Director: Mike Newell
Year 2005
Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Stanislav Ianevski, Katie Leung, Robbie Coltrane, Michael Gambon, Angelica Mandy, Cl�mence Po�sy, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Brendan Gleeson, Miranda Richardson, Ralph Fiennes
"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" conjures enough movie magic to cast a satisfying spell over audiences.
"Goblet of Fire" is the fourth movie adapted from the hugely popular fantasy novels by British author J.K. Rowling.
Directed by Mike Newell, the film is entertaining, intelligent and visually delicious, but despite considerable plot-pruning, at an unwieldy two hours and 37 minutes this "Goblet" runneth over a bit long.
Continuing the moodier tone set by 2004's "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," the new installment -- the darkest thus far -- is the first in the franchise to be rated PG-13.
From its spooky opening image, the film is probably too scary for young children, who might have nightmares, precisely what's plaguing the bespectacled hero (a more grown-up Daniel Radcliffe) at the story's outset. This is especially true for the scenes involving the "Death Eaters," agents of the evil Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes in fearsome face makeup), who finally makes his much-anticipated appearance in the series.
But for most of "Goblet of Fire," the story revolves around a three-task, interscholastic competition known as the Triwizard Tournament to be hosted at Hogwarts.
Rooted on by Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (a blossoming Emma Watson), Harry is chosen to compete along with Hogwartsian upperclassman Cedric Diggory, French enchantress Fleur Delacour, and a Bulgarian bruiser named Viktor Krum.
The dangerous trials pit them against fire-breathing dragons, menacing mermaids and a sinister hedge-maze. But to bashful Harry, those perils pale compared to the harrowing ordeal of finding a date for Hogwarts' Yule ball connected to the Triwizard Tournament, injecting some lighthearted teen romance into the abracadabra action mix.
The onset of awkward adolescence adds an interesting new emotional dimension to the relationships of the three young leads, who continue to mature along with the story. (The film could have done without an eyebrow-raising scene in which a frisky girl ghost cozies up to a thoroughly embarrassed Harry while bathing.)
Dependable support is provided by returning British stalwarts Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane, as well as by newcomers Frances De La Tour, Miranda Richardson and Brendan Gleeson.
Like past "Potter" films, "Goblet" is a treat for the eyes. But after three films, it's getting harder to impress viewers with Quidditch matches and swooping shots of Hogwarts' candlelit banquet hall. And though exciting, the action sequences including a requisite Play Station-ready aerial broom chase feel a bit deja vu.
As with the magical elements in its predecessors, those in "Goblet of Fire" should be viewed as time-honored storytelling devices, like those employed throughout the history of Western fantasy literature from childhood fairy tales (Cinderella's pumpkin being turned into a carriage) to Arthurian legends and Shakespeare.
A reference by Voldemort about the "old magic" wrought by the sacrificial love of Harry's mother (who died protecting him in his infancy) seems to echo the salvific "Deeper Magic" spoken of in C.S. Lewis' Christian-allegorical "The Chronicles of Narnia."
Curbed is Harry's habit of rule-breaking. Perhaps as he matures, so has his sense of integrity, evidenced by his -- on more than one occasion -- endangering his chance of winning to do the honorable thing (that is, saving a life).
"Goblet of Fire" presents the clearest delineation between "right" and "wrong" in the series thus far, even introducing moral imperatives into the students' hocus-pocus curriculum.
Despite lots of wand-waving, the real victories are won through self-sacrifice. As Gambon's Dumbledore counsels, "We must face the choice between what is right and what is easy." Such life lessons would support the contention of Father Peter Fleetwood, a Vatican official formerly of the Pontifical Council for Culture, that "the chief concern of ... (Rowling) is to help children understand the conflict between good and evil."
The film contains frightening images, scenes of intense menace and some sexual innuendo. The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is A-II -- adults and adolescents. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is PG-13 -- parents are strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.
For the uninitiated, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was the book where author J.K. Rowling finally went off her rocker, turning out a 734-page monster of a book (vs. 309 pages for #1) that made everyone wonder if any child could possibly have that kind of attention span.
Turns out they did: Book four is also where Rowling went from Big Hit to Mega Worldwide Sensation, and the Harry Potter series became a cultural touchstone. (This is also about the time that ultra-right wing groups started denouncing the series as demonic.)
And so, everything that is past is prologue: The first three films now feel like nothing more than window dressing for this one, a rich movie with expert plotting, clever humor, and a sophistication lacking in the earlier pictures. At the same time, it's fine for (older) kids, who'll root for Harry and Co. through his many scrapes in this edition.
