SPEW stuff, it will cause problems later on, if they decide to incorporate Dobby's sacrifice and Kreacher's aid in the Battle of Hogwart's and how Hermione's urgings helped play a part in that.

Then there was the bizarre decision to expand on the dragon egg. But in any regard, I have to agree with the reviewer in that not one of the movies has in anyway shape or form sucked. While some may be better then others, not one of them was poorly done or unwatchable and it looks like 6 may be the best yet.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 13 2009 07:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#2526323)
Magic is Might: We've already started this conversation somewhere else, you'll forgive me if I don't indulge your need to call out people that disagree with you on every thread they visit.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 13 2009 08:03 PM

In reply to this comment (#2526339)
Matt L.: I don't think they necessarily would have, and I know a lot of people who haven't read the books that love the movies and have no trouble following them. There are a lot of people out there with two kids or more who are not going to go to the movies because it's too expensive. And there are lots of people who don't read the books that do watch the movies. The first movie was a big event, as they go along there's more people willing to wait for DVD's and such. Just because a movie doesn't do as well as earlier movies in the series doesn't necessarily mean that it's because people prefer it that way. Honestly, because the first two movies were so faithful to the books I have a hard time rewatching them or rereading the books. Just the fact that each movie has made a profit, and they still do consistently well in their numbers and critically is a testament to how well this series is done even if you aren't a fan of how far they've strayed from the series.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 13 2009 08:12 PM

In reply to this comment (#2526339)
Matt L.: P.S. It should also be noted that the last few movies have seen a steady increase in grosses. Prisoner of Azkaban has grossed the least with just under (in millions, only domestic) $250, while GoF grossed just under $290, and OotP grossed just under $292. So I don't think it can really be said that the amount of information changed from the book is directly proportional to the how much the movie makes.

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on Jul 13 2009 08:52 PM

In reply to this comment (#2526302)
I don't have to say it's my opinion. No one has to say something is there opinion. People know what an opinion is. I shouldn't have to tell you. I say Fact because it gets my opinion across. FACT.

(Reply to this)

PennsylvaniaJames writes:
on Jul 13 2009 08:57 PM

Wow this got a lot of posts. OK I think POA and GOF were BOTH great movies but the better one to me is Goblet of Fire simply because it explains things better than Prisoner did. The real heart of Prisoner of Azkaban is the story behind it all (I remember reading it and being STUNNED). Order of the Phoenix to me has been the biggest let down ever in the Harry Potter series. To me it goes: GOF, POA, SS, CS, OOTP.

(Reply to this)

Matt L. writes:
on Jul 13 2009 09:05 PM

i agree that POA was my favorite book and least favorite movie. the patronus scene killed it along with the lack of explanation.

and all i'm saying is that the last 3 movies haven't been made well enough for die hard book fans like myself, and they haven't explained enough of the finer details to make a lot of sense for the non book readers. Priori incantatum in GOF anyone? how the hell does any non book reader understand something important like that when they stopped having dumbledore explain things after movie 2.

and why they cut down on dumbledore's action scenes in the 5th movie i'll never understand. dumbledore is supposed to be the baddest *** wizard ever. the movies haven't portrayed that one bit. oh well, hopefully DH makes up for it since they'll have 5 hours to show everything.

(Reply to this)

Paul M. writes:
on Jul 13 2009 09:27 PM

Despite this film not being nearly as good as the Prisoner of Azkaban, I really did enjoy it. The action was spectacular, and served to make the film feel much grander than its predecessors. Purely for the special effects, the dragon bit was cinematically brilliant (I know the detour through Hogwarts' sky-scraping towers its unrealistic, but hey, it's cool). Also, the graveyard scene gave Goblet of Fire more of a true climax than any of the previous films had.
Strangely enough, the action that made the film fun is also what detracts most from the storytelling. I'd happily trade in 10 minutes of head-bashing at least a brief scene regarding Hermione's S.P.E.W.
The acting has improved immensely with the exception of Gambon's very angry Dumbledore. He maybe does a better job than Daniel Radcliffe in portraying teenage emotions and hormonal surges, the only issue is that he's supposed to be 100-something years old.

