Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: The Failure of a Film (Contains Some Spoilers)

[legacy67]

CONTAINS SPOILERS (Some Changes Made in Movie as Well)

Yes, you heard it right. The 4th Harry Potter movie is absolute rubbish.

I was very optimistic about this film, especially with Mike Newell at the helm (also directed "Pushing Tin" and "Mona Lisa Smile"). I was, unfortunately, very disappointed.

Anyone who is seeing a book move to film has to expect that certain things will be cut or changed for the silver screen, but one should also expect to see a production that keeps the spirit of the book.

There are many things wrong with the new film, ommission of scenes aside, Mike Newell and screenwriter Steve Kloves repeated a mistake from the 3rd film.

SPOILER ALERT!!! From here on out there are plot sections from the book, and changes in the film included in this post.





In the 3rd film, the production team entirely ignored central elements of the plot related to the Marauder's map, in this film, the entire plotline based around Barty Crouch Jr. and Sr. was skimmed over like an extreneous sideplot. Not to mention that Barty Jr. was added into a number of scenes, including the openeing sequence in the Riddle House, the Qwidditch World Cup, and the Trial of Igor Karkaroff. Oh, and the trial scene with Bellatrix Lestragne and Co? Completely cut. I will say right now that the entire plotlinre involving Barty Crouch Jr. and Sr. is 95% different, and not for the better. Don't worry, all the important elements that set up books 5+6 have been lost.

Now for character development.

Alastor Mooduy is a yeller, yes that's right, a yeller. Mad Eye Moody is not the erriely calm and slightly unbalanced madman as he is written, but instead a raving madman who enjoys screaming and banging things around for absolutely no reason. The mistique is entire lost on a poorly directed character.

Dumbledor is yet again overplayed and weakend. Take HP3 and make it about 10x worse. Nuff said.

Amos Diggory is not at all the arrogant bastard we remember, but instead yet another groveling tool who shakes Harry's hand into oblivion. Blech.

Viktor Krum is an entirely different character, he actually celebrates when he becomes a champion.

In any event, there are about a million more things about this movie that are so poorly done that I am in disbelief that JK Rowling actually signed off on this drivel, but I'll leave some things to everyone else so we can all have some fun bashing a movie that should have been brilliant, but was instead 2 and 1/2 hours of painfully bad directing and writing.

[GreenS@murai!]

OmFg LegacY you D1dnt tell uS about UbEr hoTtie Hermione!

haha im just kidding, no one else was posting here so I decided to keep you company. I think im going to see the movie just because I feel like I NEED to because ive seen all the ones that came before it. PLus I wanna see Fleur. Btw, when does this HP book/movie series end? It ends at 7 right? Shit maybe Ron will turn on Harry and become evil! Just like Obi-wan and Anakin.

Beware of the dark side Ron...

[inked]

I didn't expect the movie to be exactly like the book, in fact it says it is based on the novel by J.K Rowling not written by her. I thought it was very well done. Where the hell was there bad directing?! All the shots made sense, all the shots included what the story required them to, all the actors, actresses, and creatures(?) where great in all the scenes. You didn't like how the director had the maze scene done? Or the ship and the flying carriage? Or Harry Potter and the dragon? Or the lake scene? What do you expect? Did you want the movie to reflect your personal impression of the book perfectly as you imagined it into a 2 1/2 hour movie? I feel you are writing a horrible critism if you are complaining that the movie is bad because it is based on the book instead of being the book. I liked how the director retold the Happy Potter Goblet of Fire story in his own way instead of making money by completly copying Rowlings storyline. If you are a hardcore Harry Potter fan and think it was a crime to retell the story a little different then why don't you just consider it another Harry Potter piece of media and enjoy it as an orginal instead of an animated book projected on a big screen.

[Xenon]

I would rather go and watch the film than take a review from a madman because it wasn't what he wanted to see :p :D Jokes.

The main reason for my wanting to see it is because of Emma Watson (hermione) 'cos she is hot !!
and
I did not read the book so I am not expecting anything.

[ko71991]

I would rather go and watch the film than take a review from a droning madman because it wasn't what he wanted to see :p :D Jokes.
<slightly nicer version here>

[Xenon]

Lol. I did say Jokes. I was messing, he just seem to be a bit mad because it wasn't what he was expecting.

[ko71991]

Lol. I did say Jokes. I was messing, he just seem to be a bit mad because it wasn't what he was expecting.
Meh, I did say slightly.

[Xenon]

Meh, I did say slightly.

