Before Harry enters his fourth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, he joins Hermione and the Weasley familiy at the finals of the Quidditch World Cup. But the fun is soon cut short when a bunch of Death Eaters, the Dark Lord’s former supporters, rally and set the camp site ablaze. Back at school, Harry finds himself thrust into the Triwizard Tournament - a competition which will see him face off against contestants from other magical schools in three highly dangerous tasks - despite being underage. Only in the end does Harry realize that everything is an elaborate plot to draw him straight into the hands of his nemesis - Lord Voldemort.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the fourth film about the bespectacled wizard, opened in cinemas last week and our staff has decided to review the movie collectively and synchronously. This review will offer three different opinions by two staffers familiar with the books (one liked the film very much while the other was let down) and one who has no knowledge of Harry Potter outside of the four movies.

The directing

Tai: Director Mike Newell is new to this genre of fantasy and spectacle (his former directorial efforts include Four Weddings and a Funeral, Donnie Brasco and Mona Lisa Smile, among others), but his work on the latest Harry Potter film is commendable. He brings to the series an insightful understanding of how the mind of a teenager at a boarding school ticks, and how their teachers tend to react to the students’ often mischevious behavior. Newell is also wise enough to understand what JK Rowling’s source material is about, so instead of following the book scene by scene (the way Chris Columbus approached the first two Potter adaptations), he emphazises the most important themes of the story and builds his film around that, leaving out more than a few subplots (see our article on what’s been cut and why). What Newell also adds is a sense of grandness to the Harry Potter universe, to the point that this film finally feels like a fantasy epic in its own right.

Sil: Mike Newell really had his work cut out for him in Goblet of Fire. Alfonso Cuarón did such an outstanding job with Prisoner of Azkaban which in my view had the perfect amount of suspense, character development and set pieces. He had a lot to handle on this project, one of the most difficult decisions being how to pace the action and whether a two hour movie could be created from the wealth of source material provided by Rowling.

Dave: Felt like he could have shown more warmth with the characters, but that’s a minor quibble. Overall, the focus of the story stays where it belongs - singularly on Harry Potter.

The story

Tai: Goblet of Fire is a thriller on the outside, but a coming of age story at heart. And because the main characters are entering adolescence, two themes are prevalent: sexuality and mortality. Harry, Ron and Hermione are maturing (as much as the series as a whole is), and starting to see each other in a new light. The first crush, jealousy, but also a fight among best friends; it’s all there and it offers the viewer a lot to relate to. But the new independence that comes with growing up is also accompanied with, for the first time, a sense that you are vulnerable at all times - there is no one who will always be there to protect you. Harry has long been familiar with the concept of death (his parents having been murdered when he was a mere infant, after all), but always as something distant, something that happened a long time ago. Goblet of Fire (and the return of Lord Voldemort) sets up the fact that anyone can die, at any time. As Hermione aptly says: “Everything’s going to change now, isn’t it?”

Sil: Clearly GOF is the coming of age story of Harry Potter. Our heroes are beginning to discover the wonders of the opposite sex, and there’s tears and tantrums and a lot of story to get through. Those already familiar with the story don’t need it being retold here, but the gist of it is: Harry is entering his fourth year at Hogwarts University. This year, a special competition called the Triwizard Tournament is being held there. Competing alongside three other students, Harry has to battle dragons, merpeople, his own growing sense of unease about his nemesis Voldemort and asking a girl to dance! It all culminates with a certain baddy being reborn and a whole new outlook on the future.

Dave: This feels like a perfect transition - dark, blue and moody. Moving away from the frivolity and wonderment of the previous films into new territory, icy and disturbing.

The pacing and the cuts

Tai: The Goblet of Fire book is nearly twice as long as its predecessor, and yet both film adaptations run for about the same length. That obviously means that a lot of material from book four was left out. That the movie almost never feels jumpy and runs very fluidly speaks lengths about the effort put into this project by Mike Newell and screenwriter Steve Kloves. Viewers familiar with the book will notice the omissions of characters such as the Dursleys, Ludo Bagman, Winky and Dobby, Charlie Weasley as well as most of the scenes involving Harry’s godfather Sirius Black, and the ignorant reporter Rita Skeeter. But none of these cuts really screams out, the movie manages to flow seamlessly and retain coherence in spite of them. Indeed, leaving them out works in favor of the film, enabling the pacing to stay high and exciting throughout, but always perfectly balanced with lots of (naturally funny!) laughs in between (the Weasley twins Fred and George in particular finally live up to their characters in the book). There is one radically shortened scene that does jump out, however, at the beginning of the movie. The Quidditch World Cup took up a big chunk of the book, and in the movie you don’t even get to see the match: the film cuts from the two teams entering the stadium to the post-match festivities. An enstranging omission to many, probably, but ultimately the match itself offers nothing more than excitement, and there’s enough of that later on in the film with the Triwizard Tournament. And what is shown of the World Cup does fullfil its only important plot-related function, which is to set-up Viktor Krum as one hell of an athlete.