Goblet of Fire finds Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) back for his fourth year at Hogwarts Academy. Things are getting heavier for the lad: He's having vivid dreams about Lord Voldemort being revived in the flesh. On top of that, the school is hosting the legendary Tri-Wizard Tournament, in which three aspiring magicians will compete to win a fancy blue cup (plus bragging rights), which brings two foreign schools -- one a collection of brutish Russian guys, another a group of breathless French fairy queens -- into Hogwarts for the term. While the tournament is meant for older kids, naturally the undersized Potter will find his way into the mix. On top of that, Harry's got some raging hormones, which has him swooning for fellow student Cho (Katie Leung), while Ron (Rupert Grint) tries in vain to suppress his budding love for Hermione (Emma Watson). This comes to a head of sorts during a formal dance, one of the film's most memorable scenes. And all the while, Voldemort inches closer to Harry.
Overall, the story is obviously and dramatically pared down from the book. Even I, a non-reader, could tell that there were huge gaps in the plot. Strangely, it doesn't really matter. All but the bare essentials have been stripped away, and even though it tops 2 1/2 hours, Goblet is a lean, mean, storytelling machine. There's rarely a dull moment (a stark contrast to some of the overblown earlier installments in the series), and it's amazingly easy to follow the serpentine plot. Partly this is because we've had three movies to get up to speed on the myriad characters of Potter, and even though Goblet introduces a good number of new faces, keeping track of them is a snap. The downside of this is that, aside from a little romance for the main three characters, there's not much time to develop our heroes further. But really, it isn't needed. They're fleshy enough as it is, and the film does give them a bit more structure to set up #5.
Speculation has been rampant about how director Mike Newell -- of Four Weddings and a Funeral fame -- would work out as the helmer of an action-oriented kid flick. Turns out, he's better than those who came before him. Not only does Newell have a good handle over the film's action showpieces, he knows how to deal with awkward romances and growing pains of the teen years. Maybe it's because he's the first British director to try his hand at this very British series?
Speaking of the action: The special effects in this installment are hands-down better than ever. There's probably not a single scene in Goblet of Fire that isn't manipulated with CGI in some way -- but you'll never notice. The effects are so good and so seamless that you seriously can't tell the difference (reality-wise) between Radcliffe and the giant, fire-breathing dragon staring him down.
And speaking of dragons: The film is scary, more so than the other three. As a case in point, the woman sitting in front of me, with two kids aged about six to eight, had to leave the theater after the first two minutes because the little ones were so frightened.
Altogether the film is just about right for what a Harry Potter movie ought to be. The story is consistently interesting but not too confusing, the dialogue is spot-on, and the film blends action and quiet moments perfectly. (Frankly, the film should win an Oscar for editing.)
But overall Goblet of Fire has succeeded in doing one big thing that the first three movies completely failed at: For the first time, I'm actually looking forward to the next in the series.
The two-disc DVD set includes a second disc full of behind the scenes materials, additional scenes (the Hogwarts school song!), interviews, and tons more.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is the first of the Harry Potter films I�ve seen, and is based on my second-favourite of the series so far (coming just behind the previous book, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban).
Everyone must know who Harry Potter is by now. The boy who lived, despite an attack by the most powerful magician (evil, of course) to have lived. The boy who attends Hogwarts school of Witchcraft and Wizardry, whose friends Hermione and Ron are always arguing, whose Potions teacher, Serverus Snape, hates him with a passion, whose main enemy at the school is Draco Malfoy, etc, etc. None of this is actually particularly necessary to know in order to watch the film, of course.
In fact that�s part of the trouble here � as always, reading the book first is a bad idea, but we�ve all done it � well, most of us have. Thus we all have our own idea of what the characters would be like, and obviously our idea of them and Director Mike Newell�s aren�t going to be exactly the same. In fact some of the characters did seem quite how I imagined them � importantly, Harry himself and Hermione were almost identical to the characters that had formed in my head from reading the book. Ron was reasonably similar, others not so� in particular, Snape was almost absent and Fleur was a real wet blanket� but no real matter. All the actors did their job admirably here, it wasn�t the performances that left me feeling slightly disappointed by this film.
The plot revolves around the �Tri-Wizard Tournament� � an ancient competition that hasn�t been held for quite a while due to its dangerous nature. Hosting the revived event is Hogwarts school, who will provide one of the contestants, along with two foreign schools. Being too young to enter doesn�t stop Harry�s name popping out of the Goblet of Fire, however, thus forcing him to compete in the events. The fact that he never even tried to put his name in is another worry�
Apart from these events, the boys and girls are of an age to start to actually notice the opposite sex now, and of course all hell breaks loose because of it. Add in the Yule ball and there are going to be plenty of tears shed by the look of it � but will it have any bearing on the tournament? Who is behind the sinister events that have happened recently, such as the reappearance of the Dark Mark in the sky? Of course, suspicion naturally falls on the former �Death Eaters� � the name given for those who served Lord Voldemort, a real baddie who just happens to be trying to take shape again after the damage he took when trying to kill Harry Potter, aged 1. All may not be as it seems, however�
The first 100 or so pages of the book are skipped over in about 5 minutes of the film, with the Quidditch World Cup being almost completely bypassed. (There are many changes from the book, so if that would seriously put you off then avoid.) Somehow the whole thing gave me a sense of anticlimax � scenes that should have been powerful seemed to shoot by in the blink of an eye while laborious minutes were spent on what seemed like inconsequential matters. Many of the lines in the film seemed either pointless or simply fell flat, and much of the music seemed extremely derivative of some found in the Lord of the Rings films. In fact I got the distinct impression that this film was trying to emulate the epic nature and grandeur of that film � which wasn�t a good idea as the storyline and setting can in no way compete. The book is, like it�s predecessors, simply good light-hearted entertainment, with a little depth on occasion. The film would, to me at least, have been more effective, and more fun, if it had tried to be the same thing.