Oh yes, my mistake.

[inked]

The main reason for my wanting to see it is because of Emma Watson (hermione) 'cos she is HOT !!

You are mistaken the hotness in the ball scene isn't coming from Hermione but from her date, Viktor Krum. :)

[ko71991]

The main reason for my wanting to see it is because of Emma Watson (hermione) 'cos she is HOT !!
and
I did not read the book so I am not expecting anything.
<insert same thing here>

Didn't see that before. And lowercase the "HOT" 'coz she's not that hot.

[Xenon]

Ewww :bad:

Hermione is proper hot, but I know a girl that everyone would like but she is untouchable *daydreams*

Oh right back to hermione and inked love for viktor.

[legacy67]

I didn't expect the movie to be exactly like the book, in fact it says it is based on the novel by J.K Rowling not written by her. I thought it was very well done. Where the hell was there bad directing?! All the shots made sense, all the shots included what the story required them to, all the actors, actresses, and creatures(?) where great in all the scenes. You didn't like how the director had the maze scene done? Or the ship and the flying carriage? Or Harry Potter and the dragon? Or the lake scene? What do you expect? Did you want the movie to reflect your personal impression of the book perfectly as you imagined it into a 2 1/2 hour movie? I feel you are writing a horrible critism if you are complaining that the movie is bad because it is based on the book instead of being the book. I liked how the director retold the Happy Potter Goblet of Fire story in his own way instead of making money by completly copying Rowlings storyline. If you are a hardcore Harry Potter fan and think it was a crime to retell the story a little different then why don't you just consider it another Harry Potter piece of media and enjoy it as an orginal instead of an animated book projected on a big screen.

I didn't expect it to be exactly the same either, but that doesn't mean that what was made was good.

First off, the dragon scene was horrible. This is from a film standpoint and not a continuiy standpoint. A harrowing battle within the confines of the arena showcasing excellent flying ability would have been much better than what we saw, basically a car chase sequence. It wasn't thrilling, just cliche and silly.

Cinematically the movie was not bad. The Cinematography has always been quite good. The problem is that the movie had no soul, it didn't grip you into a conflict, and it bounced around like a 5 year old who had too much ice cream before bedtime.

The directing made these characters into cartoonish figures, when taking a more dignified role would be so much more fullfiling for the story. The characters are overplayed in orderf ot get a cheap laugh or accentuate roles the director wants to see. That is the director's perrogative, but it doesn't make it a good idea. For example, in the earlier films, all of Ron's lines that were intelligent in the books were taken and given to Hermione in the films, and in reverse, all of her ignorant or silly lines from the books were given to Ron in the films. This was, of course, done only to create more of an insufferable know-it -all out of Hermione, and turn Ron into a clown for cheap laughs. There are plenty of other thechniques, both in scripting and directing, that could have been used ot make this distinction, but instead the production team decided to strip the characters of any depth and make them one-dimensional. Notice that tactic has been dropped in the last 2 films.

I have no problem with cutting things to make a film fit a reasonable cinematic timeframe. The entire Ludo Badwig storline was cut because it was extrenous and had no relevane to the central plot. So was the "drama" between Hagrid and Madame Maxime. My problem is that the films (this one in particular) have failed to capture the spirit of the story.

Here is the big failing point of the films as I see it. The books are appealing to an audience beyond the 7-12 demographic for a reason, they come together as a mystery, with clues hidden in all the book for the next chapter in the saga. They are never obvious, but they do create a link between the books that is undeniable. The directors "interpretations" ignore this entirely. They take each story in a microcosm and don't think about the fact that there is another film to follow. Why was it nessacary for Newell's "vision" to cut out the scene with the Lestranges, when it sets the groundwork for later encounters? Why turn Crouch Senior from a complete hard-ass to a stuttering stanley? How did having Longbottom supply the Gillyweed (so obviously placed by Moody with no explanation) instead of Dobby help Newell's vision?

I have no problem with different interpretations on how to showcase the story. In fact, I felt that Alberto Cauron did a great job (minus the leaving out of the fact that Sirius, James, Lupin, and Wormtail wrote the map, so simple to add, so central to the story, but of course ommited; this was probably the screenwriter's fault) and I absolutely loved Azkaban. However, this film had many holes from any standpoint, not just the continuity police. A colder, calmer, more sinister Voldemorte would have been one saving grace. Instead we get a flinchy wackjob on the edge of running around screaming
. Less is more, and in the case of Lord Voldemorte, a calm, collected and calculating figure would have been much more chilling than the spider monkey on speed we were served.

