Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

I will go for sure, the book was really good.
Maybe not this weekend though. It will be very busy this week end!!

 

I saw it last night, too. I really enjoyed it. I also thought the PG-13 rating was correct. I was surprised by some of the bleak imagery and tone. They certainly didn't water it down, and I applaude them for that.

I thought the beginning was a little choppy, but I can't think of any other way to get that much information out without the movie being 4 hours long, so even that isn't really meant as a criticism.

Music was great and it's fun watching the kids grow in the series and as actors. I thought Hermione was a bit overly dramatic, ut considering that her main plotline in book 4 was completely cut, she was only really in it for over the top moments, anyway.

I'm one of the few who liked the first two movies more than Prisoner of Azkaban. I thought it was too stylized and cut too much of the book out. There was no reason it couldn't have been 2 1/2 hours like the rest of them. They didn't even explain the signifigance of the names on the map, fer cryin' out loud.

I thought book 4 would be tough to turn into a movie, but they did a great job. I definitely recommend it highly.

 

Glad to hear this. My ass and achilles tendons are big fans but my arms can't stand it. The rest of me is pretty indifferent.

brad cook

 

So Harry Potter is your weak spot, eh? Mwahahahahhahaha!

Mike

 

I saw it. I enjoyed it. It was a bit slow moving at times though. Yes, it's a long movie, but it still felt really long too. Prisoner of Azkaban is still my favorite of the movies, but the new one was entertaining.

 

Awful.

If you read the books, which I assume most of you have, how can you possibly enjoy that movie?

They altered the plot soo dramatically, that the next three directors will have to in turn do the same or resort to reconstructing events that were supposed to have happened in Goblet.

Example 1... Rita Skeeter being an animagus.
Example 2... Winky having stolen Harry's wand to conjure the dark mark... in turn being disowned and taken in by the Hogwarts house-elf staff...
Example 3... Dobby having stolen the Gillyweed to give to Harry...
Example 4... Hermione having started S.P.E.W for house-elf rights...

There're quite a few other gaping holes regarding the plot that can be cited, but just as an aside, here're few other problems.

The characters were incredibly two-dimensional. Everything that made Hogwarts magical, IE the classes, and so on, was cast aside. The only character that had screen time was Harry. Hermione was essentially a melodramatic teenage girl, Ron a stoner, and so on...

Ugh...

 

just got back from it, myself.

yeah, i kept on looking forward to seeing her turn into a ladybug.

i don't remember that stuff. i figure the writer(s?) who adapted it figured that it wasn't so memorable as to spend more precious screen time on it.

yeah, i remember that. too much went on in that book to be made into a single movie.

one dimensional, you mean?

that isn't a complaint from me, since by now the characters are pretty well-established and set in their ways, at least for this movie. (i guess on a semantic level, ron's jealousy of harry and subsequent forgiveness makes him "dynamic" instead of "static"...)



anyway, my biggest complaint about the movie is the biggest complaint i should have had about the book when i read it--the triwizard tournament.


it's just an awful idea.


it doesn't strike me as possible that the schools for wizardry would put their students in mortal danger. hell, even some people merely tangential to the triwizard champions had their lives endangered by that second task!


not buyin' it.


the ending is what made the book, so it's only natural that it was my favorite scene of the movie: the showdown at the graveyard.


azkaban remains the best movie in the series, imo.
is the director of azkaban going to do the order of the phoenix?

 

If they had included all of the stuff you mentioned, the movie would have to be 4-5 hours long.

Skeeter being an animagus isn't essential to the forwarding of the story. It was also very easy to lose Winky and every other house elf, for that matter. S.P.E.W. is not essential to the Harry Potter story, either.

None of this stuff was really needed--just like Tom Bombadil wasn't essential to the plot of LOTR.

It's simply not possible to turn a 750 page book into a 2 1/2 hour movie and keep everything.

 

Eh? There's about 200 things that they put the kids through at Hogwarts that puts their lives in mortal danger. At Hogwarts, being put in mortal danger is "meh."

brad cook

 

they usually involve (non-institutionalized) negligence, snooping, and/or hagrid, though.

 

I think this is the worst possible way to ever enter a movie adaptation of a book.

They are two completely different mediums. Pitting the books against the movie is pointless, and will only serve to stifle your enjoyment of the film for what it is, a film. If you have to use the books as a framework for how much you can enjoy the movie... well, you're just not going to enjoy the movie very much at all, so why even bother paying to see it?

On a side note. I am personally really pleased they threw SPEW out, that **** was stupid in the books and would have been even stupider(and more out of place) in the movie. Also, I'm glad they fleshed out Neville's character some more.

 

I don't like the other movies and I don't like the book, however this movie is pretty good.

 

I liked it quite a bit. I haven't read the books. I figure I'll get to that sometime later.

I liked how they made it feel kinda like a John Hughes movie with magic for the first 2/3 of it. I don't know, I think I was just in the right kind of mood for a lot of it.

 

I gave in and ordered the new one the other day, and I'd kind of like to see this. Harry Potter seems to be one of those things that people say "aw, kids' stuff," but then secretly love.

 

If they put all that in, they could have made three films out of the one book.

The fact is, it's a story about HARRY POTTER, therfore, he's going to get the most screen time and the things like S.P.E.W and so on won't matter.

This will be the same in the following films, as the books just keep getting longer anyway, we'll only be seeing the main plot of the book and none of the filler. It happens.

Like someone else mentioned, Tom Bombadill in LOTR's, not to mention many other things that made those books magical.

I'd love to see a director like Tim Burton do Order of the Pheonix. Not him exactly, as I prefer his creations, but someone who is as idealistic as him.

 

I'd like to see Peter Jackson as director.

EDIT: Or Janet Jackson..any Jackson that's available really..

brad cook

 

So the whole Harry Potter /saga/craze/fad thing is over now right? Lord I hope so.


AuG