Of course converting a book to the big screen is a notoriously difficult business, and to be fair most of the more important plot elements were there. I couldn�t help thinking though that this film could have been so much more, and the only real feeling I had when it finished was, �oh well that�s over�. Not particularly glad to have seen it, but not especially sorry to have seen it. Among the things that helped it to get a �recommended� along with its 3-star rating are the brilliant special effects when Harry�s godparent, Sirius Black, is talking to him via a fireplace (his face appears in the embers), and the wonderful performance of Miranda Richardson as love-to-hate-her journalist Rita Skeeter. Matthew Lewis� performance as unconfident Neville was also superb.
I was quite happy that there was no appearance of the house elf, Dobby, who I find extremely annoying in the books, but there was no lack of comic relief as that seems all that Ron and his 2 brothers are there for � even more so than in the books. The sets and effects were brilliant for the most part. There was one completely unnecessary use of bad language, and some fairly intense action scenes, which are what earns the film its MPAA rating of PG-13. I can quite imagine some younger children might be a bit alarmed by one or two scenes. The runtime of 157 minutes seemed about right, not particularly over-long for the content but it still felt like important scenes had been left out in favour of somewhat pointless ones. There were also some incomprehensible actions (or more often lack of) by various characters � in a dark maze where you can hardly see, would no-one have thought of using Lumos, one of the very first spells anyone ever learns, to shed a bit of light on the subject? Er� apparently not, they just go on blundering around in the dark... Hmm... Also the new teacher for the Defence Against the Dark Arts being rebuked for using transfiguration as a punishment while apparently performing an unforgiveable curse at the same time seemed a bit odd (can't remember if that was the same in the book). There are occasional moments of humour (intentional ones, I mean) that work about 80% of the time.
Overall, I think it�s a case that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is aimed exclusively at its target market without much thought for everyone else. Pre-teens and those just into their teenage years (and Carl, apparently) � will be very happy with it, but for the rest of us it falls a little flat. Lose the attempts at being epic and give it a bit more light-heartedness, and it would have been a much more enjoyable film. Not exactly bad, but don�t expect a great film when you go to see it.
The claws are out, the gloves are off. Harry is 14. This time, they want to kill him.
You might say, "What's new? Lord Voldemort and the dark forces have consistently been trying to do that." Yes, but in the first two Chris Columbus movies, it was as much to do with comic ghosts, moving staircases, talking portraits and Quidditch, as it was about violent death. The third, directed by Mexican-born Alfonso Cuaron, was less interested in boarding school banter and closer to the power of good and evil.
The Goblet Of Fire breaks with tradition from the marvellous opening sequence of a magicians' fair on a hilltop, being attacked by cadres of Death Eaters, to the changing relationship between the three friends, once inseparable, now fractious and jealous.
The Dursleys are out of sight and out of mind. Hogwarts is not so much a school, as a louring castle on the edge of a loch, where uniformed teenagers - noticeably more multi-ethnic than three years ago - gather in the great hall to listen to wise, if incomprehensible, words from a crinkly-bearded old fart (Michael Gambon), called Fumblemore, or something.
The teachers don't show off their spells in class, like they used to - Alan Rickman is in the film, but you might miss him - and Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), the loveable giant, who lives in a cottage beside the forest and keeps an eye on the friends, because he's a big fat softie, has a romantic interlude at Prom Night - or the Hogwart equivalent - when dancing with a lady (Frances de la Tour), almost twice his height, while Minerva McGonagall (Maggie Smith) has her Jean Brodie moment before disappearing into the mingling crowd. The only member of staff with a handle on the action is the new Dark Arts teacher, the exquisitely eccentric Alastor Moody (Brendan Gleeson), who has bits falling off (leg, eye) and a laudable disrespect for authority, even his own.
The story of The Goblet Of Fire, J K Rowling's doorstopper of a novel, is, like The Odyssey, the story of a quest, or, in this case, a tri-wizard tournament. Three contestants - a strapping, good looking, popular Hogwartian, a bull-necked, intellectually challenged Quidditch champion and a svelte, petite blonde in a sky blue Robin Hood outfit - and, for reasons that are not immediately obvious, Potter H, are given dangerous tasks to find out who will win the coveted glass trophy.