It is the simple things that make a film great. It is also the simple things that make the Harry Potter books great. The 4th film ignored the grace and power of simplicity and instead went for a more grandiose approach that I found to be lacking.

That is why I disliked the film.

[Xenon]

I am going to go and see the film tonight, so I can see if the film is good or if it blows. But right now, I am going for a cigarette :)

[inked]

First off, the dragon scene was horrible. This is from a film standpoint and not a continuiy standpoint. A harrowing battle within the confines of the arena showcasing excellent flying ability would have been much better than what we saw, basically a car chase sequence. It wasn't thrilling, just cliche and silly.
Remember the target audience. Elementary school children are meant to pack the theater along with everyone else. Do you not remember the movie where the basilsk Tom Riddle and Harry where fighting, and tons of parents complained?

Cinematically the movie was not bad. The Cinematography has always been quite good. The problem is that the movie had no soul, it didn't grip you into a conflict, and it bounced around like a 5 year old who had too much ice cream before bedtime.
The same 5 year olds the story was written for? I am not saying adults can't enjoy it but I would be more offended if she sold out and made her childrens story,written for her own children, and made it into a fantasy story for teen+.

The directing made these characters into cartoonish figures, when taking a more dignified role would be so much more fullfiling for the story. The characters are overplayed in orderf ot get a cheap laugh or accentuate roles the director wants to see.
It is the directors movie not yours, mine or anyone else on TAO. Without humor and overacting do you think you would be entertained for that long?

I have no problem with cutting things to make a film fit a reasonable cinematic timeframe. The entire Ludo Badwig storline was cut because it was extrenous and had no relevane to the central plot. So was the "drama" between Hagrid and Madame Maxime. My problem is that the films (this one in particular) have failed to capture the spirit of the story.

This movie I thought was about overcoming obstacles and friendship, and love. Those themes give the movie plenty of spirit if you let it be its own version of the story instead of the story you read in the book.

[legacy67]

Remember the target audience. Elementary school children are meant to pack the theater along with everyone else. Do you not remember the movie where the basilsk Tom Riddle and Harry where fighting, and tons of parents complained?

The movie is PG-13. Now, I had this debate earlier with one of the guys I saw the film with. This film will sell millions of tickets purely because it is a Harry Potter movie. It does not need to pander to the lowest common denomenator to do so. The book is not readable by 5 year olds, but it sold millions of copies. The book was actually written at about a 7th grade reading level. The first book was for the 5-9 demographic, probably the first 2 books. But, as the audience has actually aged, so has the content of the books. If you know a film will sell even if it doesn't bring kindergartener in droves, why not make it a good film?


The same 5 year olds the story was written for? I am not saying adults can't enjoy it but I would be more offended if she sold out and made her childrens story,written for her own children, and made it into a fantasy story for teen+.

Again, while the first books were written for a younger audience, the later books (starting with book 4) were written for a more mature reader. The 3rd movie was definately not created with 5 year olds in mind, why should this one be? About your sell out arguement, that is exactly what books 4,5, and 6 are, books for teenagers. She started writing 10 years ago, and the books are still for her children, who have grown up ocnsiderably in 10 years. The real tragedy would have been if she decided to keep the books in an infantile state as opposed to the engrossing mystery she has created.


It is the directors movie not yours, mine or anyone else on TAO. Without humor and overacting do you think you would be entertained for that long?

Yes. There are an inumerable number of films that do not rely on slapstick comedy or overacting that prove themselves to be quite entertaining. Humor can exist in an intelligent way (generally how JKR writes) or in a slapstick way. Sometimes, less is more. The best films in cinematic history, the oscar winners, the films that will be remembered as long as there is cinema, will not be those based on cheap gimmicks. Now I am not saying that Harry Potter was definately one of those films, but it is quite obvious that the books have acheived that status, and will be a staple of childrens literature for decades, if not centuries. Why not make a film worthy of that reputation?

This movie I thought was about overcoming obstacles and friendship, and love. Those themes give the movie plenty of spirit if you let it be its own version of the story instead of the story you read in the book.

The movie is not it's own story, you cannot take a film comletely out of context. Especially one that is part of a series. These films should build on one another, and this film does nothing to assist that.

For a bit of context, I view some of the ommisions made as akin to Star Wars had we not been told that Darth Vader was Lukes father.

Everyone seems to be so distraught that I am criticising this film so. I just do not think that it is too much to ask that a film of this "magnitude", as stressed by the media, actuallly be good.

