Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

This fourth installment of J.K. Rowling saga , once again our friends Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) , Ron (Rupert Grint) , Hermione (Emma Watson) are at Hogwar school and their enemies Braco Malfoy (Tom Felton) , his father (Jason Isaacs) along the dark forces , the Death Eaters and Lord Voldemor . Besides , appearing the ordinary teachers , such as : Minerva (Maggie Smith) , Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) , Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) , along with a meddler journalist (Miranda Richardson) , Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) , a new rare professor (Bernard Gleeson) , and , of course , Rubeus (Robbie Coltrane) . Here a legendary event takes place and Harry Potter competes in the Triwizard tournament , in which young people champions are selected , they are representatives from three wizarding colleges confronting in a series of dangerous tests : challenging dragons , horrible sea creatures and a spooky maze .

This episode contains loads of adventures and action and it is such deeply riveting and emotional as its predecessors ; besides , getting lots of bombastic special effects and several images have you on the edge of your seat , including an amazing array of technical bizarre creatures , a breathtaking combat between Harry and a dragon , a rescue from sea deep of his friends fighting creepy , scary monsters and an exciting battle between Harry and the Dark Lord and his henchmen , the Death Eaters. The picture displays stimulating action set pieces illuminating the full-blown adventures , blending wizardry , witchcraft , horror , humor and being extremely amusing and enjoyable . Darkest even than previous chapters ; it is more thrilling ,more dramatic , more touching and more exciting . The motion picture was splendidly filmed with sensational production design by Stuart Craig and a colorful cinematography by Roger Pratt . Phenomenal and spectacular musical score by Patrick Doyle , substituting to the great master John Williams.The movie was magnificently directed by Mike Newell .The film is recommended to Harry Potter saga lovers as well as neophyte who didn't have seen prior episodes.

First, a confession: I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a Potter fan, so I felt something of a fraud as I sneaked into a media screening of Goblet of Fire while many bona fide devotees have had to wait it out.

My interest in the franchise has thus far consisted of sitting through the first film in a freezing cinema wondering what all the fuss was about, and skim-reading the second book on an aeroplane to appease my curiosity as to the young wizard's appeal. I have long been astonished at the sheer scale of Rowling's achievement, and while I may treat many of my fellow commuters - the regressive thirty-somethings who are buried in her CHILDREN'S novels on the tube – with something approaching contempt, I realise her success is very much deserved. It's a bit excessive though, and frankly enough to reduce any impoverished wannabe writer to a jealous whimper.

Being an outsider who will undoubtedly get all the names wrong, I won't spend long here on the plot, save to say it revolves around the "tri-wizard tournament" – an epic and dangerous event that threatens to split Hogwarts loyalties asunder.

Instead, I'll concentrate on the performances, and, first up, I fear I must say I have reservations over the casting of Harry. Daniel Radcliffe looked an inspired choice after the first film – floppy hair and specs and an earnest charm - but I'm afraid to say, he is an ordinary actor. The trouble with hiring an eleven year old for a film project as massive as this, is you are rather in the lap of the gods when it comes to puberty. It's a bit like doting on a baby puppy and then being terribly upset a year or so later when a bloody great Alsatian smashes up your living room and defecates on your carpet.

Much better are his faithful chums. Rubber-faced Ron (Rupert Grint) handles the adolescent grunting with considerably more aplomb than Radcliffe, and he also says "bloody hell" a lot which elicited gasps of delight from some of the younger viewers around me. There is some nice chemistry between him and the hitherto gawky and posh Hermione who has blossomed into a snooty English rose, and the theme of teenage angst runs deep throughout the excellent supporting cast.

"Dark and difficult times lie ahead" is the smartly worded tagline, and one gets the impression Harry is far more comfortable dodging fire-breathing dragons, than he is tiptoeing around the opposite sex. The growing pains are neatly handled by director Mike Newell, himself no stranger to the awkward whimsy of love's young dream after sterling work on Four Weddings and a Funeral – Indeed, many of the light-hearted interludes around the school dance scenes betray Newell's penchant for bittersweet comedy and romantic pratfalls.

And, of course, the adults in the cast zoom around with a zest inspired by their youthful co-stars. Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid fashions an unlikely romance with a giantess played by Frances De La Tour; Michael Gambon is a sprightly Dumbledore; and Gary Oldman's screen time is restricted to one scene where he thrusts his head through the burning coals of a roaring fire to offer Harry some sage advice. Perhaps they should have simply hired a stunt double and saved on his fee.

Most impressive of all is Ralph Fiennes who is genuinely terrifying as the evil Lord Voldemort. Fiennes is ably assisted in his wickedness by a suitably conniving Timothy Spall and also the most fearsome set of nostrils to grace the silver screen since Hannibal Lector flexed his snout at Agent Starling in The Silence of the Lambs.

