Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

You might well expect that the best part of this series based on a 570-page book would be difficult to adapt. A priority was the main story around the tournament itself, but the creators couldn’t help themselves from at least a taste of the remaining elements to avoid disappointing the fans... Unfortunately this was a mistake, because this movie has a little taste of everything, but all in all it seems like nothing. Nothing is (fully) said, if you haven’t read the novel, you won’t orient yourself, drastic truncation of the fundamental scenes might be understandable, but it is shocking that the longest (and paradoxically the best) scene of this picture and most important for the story is the ball. The low-quality screenplay could be saved only by the steady hand of a director with a clear vision that he wants to film. Which unfortunately Newell was unable to do and so was unable to add the smallest hint of emotion even to the most receptive scenes like the finale in the cemetery. Something simply happens and we carry on with the rest of the movie. And doesn’t help that the music is completely drowned out, so you don’t notice it at all during the movie, which is surprising considering the outstanding soundtrack. The only thing that Newel managed to do in the Goblet of Fire is the adolescent aspect and the action scenes, but Harry Potter isn’t about that. It is pretty easy to watch, but it relies too obviously on the Harry Potter brand, instead on filmmaking qualities. (21/11/2010)

If I may express the opinion of an ordinary Muggle such as myself, Newell has not spoiled anything, but neither has he impressed. First of all, there’s not a single scene or a single character that impressed, intrigued or frightened me. I recall with a tear in my eye Cuarón's stylish dementors who strummed the dark string of the story so perfectly; in Newell's film, the darkness is represented by Voldemort, who wouldn't scare my hamster (and I like Ralph that much) and whose overacting theatrical finale is one of the film's weakest moments. But the main problem is the lack of deeper emotions (at least for me) and the too fragmented narrative. Many scenes are plotless, Newell hastily, probably thanks to the script, jumps from scene to scene, a person untouched by the book's source material gropes, and the bare fact remains that only readers who can compare their visual imagination with what is happening on the screen can fully appreciate this film. I believe it would have helped to "stretch" the film, or divide it into two parts and make the plot feel fuller. Oh, and by the way, I no longer want a hypogryph, mow I'm longing for a "frogwood", with my swimming misery it would be good to show off in front of the women in the pool :) (21/02/2006)

When Harry and Ron have a falling out and piss Hermione off, you feel that it's really happening, not that the actors are just acting out something in the script. And that's great. Despite the abundance of action scenes (and that there are a lot of them in Goblet of Fire and that they are good), this is what I liked most about the fourth installment of the Potter saga. And when the teenage magicians tried to ask the female teenage magicians to the ball, when they learned to dance, and when they eventually danced, there was so much feeling and tenderness and perhaps even romance... No Beverly Hills, no Teen Idol romance, really believable situations. Well, Mike Newell. As far as the young actors are concerned, I was very pleasantly surprised by Robert Pattinson, who I haven't seen in any film so far and who is very likable. The adult ensemble cast is traditionally excellent, especially the slapping Snape and Dumbledore, who certainly doesn't give that tired old man impression anymore thanks to Michael Gambon. Plus the casting of Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody was a great idea, and I don't think I'll even mention Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort. He looks great, and his resurrection definitely matched the darkest moments of Cuarón's previous contribution in terms of horror atmosphere. In conclusion: Great music by Patrick Doyle, John Williams couldn't have asked for a better successor. (09/09/2015)

Mike Newell doesn't have a particularly distinctive directorial style, but the quite interesting adaptation of the book makes up for it and the result is very solid. The Goblet of Fire is definitely the most technically mature, balanced, and best film of all the previous installments. We owe this mostly to the magical wizards who truly unleash their creativity with dragons, lots of spells, the beautiful setting of Hogwarts, and many more explosions that create an excellent and atmospheric spectacle, together with the monumental and diverse production design. The characters fortunately are practically unchanged, and we also have a superb performance by Brendan Gleeson as a one-eyed professor. Unfortunately, this visually appealing piece is once again spoiled by a relatively unremarkable and ordinary screenplay, which offers very few gripping moments. (15/08/2006)

When you love a book series and film adaptations, you can watch them over and over again and forgive many things. For example, the forced chase with the dragon, the insufficient explanation of the second task, and the fact that the film has to rely on catchphrases (even if they are magical). Kloves' screenplay had to omit a lot from the original for the first time, which occasionally leads to missteps, turning Harry into an indecisive fool, Dumbledore into a hyperactive weirdo, and the film into definitely the worst adaptation. The only luck is that in the non-action passages, Newell does what he can and transforms the Goblet into an adventurous romantic comedy with his good ideas and brilliant multi-layered scenes of dubbing, dancing, and the actual ball. But that is ultimately the crucial problem. I want to see what the book gave me, more precisely, the spirit of the book. While the Prisoner of Azkaban is still largely a fairytale story, the source material of the Order of the Phoenix is already a dark, dramatic, almost thriller-like fantasy set in the wizarding world. The Goblet is supposed to represent a combination of both. However, that transformation is missing here. And it is a huge relief that under Yates, it has always been much, much better from the next film onwards. (20/01/2006)