On the surface, this sounds as thrilling as watching wrestlers in a snake pit. After one bite, what's next? Another bite? Under the surface, so much is happening - the influence of girls on Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and Ron (Rupert Grint), Hermione's (Emma Watson) increasing independence, the force of magic which is no longer a toy in the special effects' nursery cupboard, the threat of evil and Voldemort's eventual resurrection - and, for the first time in what has become known as The H P Experience, you feel genuine emotion.
Mike (Four Weddings & A Funeral) Newell directs with confidence and conviction, emphasising the spectacle that is CGI, with the need to stay taut and remain true to Rowling's vision. There is more magic in this film and more fear than ever before. Harry is no longer protected by those who watch over him for his dead parents' sake. In dreams and later in the flesh he witnesses terror that mutates into the shape of nightmares.
Finally, his enemy is with us. Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has returned. Harry's life and those of others will never be the same, never be safe.
This time, people die.
There are any number of creepy and nightmarish creatures on display in the eagerly awaited �Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire��loathsome snakes, fire-breathing dragons, trident-swinging mermen, Robbie Coltrane�but the most terrifying monster to attack Harry and his loyal friends is the most common and ordinary one of them all�hormones. Throughout the film, our heroes are constantly bombarded by the same weird feelings and petty jealousies that strike even the lowliest muggles. By the time that Harry does battle in the final reels with his ultimate nemesis�the all-evil Lord Voldemort�he almost seems relieved�it may be bad but it sure beats the terrors of finding a girl to ask to the big formal dance.
And that, in a nutshell, is why the �Harry Potter� series has attracted such a large and devoted audience of all ages�J.K. Rowling�s books tell stories that are filled with magic and fantasy and wonder while grounding them in real human emotions that anyone can identify with. Most readers or viewers will probably never know what it is like to defeat some unholy demon with a magic wand but they certainly will recognize the strange emotions that occur when a boy finds himself looking at a longtime female pal in a new and unexplainable light�especially if she is in a formal dress. Luckily, the creators of the film version of �Goblet of Fire,� like the three previous films (�Sorcerer�s Stone,� �Chamber of Secrets� and �Prisoner of Azkaban�), understand this and have taken pains to retain that human element instead of simply tossing it in order to throw in more special effects. The result is a rare beast indeed�a fantasy epic in which the quieter, character-driven scenes are more exciting and compelling than the giant action set-pieces.
As nearly any child (and quite a few adults) could probably tell you, �Goblet of Fire� takes place during the fourth year of wizard school at Hogwarts for young Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe). This year, the school is hosting the Tri-Wizard Tournament, a grueling competition in which three wizard schools�Hogwarts, the Beauxbatons Academy and the Durmstrang Institute�each have one student represent them in a series of three incredibly dangerous contests in order to win a fabulous trophy and bragging rights at the next alumni dinner. Three are magically selected�Hogwarts has campus stud Cedric Diggory (Robert Pattinson), Beauxbatons contributes Fleur Delacour (Clemence Poesy) and Durmstrang is represented by Quidditch legend Viktor Krum (Stanislav Ianevski)�but the Goblet of Fire coughs up one additional name for competition�Harry Potter.
Even though he insists that he didn�t enter his name, the rules are iron-clad and he is forced to compete against his will in tasks that pit him against a dragon, an assortment of nasty undersea creatures and a giant hedge maze that could have come straight from the Overlook Hotel. The real danger for Harry, as followers of the series know, is that Lord Voldemort, the menacing wizard who murdered Harry�s parents when he was only an infant and put a near-fatal killing spell on the baby (though he did get his famous scar as a result) before disappearing. Now Voldemort�s followers (including the returning Timothy Spall) are planning to revive him and something of Harry�s is required for a crucial part of the ritual. The school�s new Defense of Dark Arts teacher�the appropriately-named Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson)�offers to help and protect Harry from this new danger, but considering the luck Hogwarts has had over the course of the series with Defense of Dark Arts teachers (so far, they have coughed up a Voldemort minion, a werewolf and Kenneth Branagh), will he turn out to be Harry�s savior or the person who dooms him forever.
These conflicts are the sort of thing that Harry is used to. What comes as a surprise is the way that puberty has reared its ugly head on him and his friends, especially in the area of romance. Much of this is predicated by an upcoming formal dance that sets all the students�already a-twitter by the presence of comely French schoolgirls and hunky Bulgarians-on hormonal edge. Best pal Ron (Rupert Grint) is unable to work up the nerve to ask longtime crush Hermione (Emma Watson) to the dance, yet is still upset when she accepts Viktor Krum�s invitation instead. For his part, Harry becomes smitten with new student Cho Cheng (Katie Leung) but can�t his act together until it is too late either. Even Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) is driven to distraction by Beauxbatons headmistress Madame Maxime (Frances de la Tour), perhaps the only person woman enough for a man of his proportions. To add to the troubles, snoopy reporter Rita Skeeter (Miranda Richardson) has arrived to do a story on the Tri-Wizard Tournament but seems more interested in writing gossipy stories romantically linking Hermione to every eligible male in sight.
