|
| Home > Reviews > Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire the movie |
| Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire the movie | | Date Created: Dec 31, 2005, 08:59 PM |
 OK, this is a tough one. It's not going to be pretty. Dr. Reptile is a music critic without a portfolio but not really a movie critic. And regarding CD's, it's not worth the time or effort to review a poor or even mediocre one. But then there are more CD's than movies and some movies are just "important" and require a review when you take the time to see them.
Anyway, the emperor has no clothes.
We're going to have to kill a sacred cow.
Many critics aren't free to pan a movie or CD because they won't get to review more movies/CD's. Some seem to feel obligated to tone down their criticism or go along with the consensus. I paid to see this movie and I don't care what anyone thinks of my opinion nor does my daughter (who I saw it with and who is more current with modern movies than I am).
There are basically two situations.
You've either read all the books and seen all the movies and have now seen Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, or you haven't read the books or seen the previous movies and decided to check out the movie version of book four because of all the relatively glowing reviews and ticket sales. (Well, OK, there may be a few who have read one or two of the books and seen one or two of the previous movies but what do they know?) I fall into the former category. My daughter has read all the books more than once.
She hated the new movie. I didn't hate it but I thought it was a rather poor movie, either as a movie version of the book or as a movie unto itself (which is how the people new to Harry Potter would view it.)
It must be the power of the Harry Potter juggernaut that keeps the movie afloat, or for some reason critics can't admit what they know; and that's why we're going to have to kill the sacred cow.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is a movie based on a book. It's based on the fourth of six books (with at least one more still to be written). Movies made from books are a subcategory. Movies made from books that many people have read is an even smaller category. The Lord of the Rings books and movies would be the closest comparison. Star Wars wouldn't be a good comparison because it wasn't made from a series of books (the books came more from the movie than the other way around).
So Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire the movie doesn't compare well to The Lord of the Rings the movie. Why not? Because it's not true to the book and yet if you see this movie it assumes you've read the book and seen the previous movies. If you hadn't, you'd be totally lost. There's not a lick of explanation or character development. So the movie doesn't stick with the book (even allowing for the necessity of scaling down the book to fit a movie) and yet it doesn't stand alone as a kid's adventure movie.
The direction is pedestrian. The editing is choppy and often irritating as if someone took the movie and chopped it up to make it shorter. There are even non sequiturs in a movie about a magical world where the magic can be anything the plot needs. The screenplay, credit my daughter for this one, seems written by Rita Skeeter. (OK, you have to have seen the movie or read the book to get that reference). I thought the screenwriters must have gotten too full of themselves and decided to make their grand movie and forget the book. It didn't work.
And still, the movie is entertaining and the critics, including Roger Ebert who I usually trust, seemed to give it B's while the fans are flocking to see it. The theater was packed when we saw it on a week day afternoon several weeks after it's release.
Well, the Potter actor kids are great. They're aging is consistent with their supposed age (14) in the movie and there are the stirrings of adolescent boy-girl relationships including jealousy (although Rowlings handles it better in the book then they did in the movie). There's the magical action stuff and the familiar characters developed in the previous books and movies (although Albus Dumbledore, the headmaster, had to change actors and lost in the transition from Richard Harris). The new Dark Arts teacher, Mad-Eye Moody, was an enjoyable loose cannon in this fourth movie. There was enough emotional depth to enjoy the inevitable Potter triumph, although precious little to set up the next movie.
So I don't think this was an example of knowing the book so well that the movie just couldn't live up to it. It's really a rather poor movie, although not unredeemingly bad.
I suspect it will look better on the big screen than on a DVD. So get out there and see it while it's still in theaters. But better read the book first. No wait! Better not read the book. But then how will you know what's going on?
I give up. But I'm still waiting for the seventh book and the fifth movie... |
|
|
|
|
|
