Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

I'd hate to face the task of condensing a 700 page book into a movie - even a two and a half hour movie, but they've managed pretty well with this installment of the adventures of Harry Potter.

For fans of the movies, you'll find this installment a little darker, a little grittier, and a little more involving. The characters are growing up and are now facing more adult situations with more adult outlooks.

For fans of the books, you should find this adaptation a commendable reflection of Rowling's tale. Naturally, some parts had to be modified or cut entirely - there's no way to avoid that without making it a 10 hour movie - but the parts that were cut were either not critical to the story line, or will be easy to account for in the films to come. Unless you're an obsessive nitpicker about every last detail, you should find this a satisfactory film version of Goblet of Fire.

Goblet of Fire works well as a stand-alone film, as a film version of Rowling's book, and is in my opinion quite easily the best Potter movie yet.

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

Mike Newell is forgiven for cutting out so much detail from the book, and JK Rowling is forgiven for writing wonderfully rich books. However, fans of the book cannot help but feel like riding a roller coaster that is so fast there is no time to enjoy the ride. I predict the huge void between book and movie will spur remakes in about 10 to 20 years. Even if the movies must be 5 hours long, Harry Potter fans are willing to sit through them. This movie doesn't get a 10 because it leaves me feeling like something is missing, but it does deserve a 9 for being the best possible portrayal of the book given a 2.5 hour limitation. All said and done, this is the shortest 2.5 hour movie I have ever watched.

Goblet of Fire is of course, well done and beautifully shot. Not having read any of the Potter series, I wasn't disappointed in the movie at all. From what I have heard, many underlying plots and characters may have been skipped to streamline the movie and keep its focus, so the readers might be disappointed, I don't know. "Fire" is darker than the rest of the movies. Seemed to lack some of the humor that gave the previous films some levity. Great storyline, fabulous effects. LONG though. It's about 2.5 hours long, so make time for it. It's worth it to watch and goes quickly. Throughly enjoyed it, but not my favorite of the bunch so far.

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.