At 700+ pages, �Goblet of Fire� is the second-longest of the books to date and one of the most impressive things about Steve Kloves� screenplay is the way that he has managed to streamline Rowling�s sprawling narrative into a clear and concise storyline without losing the heart of the story. Purists may howl at some of the missing material�we don�t get a look at Harry�s repellent foster family or Hermione�s budding attempts at social activism�but it is unlikely that most audiences will even notice their absence. There are a couple of hiccups along the way�the Rita Skeeter character is set up to be a key element but is essentially abandoned halfway through and we don�t get to discover, as we did in the book, how she came across some of her information�but this is generally a strong adaptation and by allowing a lot of the side elements that we have seen before�the moving paintings, the wacky school ghosts and the agreeably campy turns by heavily made-up members of British Equity�it demonstrates a willingness to finally let the films focus on Harry and his friends.
Another reason for this may be because the young leads have grown more and more comfortable with their roles over time and are now performers seasoned enough to take the center stage of an epic-sized extravaganza such as this. Radcliffe is especially impressive as Harry�this is a part that has grown deeper and more complex with every film and he once again shows himself up to the challenge. Although they have a little less to do this time around�understandable because of the construct of the story�Grint and Watson are still fun to watch as Ron and Hermione�the former especially shines in the scenes when he is caught up in a silly squabble with Harry that threatens their seemingly unbreakable friendship. As for the grown-up actors, returning performers Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, Gary Oldman and Alan Rickman all make strong impressions in their reduced roles (the latter has one hilarious scenes, in which he silently disciplines a pair of talking students, which may be the highlight of the film) while newcomers Gleeson and Richardson fit in quite well with their surroundings. In the last reels, Ralph Fiennes makes a brief but unforgettable appearance as Voldemort that should serve as nightmare fuel for impressionable viewers of all ages. (The film is rated PG-13 and there are some moments that may simply be too intense for younger and more sensitive children, especially on a big screen.)
The film was directed by Mike Newell, a somewhat surprising choice for such a gig�he is probably best known for such character-driven films as �Four Weddings and a Funeral,� �Donnie Brasco� and �Mona Lisa Smile� and has never before worked on something on this scale. This choice makes sense during the more dramatic scenes, which are the real heart of the film, but it doesn�t quite pay off during the action set-pieces, where he seems to be in a little over his head. This doesn�t really hurt the film but compared to what Alfonso Cuaron, a filmmaker adept at both character pieces (�Y Tu Mama Tambien�) and flights of extraordinary visual fantasy (�A Little Princess� and �Great Expectations�), Newell�s work comes up a little short by comparison. However, it still makes for a more interesting film than the impersonal touch that Chris Columbus gave to the first two films. As it appears that the producers of the films are going to be looking for new directors each for each entry, I can only hope that they continue to lean towards people with the ability to touch the heart as well as dazzle the eye. (While he may sound like an overly obvious choice, I would still love very much to see Terry Gilliam get a hold of one of these films someday.)
Because the �Harry Potter� franchise is about the closest thing to a sure thing in Hollywood these days�especially now that the �Lord of the Rings� and �Star Wars� sagas have concluded, it would have been so easy for the producers to take the easy way out and simply throw together two hours of special effects silliness with the knowledge that the resulting film, no matter how bad, would make back its gigantic production costs within a week or two of its release. Instead, they have taken the time to turn the properties into living and breathing movies instead of simple re-enactments of the books. �Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,� though not quite as great as �Prisoner of Azkaban,� continues in that fine tradition. How do I know? I saw the film in a screening populated entirely by surly fellow critics on a Saturday morning and they seemed to be as enraptured with it as even the most fanatical crowd of 10-year-olds that you could possibly imagine. If that isn�t magic, I don�t know what is.
It�s curious to think of Mike Newell, director of such small-scale works as �Four Weddings and a Funeral� and �Donnie Brasco,� helming the latest Harry Potter adventure. But then we come to the middle of �Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,� in which the story takes an enchanting step away from the action. Here, Harry and his friends attend a grand winter ball, and the plot is allowed a chance to rest while we catch up with the characters. It�s sweet, it�s charming, it�s endlessly involving, and it�s an unexpected detour that helps make this the best yet of the �Potter� films.
Of course, there is still adventure, and plenty of it. Newell keeps the action zipping by at just the right pace, and the plot - which involves a contest between wizard schools in which students must compete in three dangerous competitions - is smartly designed to allow for the right increases and breaks in the action. There�s a rhythm to this �Potter� that works wonders. It�s not pushy in its set-ups, it�s not stumbling in its delivery. Everything runs smoothly here, carefully balancing broad action sequences with intimate character development.