(Reply to this)

ninja13 writes:
on Jul 13 2009 10:15 PM

Definitely the worst of the series. the third task alone was worse than anything else in the whole series. Too much was cut out. It was a disappointment the fist time. I agree about Harry's performance, apart from the graveyard scene it was the only good thing about it.

(Reply to this)

JettaJameson writes:
on Jul 13 2009 10:17 PM

Goblet is my favorite. I loved it. I loved all the movies. Of course, HBP will be the first movie I see where I have read the book. So, my opinion could change.

(Reply to this)

Tim w. writes:
on Jul 13 2009 10:35 PM

In reply to this comment (#2526185)
Whitey, couldn't possibly agree more. It was overdramatized and they completely screwed up Dumbledore and Barty Crouch Jr. The book leads you to believe that his father sent an innocent man, his son now less, to Azkaban. It was such a great twist to read that it was him the whole time. Would it have been so hard to keep that aspect of the plot in tact? I just didn't get it. And I was so put off by Dumbledore in this movie. Since when has he ever questioned Harry? I found his manner and dialogue to be totally off until the very end, where he somewhat redeemed himself, but only somewhat. It took his performance in OOTP for me to allow myself to start accepting Gambon in the role. As for the rest of the movie, I found the tone and the way the lines were delivered to be a huge disappointment, especially considering this book was my favorite. I'm surprised more people don't share this opinion.

(Reply to this)

ReelFilm writes:
on Jul 14 2009 12:28 AM

I didn't like this movie as much as the others when I first saw it, but I watched it again yesterday and really enjoyed it. It could be that it's been awhile since I've read the books, so have forgotten everything they left out in the movie. I also thought the dragon scene when he chases Harry was a really stupid scene in the sense that nobody seemed remotely worried that one of their students could easily be killed any minute. And I'm definitely not a big fan of Gambon as Dumbledore. He feels nothing like how Dumbledore is in the book, and comes across as way too energetic and eccentric. He doesn't feel at all like the wise old caring Dumbledore that has a close bond with Harry in the books and he feels more disconnected from him and not like the type of person that is completely compassionate and trustworthy all the time. Richard Harris seemed to totally fit how Dumbledore was supposed to be, and I find myself caring less about the new Dumbledore, who doesn't feel like the warm, understanding person he should be.

(Reply to this)

Redbeard writes:
on Jul 14 2009 01:43 AM

I agree with Tim w. an Whitey. Though I guess everyone has got different priorities about what should be left in, wether it's the marauders map explanation, or the priori incantatum or the explanation of Barty Crouch Jr. For me what matters most is that missing plotpoints don't intervere with the story in future films. I think the priori incantatum-stuff was kind if important in that way. Personally I felt the Crouch-gap could be filled in by the audiences themself. I can't imagine casual fans being very interested in the story behind it, and real fans (aka, people that read the books) already know the story anyway) For me, the best moments in the film were at the yule ball. The story finally had time to breath and the characters were aloud to develop for a bit.

(Reply to this)

Redbeard writes:
on Jul 14 2009 02:22 AM

sure Ledawg, you don't have to say it's your opinion. It's just that people here really have different ideas about what's the better film. The way you place your opinion as fact, without actually delivering arguments why, pisses me off. But maybe you think it's a healthy way to stimulate a discussion.

Okay, I know I'm overreacting here, I just felt I had to eleborate.

(Reply to this)

martinscorsese25 writes:
on Jul 14 2009 04:08 AM

the trick is to not reRead the book before the release. otherwise it will distract you from the movie. think of it as a Film not a book. i for one, will not reREAD HBP because it will distract me from enjoying a 98% reviewed FILM.