Sil: I think the film had very clear and definite pacing issues. With so many different characters to involve, it clearly becomes impossible to introduce the newcomers and to develop the existing ones. The focus has to be on Harry which relegates some of the most beloved characters to mere one-liners. Don’t expect to see much of anyone except Harry, Ron and Hermione - even Dumbledore seems strangely quiet. Cho Chang? Two lines in the whole movie. Fleur Delacour? I think she got three. Did Victor Krum even speak at all? The two characters who were given adequate screen time were Harry and Hermione and even Hermione’s part was significantly reduced from the books. Barty Crouch Jr was the one character which flew by me completely. We weren’t given any introduction to his character bar his malevolent lip-licking episode in Dumledore’s pensieve. With too many characters, GOF really suffers from being too shallow and fast-moving.

Dave: Having never read any of the books (blasphemy!), I can’t comment on any cuts, but the pacing felt fine to me. I never once glanced at my watch to see how much time was left. Newell kept the structure of the story tight and in motion at all times.

The acting

Tai: Discussing the acting in the Harry Potter films always necessitates the need to focus on two poles: the mostly inexperienced children carrying the film on the one side, and a armada of Britain’s finest actors and actresses in the supporting roles. There’s simply no way you can compare Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint or Emma Watson to the likes of Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman or Michael Gambon. This hasn’t changed in Goblet of Fire, but: the difference doesn’t stick out that much anymore. That has partly to do with the supporting cast getting less time in this film than previously, but more significantly it really shows that Dan, Rupert and Emma have grown into their roles. Their friendship is far more dynamic in this film, and the three of them handle it very naturally and believably. You’ll find far less cringe-worthy dialogue delivery from them this time around. The supporting cast is reliable as ever, and out of the newcomers its Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody who shines in particular. Robert Pattinson (Cedric Diggory) gets the most screentime amongst the three other Triwizard contestants and handles his role amicably: I genuinely felt for him in the end. The most surprising performance was delivered by Ralph Fiennes. His interpretation of Lord Voldemort was not the all-powerful, tyrannical evil incorporate, but much more subtle, somehow quietly noble.

Sil: All of the actors gave average performances, the best being Brendan Gleeson gleefully hamming it up as Mad-Eye Moody. Emma Watson also stood out for me, managing to show her transition from bookish nerd to graceful princess to misunderstood teenager in the blink of an eye. Newcomers Robert Pattinson (Cedric), Clémence Poésy (Fleur) and Stanislav Ianevski (Viktor) were clearly not picked for their acting prowess, but did well given the shortage of speaking scenes. Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort was the single most underused actor on screen. His portrayal of Voldemort was unsubstantial; his meek voice and sedate pantomime of evil was a complete let down. Maybe they just didn’t want to scare the kiddies too much.

Dave: Casting staff took a gamble in signing up Radcliffe, Watson & Grint back in the day. The expectations for child actors are different than those for adults. Bottom line for kids is they have to show up, look the part, and remember their lines. Nuance and skill are nice if you can get them. However, the gamble seems to have paid off with these three — they’re doing a fine job moving forward and I really hope all three find a way to make it through to the end of the film series. Ralph Fiennes brought the necessary weight to Voldemort… hard to take one’s eyes off him.

The rest

Tai: The series’ visuals started shifting towards the gloomier side of the color range with Prisoner of Azkaban, but gone is the gothic, almost desaturated look from Cuaron’s film in favor of more colors and contrast to suit both the excitement and horrors that Goblet of Fire delves into. Patrick Doyle’s score lacked the finesse and leitmotif driven compositions that John Williams brought to the first three films but was adequate overall. The musical highlight of course was the performance of the Weird Sisters (comprised of Pulp lead Jarvis Cocker and Johnny Greenwood and Phil Selway from Radiohead) at the Yule Ball (but blink and you’ll miss them).

Sil: It seemed to me that every exterior shot of Hogwarts this time around was specifically shown in dark, wet conditions. Perhaps to echo the descent of the main story, the sunny fields and high spirits of the first few movies were nowhere to be seen.

Dave: I wondered about the punky rock band at the Yule Ball…. isn’t this supposed to be in the ’50s or ’60s?

The verdict

Tai: While I’m not sure if Goblet of Fire reaches Prisoner of Azkaban’s intricate poetry, I don’t think the film has to. Cuaron’s movie was a very personal, intimate jewel, but Newell has crafted a brilliant spectacle, which makes for a big diversity in the series taken as a whole. And this film offers the last real bit of fun before the dark times flood in with parts 5, 6 and 7. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire can stand on its own as an exciting, bedazzling and fun movie which I can’t wait to watch over and over again!

Sil: All in all, Goblet of Fire was a complete let down for me. The pacing issues and the general rushed feeling of the whole movie left me feeling it was a missed opportunity. Fiennes’ Voldemort was insipid, and most of the other characters seemed to play as if they were cast in a Christmas pantomime. Where’s Cuarón when you need him?

Dave: Does what it needs to do, and does it well.

Posted by Silmarillion in Reviews • Add to del.icio.us Add to Digg