Only in the final scenes to things hint at going off track. There�s a plot sidestep in the last twenty minutes or so, with the film breaking away from the main story and working instead with themes involving the bigger picture. This section of the film, which exists mainly to help set up the next sequel (as well as tie in ideas from earlier films), doesn�t quite connect, and yet it works, thanks to some smart writing from series scripter Steve Kloves (once again adapting the novel by J.K. Rowling - but you knew that already). Kloves makes sure to provide a slow, quietly growing build-up to this finale into earlier scenes, so when these final moments hit us, they�re not completely out of left field.
It�s a juggling act, to be sure - but then, so is the entire movie. Here we have a film that is far darker than any before it in the series, yet it is also warm, friendly, and at times, very, very funny. Let�s go back to that winter ball for a moment. Here, the series is allowed a moment to breathe. Hagrid, the gentle giant played lovingly by Robbie Coltrane, is given his own delightful subplot, in which he finds himself head over heels for a woman who�s just his size. The nerdish Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis), previously seen only in throwaway moments of comic relief, is promoted here, with the dork learning to dance, getting the girl, and even helping to save the day; it�s such a sweet, tender addition to the story that one can�t help but smile any time Lewis steps on screen.
Which is part of the �Potter� magic. The producers had the foresight to long ago cast its minor roles with as much precision as its major ones. As such, supporting players such as Lewis are allowed to shine as the series progresses - and the audience is rewarded for sticking with the series. (Even Tom Felton, who, as the sniveling Draco Malfoy, was the weakest part of the first film, has grown into a dependable team player; his improvement over the years has become very satisfying.)
Of course, the series� stars are growing as well. The trio of Daniel Radcliffe (playing Harry), Emma Watson (Hermione), and Rupert Grint (Ron) have for years now been the best young actors around. You�d think that being the most famous teenagers in the world would cause them to take it easy with their performances, but no, these three have worked hard to improve. With �Goblet of Fire,� we get the best out of all three; just as the characters are growing, becoming more complex (and, therefore, more interesting) with age, so are the actors. It would be a major gamble to give the final moments, which leave Harry an emotional wreck, to a young star - if that young star were anyone other than Radcliffe, who handles the material with remarkable ease.
On the grown-up side of things, we once more get the usual band of British delights. Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, and Timothy Spall are among the returning adults whose appearances produce nothing but smiles. New to the series for this latest adventure, we get the brilliant Brendan Gleeson as a crazed, one-eyed professor (this goes with the series tradition that the Dark Arts teacher becomes the best of the adult roles, Gleeson�s performance being both outrageously cartoonish and marvelously detailed, which is not as paradoxical as it may sound), Miranda Richardson as a sleazy gossip columnist, David Tennant as a mysterious baddie, and, in an ingenious bit of casting, Ralph Fiennes as Harry�s ultimate enemy. This cast proves once again that the �Harry Potter� films are, if nothing else, an excellent collection of some of the world�s best performers.
The cast now fully praised for another job well done, let me return to Newell. It�s a most pleasant surprise to see this filmmaker, who made a career out of personal, low-key storytelling (the closest thing to grand adventure in Newell�s catalogue is the 1992 Irish fantasy �Into the West� and a few episodes of �The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles�), deliver such a sweeping epic. Here is a movie mammoth in scope - watch as Newell plays with the sheer largeness of it all, always finding a way to let the special effects work with, not against, the massive widescreen imagery. This is a breathtaking work, as gorgeous as it is involving. From the chilling underwater photography to the eeriness of the hedge maze and beyond, there�s always ample supply of eye candy on display. Right from the start, we�re floored with the size of it all, enjoying the spectacle of a Quidditch championship in the world�s largest stadium. Big, this early scene tells us, is going to be the order of the day.
And yet Newell and Kloves ensure that the epic is allowed to become an intimate one. I�ve been told by Potter fans that much of the book had to be deleted for the movie to fit into a 150-minute running time; these omissions may be noticeable to the Potter fanatic, but not to me. For someone unfamiliar with the books, I couldn�t tell a single note was missing. We get everything we should in order to enjoy watching these characters and their grand adventure evolve.
Finally, it�s time to mention the question on every parent�s mind: is �Goblet of Fire� too dark? Granted, it�s the first of the series to earn a PG-13 rating, and it is noticeably scarier in (all the right) places. But like �Revenge of the Sith,� it�s not so dark that kids won�t be able to handle it, especially if you�re the kind of parent who tends to talk with your wee ones before and after the film. Besides, it�s brave of Rowling to refuse to keep her series bright and cheerful; growing up is, after all, all about learning of the darker things in life, and the �Potter� series is all about growing up, the good and the bad. The darkness here is far from gratuitous, and it�s tempered with enough of the old charm that it fits perfectly.
