| HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE |
 2005 - UK / USADirector: Mike Newell
- Reviewed by Linda
And now comes a new movie with a new director. Mike Newell has made very good films (Donnie Brasco, Four Weddings and a Funeral) and very bad (Mona Lisa Smile, which is unfortunately also his most recent). Taking a popular franchise and putting the directors through a revolving door is a great idea (an idea that George Lucas should have remembered). Each director brings a fresh approach, as well as different strengths—and different weaknesses. Where Cuarón deftly brought Harry and his pals into a surprisingly emotional adolescence, Newell gives the kids their first taste of romance and unrequited crushes, and increasing torment for poor Harry. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his pals Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) are now 14, and starting another year at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Our favorite cast of characters are back for the most part. I have to give credit to a franchise that keeps talent like Maggie Smith, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, and Gary Oldman coming back—plus lures new guest stars like, in this case, Brendan Gleeson as Professor "Mad-Eye" Moody. Gleeson deftly steals the show teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts, with a rolling artificial eye strapped to his face. He is the token "good guy or bad guy?" character that seems to be a staple of these films. The rough plot, for those of us that have not read the books, involves Harry being unwittingly entered in a competition against three older students in the TriWizard Tournament. These young wizards, including visiting international students Viktor Krum, a quidditch rock star, and alluring French nymph Fleur Delacour, compete in three quite literally death-defying wizard challenges to win the honor of taking home the Wizard Cup. Though there are only supposed to be three competing, someone sneakily writes Harry's name on a piece of paper, which is then belched forth by the Goblet of Fire that ultimately decides the contestants. Harry has no choice but to compete, even though he and others don't think he is ready. Several fiery dragons, mean mermaids, zapping wands and an awkward Yule Ball later, Harry faces off with his worst nightmare, the dreaded Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes, impressively creepy without a nose). Like the previous film, Goblet of Fire leaves you with a feeling of melancholy. To its credit, Goblet packs an emotional punch in the last half hour, as once again, everything is at stake for Harry, even though he may not be mature enough to handle it. These wrenching and quite violent scenes got the film slapped with the first PG-13 of the series, and I can see why. This stuff is pretty heavy. But even though the end is quite good, I found myself feeling those familiar pangs of boredom and restlessness on the journey there. Yes, like the first two films. Newell, like director Columbus, plays it safe. Unsurprisingly, Newell is at his best dealing with the comic romantic moments of the bumbling teens, but is a bit by-the-book in the action and fantasy sequences. Once again, like the first movies, it is not that the film is BAD, but, to me, was a bit (as Vickie likes to say) "Meh." My moviegoing pack of pals, some of them hardcore Harry Potter fans, others (like myself) a bit more passive, all gave the same review. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is not as good as Azkaban, but is perhaps a bit better than the first two. Its's fun to see the kids grow up on screen (and become better actors), and having new directors at least keeps the series interesting. However, if you are like me and didn't read the books, I suggest you bring a translator pal with you. Goblet packs a 700+ page book into a 2 1/2 hour movie, leaving quite a bit space for story edits, and in my case, confusion. Goblet isn't the best of the series, but it isn't the worst.
See Moviepie's reviews of all the Harry Potter movies: |
| Home | Currently Playing | For Rent | Video Obsession ©2005 Moviepie e-mail us |
The first two Harry Potter films, directed by Chris Columbus (of Home Alone infamy) left me restless and glassy-eyed. The films sure looked great, but they were missing a spark. Maybe they were too perfect... too literal. I did not look forward to the third movie, despite the fact that Alfonso Cuarón, a director I've enjoyed (