[Servant]

i totally agree with legacy. the books go through a 7 year time period. the children grow up. thus the book gains intelligent humor instead of immature humor that unfortunately is rampant among even teens. the plots get deeper because the audience grew up. the books didnt stay at a 10 year old level and neither should the movie. if you want a car chase watch a damn car chase movie.

obviously the movie cant last as long as the books because nobody would see it, besides the fact that seeing a scene is faster than reading a description of one. contrary to the popular belief of small children people dont act the same as they did when they were four when they are 15.

the theme thing is important too. the books are indeed a series. much of the writing assissts this concept and brings continuity. each movie should'nt be its own story. that means that the spirit of the story was corrupted. it's not the same story that brought the readers. if JKR wanted to make a story for 5 year olds she shouldnt have bothered to add the intelligence.
if your 5 year old can't deal with the movie, then they shouldn't have read the books as the story is at least basically similar.

[Hydrant]

They had to take a long book, and turn it into a two and a half hour long movie

a lot of stuff HAD TO BE CUT

Yes, I agree that they shouldn't have cut so much plot in favor of more action, especially in the Voldemort scene

but lets be honest, considering THEY HAD TO CUT A LOT, it was fine

[Bottle]

Books turned into movies are never as good as the books themselves. End of story, get over it.

[Hoolwath]

Dumbledore was acted horribly. It could have been seen in the trailer too... He screamed at Harry?! "HOW DID YOU GET YOUR NAME IN THE BOX?!" Or something like that... Now that totally messed up his image.

[razor2007]

I completely agree that the characters were over acted. No one was calm, no one was cool or collected. They were all showy dashabout that served mainly to further the action.

Now, hydrant is right that ltos had to be cut, but there are just things that one should not cut.

It is the directors mistake to think that we will enjoy his interpretation of the story if it does nto follow JKR's origonal designs, not our fault for not enjoying his interpretation.

And this "no one would see it is its long" qrgument is bull. 90% of the people who saw it, would see it if it were 1.5 hours longer. If they cut a proportional ammount of stuff from 5 that they did from 4, I will be disgusted!

[uniquinous]

I agree with the 'poor' assessment of this movie. Dumbledore *did* seem odd screaming as Hoolwath said, and also when he told Harry to basically just forget about the disturbing images. The movie turned him from a loving father figure and gave him some arrogance and coldness.

It wasn't simply that things were lacking because the movie was compressed, but *how* they were lacking. The personal interactions between the characters seemed trivial. Ron very quickly gets upset with Harry for undeveloped reasons, and makes reconciles just as quickly and unexpectedly. Hermione gets upset rather quickly as well and then 5 minutes later is completely fine.

I would have rather seen the other champions compete with their dragons and have Harry very quickly obtain his egg, then have a silly voiceover of "the champions have all competed except one" and follow it with a drawn out cgi chase scene. The book stresses how hard he needed to practice and concentrate on pulling his broom from across the grounds. It was a strong triumphant moment in the book. In the movie he just flimsily flicks his wand in the air and continues getting the snot beat outa him. It just shows how this movie has reduced magic down from a hard talent to the classic mistake of "well it's magic so anything's possible by anyone".

The second task was reduced to him swimming straight to the end. What was the point? They had some scene of him being attacked after freeing the people, but how was this a task if there were absolutely no difficulties getting there?

Yes things need to be reduced, but they were thinking of making 2 movies out of this book and should have. As a stand-alone entertainment unit (not even looking how it differed from the book), I felt this movie was lacking in many areas.

[LosPollos]

Just saw the movie last night, 3 words for ya What the f*ck?!?! This is the most innacurate piece of production i have ever seen!
They captured the essence of so many of the characters completely wrong its rediculus! And they took out my favorite part of the maze, the Sphinx! All you saw for monsters in the maze were a couple of vines, whoopdy freakin do!!! Krum is supposed to be like 18 in the book, but in the movie i swear to god, he has to be atleast 25! They condenced the multi chapter world cup into a 3 minute piece of trash! What about Dobby??? What about the fact he was in the woods when he lost his wand? What about the muggles they levetated?? What about the actual match its-self????

I say dont waste your $8 on this piece of crap, go see something better, like chicken little! or anything! or better yet reread the book, i mean this made me embarrased to be a fan!

Although the dragon part was kinda cool, they messed up on the second task by leaving out Harrys mistake of thinking the people would die if not rescued! The task was supposed to make Hogwarts view him as a fool, not a hero!

This movie gets a 3/10!