Besides, it�s ultimately a necessary part of the larger unfolding story, and that�s what �Goblet of Fire� finally reveals to us. As a stand-alone feature, �Goblet of Fire� is a glorious work, but more so, it�s the film that announces to us grand plans for the seven-film arc. If Newell�s movie is any indication, then great things are ahead for Harry Potter, his friends, his enemies� and his audience.
Well into "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," Albus Dumbledore intones as only he can: "Dark and difficult times lie ahead." What does he think lay behind?
In this adventure Harry will do battle with giant lizards, face the attack of the Death Eaters, and in perhaps the most difficult task of all for a 14-year-old, ask a girl to be his date at the Yule Ball.
That Harry survives these challenges goes without saying, since in the world of print his next adventures have already been published, but "Goblet of Fire" provides trials that stretch his powers to the breaking point.
Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) was just turning 13 in the previous movie, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" (2004), and the Potter series turns PG-13 with this installment. There is still at least a mail-owl, and what looks like a mail-raven (it may represent FedEx), but many of the twee touches of the earlier films have gone missing to make room for a brawnier, scarier plot. Is it fair to wonder if the series will continue to grow up with Harry, earning the R rating as he turns 17?
Certainly Lord Voldemort seems capable of limitless villainy. Although we glimpsed his face in "The Sorcerer's Stone," we see him in full on screen for the first time in "Goblet of Fire," and he does not disappoint: Hairless, with the complexion of a slug, his nostrils snaky slits in his face, he's played by Ralph Fiennes as a vile creature who has at last been rejoined by his Death Eaters, who were disabled by Harry's magic earlier in the series. Hogwarts School and indeed the entire structure of Harry's world is threatened by Voldemort's return to something approaching his potential powers, and the film becomes a struggle between the civilized traditions of the school and the dark void of Voldemortism.
The film is more violent, less cute than the others, but the action is not the mindless destruction of a video game; it has purpose, shape and style, as in the Triwizard Tournament, which begins the film. Three finalists are chosen by the Goblet of Fire, and then the Goblet spits out an unprecedented fourth name: Harry Potter's. This is against the rules, since you have to be 17 to compete in Triwizardry, and Harry is only 14, but Dumbledore's hands are tied: What the Goblet wants, the Goblet gets. The question is, who entered Harry's name, since Harry says he didn't?
The Triwizard Tournament begins near the start of the film, but after the Quidditch World Cup, which takes place within a stadium so vast it makes the Senate Chamber in "Star Wars" look like a dinner theater. The cup finals are interrupted by ominous portents; the Death Eaters attack, serving notice that Voldemort is back and means business. But the early skirmishes are repelled, and the students return to Hogwarts, joined by exchange students from two overseas magic academies: From France come the Beauxbaton girls, who march on parade like Bemelmans' maids all in a row, and from Durmstrang school in central Europe come clean-cut Aryan lads who look like extras from "Triumph of the Will."
Besides Harry, Cedric Diggory is the Triwizard contestant from Hogwarts, and the other finalists are Viktor Krum, a Quidditch master from Durmstrang who looks ready to go pro, and the lithe Fleur Delacour, a Beauxbaton siren. Together they face three challenges: They must conquer fire-breathing dragons, rescue captives in a dark lagoon and enter a maze, which, seen from the air, seems limitless. The maze contains a threat for Harry that I am not sure is anticipated by the Triwizard rules; within it waits Voldemort himself, who has been lurking offstage and now emerges in malevolent fury.
Against these trials, which are enough to put you off your homework, Harry also must negotiate his fourth year at Hogwarts. As usual, there is a bizarre new teacher on the faculty. Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody (Brendan Gleeson) is the new professor of Defense Against the Dark Arts, and seems made of spare parts; he has an artificial limb, and a glass eye that incorporates a zoom lens and can swivel independently of his real eye.
There is also, finally, full-blown adolescence to contend with. I'd always thought Harry would end up in love with Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), even though their inseparable friend Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) clearly has the same ambition. But for the Yule Ball, Harry works up the courage to ask Cho Chang (Katie Leung), who likes him a lot. Ron asks Hermione, but she already has a date, with the student most calculated to inspire Ron's jealousy. These scenes seem almost in the spirit of John Hughes' high school movies.
Most of the Potter series regulars are back, if only for brief scenes, and it is good to see the gamekeeper Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) find love at last, with Madame Maxime (Frances de la Tour), headmistress of Beauxbaton. Hagrid, you will recall, is a hairy half-giant. Frances is even taller, but she's a mercifully less hairy giantess. One new character is the snoopy Rita Skeeter (Miranda Richardson), gossip columnist of the Daily Prophet, a paper that has pictures that talk, like the portraits in earlier films.