It is pretty stirring stuff – visually extraordinary in places – and nicely paced. Potterfiles will love it and detractors may just find their criticisms stuck in their throats. However, my disdain for adults who proudly devour the novels on public transport without any sense of shame remains absolute.

7/10

It's unfortunate that so much of the book needed to be cut for time and the movie is still nearly 2 1/2 hours long. The rule of movie editing is when you must trim for time you remove the sub-plots. A lot of story and character development isn't there.

But what is there is a great visual treat. If the movie leaves you with questions just read the book or get the audio version on CD. It would have taken a minimum of another half hour to flesh the movie out and that simply wasn't going to be done by a studio whose primary target is a younger audience. (Note how no studio wants to release an animated film longer than 90 minutes for this reason.) Perhaps Alphonso Curon would have done a better job of cohesion but there really isn't much more that could have been done in the time and the script would have been essentially the same. This movie begs for an extended Lord of the Rings type DVD, another 30 to 60 minutes to give you what was left out for theatrical release.

See it and spend the bucks to see it on the big screen.

I liked this film very much. It is much darker than the previous outings, but not as faithful to the source material. The only thing I didn't like so much about the book, was the subplot about Hermione trying to help house elves. It was cute, but interfered too much with the dark overtones of the narratives. The film looks dazzling, especially the ballroom scene. Speaking of that scene, I adored that dress that Hermione was wearing, Emma Watson looked unrecognisable in that scene.Also the music by Patrick Doyle this time was beautiful. I don't think it's as dark as the book, and I wasn't too keen on some of the casting. Roger Lloyd Pack and David Tennant were fine in their roles as the Crouches, but their characters were changed significantly. I did wish they made Crouch's disappearance more mysterious, instead of giving it away, ruining the suspense that was quite compelling up to that scene. I am not too keen on Michael Gambon's Dumbledore, I just don't remember Dumbledore being violent as they made him. As I've said already, I much prefer Richard Harris as the character. I am also on the fence about Mad Eye Moody. Brendan Gleeson is a very talented actor, evident in films like In Bruges and The General. He looked the part, but his voice wasn't exactly what I had in mind for Moody. I have listened to the audio tapes by Stephen Fry, and I imagine Moody's voice as low and gravelly. Although Gleeson mostly succeeded with his role, I personally think he tried too hard. My brother also noted that he didn't like the execution of the three tasks. I didn't like the third task, and the other two were fine. I did think on a positive note that Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort was suitably scary, and with the exception of Dumbledore everyone else was well done. All in all, a flawed but quite engrossing film, that doesn't quite live up to the darkness of the book. 8/10 Bethany Cox

I did enjoy this movie, but being a huge fan of the books, I was frustrated with a lot of the things that were touched upon, but not really followed though with.

First things first, I give Mike Newell and Steve Kloves credit for finally giving Fred and George the screen time they deserve. I'm glad the movie audience finally got to see what truly great characters those two are.

Daniel Radcliff and Rupert Grint (Ron saying "Bloody Hell" when Hermione woke him up at the beginning was hysterical) play the perfect awkward teenage boys as well. They had great comedic timing in delivering lines and tripping over themselves around girls.

Cedric, Cho, Fleur, and Viktor were all perfectly cast, but had too few lines.

Alan Rickman, as always was Brilliant as Snape. It was also great to see Professor McGonagall as a more fully developed character. Neville getting more screen time was good as well.

Cedric's death and Voldemort's return was very powerful.

As far as things that were in and things that were cut, I think that the things that made the film should have been finished on. Like the Quidditch cup, the Stadium and campground were really cool, but why show all that then skip the match. I felt like the filmmakers were shaking a pop can and when they opened it, there was a mere hissing noise.

Why put Rita Skeeter in at all if they aren't even going to reveal that she is an animagus? That's important in book five. That would have been a much better way to end the movie than Hermione saying things are going to be different now aren't they? Gee Voldy's back, Captain obvious to the rescue! Oh and Ron's reaction to Fleur kissing him was great, but where was Hermione's jealousy. They put in the post Yule Ball argument, so why not enhance it? It would have taken two seconds to show Hermione's jealousy, and it would have been funny.

The wands connecting was important, but the Phoenix song was never explained, and are people who have only seen the movies going to remember the wand core thing from the first movie? And Hermione is a character I feel the filmmakers have not properly interpreted. I mean the Yule ball scene bugged the crap out of me the way she came down with that smug look on her face! Ugh! I liked Hermione better in the book when she was smiling sheepishly, she was just more endearing that way. And her dress and hair made her look more like a five year old playing dress up, as opposed to a blossoming teenager. They should have followed JKR's description when designing the costume. Periwinkle would have been more flattering than pink, IMO.

I'm glad Ginny got a wee bit of face time here, but she'd better not get the shaft in the OotP movie, if they give Hermione her lines there, I will be POed.

Anyway I did enjoy this movie overall, but being a huge fan of the book, I couldn't help but nitpick, LOL