(Reply to this)

Craig M. writes:
on Jul 14 2009 09:38 AM

In reply to this comment (#2526317)
whitey, the may not have left holes, but they left a whole lot of stuff out that would have been spectacular to watch on screen (a more extended ministry battle, etc.), and unlike in GoF, they really didn't do anything well in OotP. The final battle was rushed and ineffective, Dumbledore's army was reduced to a quick montage (still the best part of the movie), and none of the major things that happened seemed to matter much at all. Also, yes, the dragon scene is ridiculous in Goblet, but it's a less irritating change (IMO) than the Death Eaters being able to fly around and trail smoke, which just looks retarded and pretty much ruined the end of Order for me.

(Reply to this)

A J. writes:
on Jul 14 2009 10:19 AM

In reply to this comment (#2526174)
There is one more book, but they are splitting it into two movies because of the amount of story time needed.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 14 2009 10:59 AM

In reply to this comment (#2526433)
Redbeard: I don't think the audience could really fill in the Crouch-gap though. It doesn't make any sense in the scheme of the series that Crouch escaped from Azkaban without anyone knowing about it. I know several people who haven't read the books and saw the movie and thought it was stupid that he escaped without any knowledge of it. And his characterization was so bad they couldn't have put in the version from the book even if they wanted to. If they would have gotten the characterization right, all they would have had to do is have him give a short explanation when he was under veritaserum at the end. It would have added two minutes to the running time at the most.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 14 2009 11:08 AM

In reply to this comment (#2526524)
Craig M.: I disagree, but that's one of those things that we're going to have to agree to disagree on.

(Reply to this)

prestonkm writes:
on Jul 14 2009 01:09 PM

The "Harry Potter" films, my favorite to least favorite so far:

1. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" - 10/10
2. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" - 10/10
3. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" - 10/10
4. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" - 8/10
5. "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" - 8/10 (am I the only person who thinks this is the weakest film of the series?)

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Jul 14 2009 04:04 PM

In reply to this comment (#2526616)
prestonkm: Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're the only one! Why do you consider it the weakest in the series.

(Reply to this)

celia h. writes:
on Jul 15 2009 10:50 PM

Goblet of Fire is one of my favorites and I always forget how much of the book was cut when this film was made. I think it would've took them two seconds to add in the whole House elf storyline. That's one of the most interesting layers to the Hermione character...it's a big part of who she is and it gets cut.

But with that said...I really like GOF. It's very episodic compared to the other films, but then again so is the book. And it also moves extremely fast...so fast that I think they could've gotten away with adding another 30 minutes to it. But it's still a favorite! I've watched it way too many times to count.

(Reply to this)

Observation 99 writes:
on Jul 18 2009 09:53 PM

In reply to this comment (#2526181)
Mostly I had the same problems with this film that I had with the third one. It was hokey, for one thing. (Hermione is once again the know-it-all sitcom style chick. Instead of concerned warnings when Fred and George attempt to enter the tournament, she makes smart aleck scoffs.) And, yes, it was overdramatic. (I thought Hogwarts was a school, meaning well being is essential, not a "play at your own risk" death trap. Why is everyone's life on the line every other moment? Someone almost dies in each and every task! I remember, very cleary, reassurances in the novel that the tournament is not deadly. Even in a world of wizards this is unrealistic drama, and we really don't need it. Not to mention that that's hardly half of it.) The comment I'm replying to hit the nail on the head in several different ways. (Although Barty Crouch Sr. didn't bother me too much.) I suppose there's a lot I could add to it, but I think it's better if I don't write another giant review in one comment.

That being said, I liked this film better than the third one, for one reason. While the third one was often boring (the climax was surprisingly unengaging), this one had plenty of worthwhile action. The tournament, if nothing else, was fun to look at (until the irrationality of it all sunk in). The scene following the quidditch cup is engaging, and the climax of the movie is, for the most part, well done. I still walked out of the theater somewhat dissapointed, but I later found that watching it made an okay rainy day pastime. If I had to rate it now, I'm really not sure if I'd score it good or bad. I guess I'd pick "right in the middle" if I could.

(Reply to this)

Observation 99 writes:
on Jul 18 2009 09:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#2526616)
No, you're not.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links