With this fourth film, the Harry Potter saga demonstrates more than ever the resiliency of J.K. Rowling's original invention. Her novels have created a world that can expand indefinitely and produce new characters without limit. That there are schools like Hogwarts in other countries comes as news and offers many possibilities; the only barrier to the series lasting forever is Harry's inexorably advancing age. The thought of him returning to Hogwarts for old boys' day is too depressing to contemplate.
"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" was directed by Mike Newell, the first British director in the series (he turned down the first Potter movie). Newell's credits range from the romantic "Four Weddings and a Funeral" to the devastating "Donnie Brasco" to the gentle "Enchanted April."
Such varied notes serve him well in "Goblet," which explores a wide emotional range. He balances delicately between whimsy and the ominous, on the uncertain middle ground where Harry lives, poised between fun at school, teenage romance and the dark abyss.
There were, really, three main questions going into Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. One, how well would Mike Newell be able to condense a 734-page book into a film that didn't have pacing issues? Two, considering how much would have to be jettisoned and how little room there would be for exposition, how accessible would the film be to viewers not already familiar with the books? And three, how would he handle the changing tone and spirit of the material as the series begins to shift into ever-darker territory?
The answer to the first two questions is "not very," so it's a darn good thing that the answer to the third is "quite well indeed." Goblet of Fire may be easily the worst film in the series as far as accessibility to non-fans, but when we're talking about the fourth in the set, is that so wrong? The more important thing is that Newell has nailed almost perfectly the series' PG-13 shift, both in terms of the aging of the characters and the darkening of the overall material.
The film's opening, pre-Hogwarts segment is easily its worst; Newell rushes through the material so fast you can practically see a pair of scissors screeching across the screen on every cut. Indeed, nearly everything has been jettisoned from this section, which takes place at the Quidditch World Cup; one gets the feeling that the film would have opened on the Hogwarts Express if there weren't a couple of key plot elements to be revealed first. The editing jumps so obviously from one actually important point to the next that the individual moments might as well be accompanied by a blinking neon sign that says, "Remember this for later!"
After that, however, everything more or less settles down. It's not that the film isn't moving at a brisk pace, because it certainly is, but the cuts are less problematic. For example, Rita Skeeter (Miranda Richardson), the obnoxious gossip columnist, only gets two scenes � but really, she could have been excised fully and it would have made little to no difference.
More importantly, the film just feels right on a tonal level. Even while breezing along, Newell and screenwriter Steve Kloves realistically capture the sense of foreboding accompanying the start of the Tri-Wizard Cup and Harry's name mysteriously emerging from the titular goblet, the tricky nature of the tasks themselves, the way in which the time between the tasks is largely consumed by a rush of newly-discovered hormones, and the final combination of hope and dread as the film winds down. The inevitable confrontation between Harry and You-Know-Who is a little disappointing, but living up to Rowling's conclusion � the darkest thing she'd ever written at the time � was a tall order. The key here is that Goblet of Fire isn't simply content with being a filmed run-through of the novel as the first two films largely were; it truly behaves like Rowling's world come to life, in a way that even eluded its predecessor, Prisoner of Azkaban.
That it feels like we don't get enough time in the world is due more to the sprawling nature of Rowling's work and the constraints of film than any serious fault on Newell's part. While Goblet of Fire may feel a tad overstuffed at 157 minutes, it's difficult to expect much longer from a film of this type. (Lord of the Rings may be the same basic genre, but within the category of "fantasy" the two could hardly be more different � the Potter universe, while lovingly detailed, simply doesn't contain the sheer epic bombast that justifies a three-hour running time.) The only other option would have been to make two films, and while this was initially proposed, it's just as well that it wasn't done � recent two-parters like Kill Bill and the Matrix sequels have shown the potential disasters of trying to make four hours of movie out of three hours of material. Goblet of Fire may be jam-packed as it is, but padded out to four hours there would have been far too much open space. Newell's compromise may not always be graceful, but it gets the job done.
Credit must also go to the stable of young actors for improving with time. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson are all in strong form here (with the exception of a few scenes where Watson does too much of her acting with her eyebrows), and much of the supporting cast is getting more to do and meeting expectations. Among the adults, Michael Gambon stands out as a continually excellent Dumbledore � his tough, spirited performance works perfectly with the direction in which the books take the character.
Goblet of Fire may not be the most efficient or consistent of the Harry Potter films � that honor should rest squarely with Prisoner of Azkaban � but it looks the best (the CGI superiority to Azkaban, released just 18 months prior, is impressive), it's the most convincing at bringing the characters and story to life, and it faced the most daunting challenge so far with its adaptation.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is far from perfect, but in some ways it seems miraculous that it comes as close as it does. Sure, most people who haven't read the book will be in the dark on a number of the plot developments, but for the franchise's sizable fan base, the film's spirit should overwhelm concerns about the cuts (most of which are, after all, pretty understandable). Newell may not have captured Rowling's every plot detail, but his attention to the feel of her world might just have made this the best Potter movie yet.