Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

Well I liked it. I thought it was the best in the series.

Anybody else see it?

Also: Hermione. :stud:

:stud:!

Re: Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

Holy moly... the best of the series... shows more of the world, and the effects are awesome.

Yeah Hermione .. lol...

"physical being" < lol

Re: Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

Haven't seen it yet but I've probably cleaned up after about the 1000 folks that did.

Customers in Harry Potter Attire = LOSER!

Midway through one of the showings, some kid got pulled out for screaming, "Snape kills Dumbledore."

Re: Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

Spoiler Warning please GM!

Re: Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

I saw it. Much weaker than 3, possibly weakest of the series.

Too many really awkward moments with poor acting and wooden dialogue, and many scenes that tried hard to be dramatic without actually having substance.

Still pretty good, though.

Re: Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

I saw it on Friday. I really enjoyed it. I can't say that I could compare it with the first two movies... different style. But it definately outshined movie 3. I thought they did an excellent job converting the book into movie given that they had to take so much and condense it.


*SPOILERS*




























My only complaint would have to be that they didn't show much of the World Cup quidditch tournament and the campgrounds were different than I imagined.

























*END SPOILER*

Re: Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

the whole thing about bringing a book to life is that if it isn't a picture book, everyone will have difference perspectives as to how to imagine the world.

thats why we see the movie.... out of curiosity.

Re: Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

Yeah, if you had started reading the books before any of the movies, then things would come as more of a shock than if you started reading because of the movies.

Re: Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

This movie was better than the first two, but worse than the third one.

The storyline was just full of holes. I mean, if you hadn't read the books, you would have been completely lost.

The movie sort of had ADD. It jumped from one part of the story to the next, with very little to no transition. And they skipped the World Cup. That's just stupid.

Special Effects were incredible though.

Re: Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

I agree with you Vampyr. It was pretty good, but there were a lot of story holes. I wish they would have made it longer. The one part that was amazing though was the scence with the dragon.

Re: Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

I thought it was pretty good. Way better than the third movie, but not as good as the first two.


*Possible Spoilers although minimal*








I hate the change that was made to the way Hogwarts looks from the second to the third movie and they kept it here. You notice the difference when you watch the first two movies and then watch the third. The biggest evidence of this is where the womping willow is located in the second and then where it is moved to in the third. I don't like the way Hagwarts looks as it is in the third, but at least give us some continuity between movies and stop moving things around.

The owlery. From the books, it is without a doubt clear that it is connected to the rest of Hogwarts and in the fourth movie, it's not. What's up with that? Never in the books has a student had to go outside to go to the owlery. Why in the world would you change it for the movie?

Also, the dress robes were unimanginative, except Ron's and to a lesser degree, Harry's. The girls for the most part were pitiful. I could go to a department store in the mall and buy many of those off the rack right now if I wanted to. They are supposed to look like robes. That's why they are called dress robes. Let's show a little imagination here people.



*End Spoilers*





Except for those complaints, movie was great. Most of those are just visual interpretations of the universe and don't really affect the story so they are easily overlooked.

Re: Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

Yeah, what really annoyed me was how theyt just leaped from scene to scene. It almost seemed, especially at the beginning, they just had a list of stuff that they had to show and got them out of the way. I could just hear some guy checking off a list and muttering, "Okay, the portkey is established, now for Krum's introduction. After that, prepare for the Death Eater attack!"


/me shrugs and walks away

Re: Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

Yeah, exactly. There was no pacing whatsoever,and there was no character development.

SPOILER





if you're going to kill off a character, and want a big reaction, maybe let us get to know him first. There was a lot more emphasis on him in the book.






END SPOILER

So, yeah. While a lot was good, a lot would've been done better by a better director... Cuaron, for example.

Re: Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

Well as a reader for none of the books, I thought it wasn't that bad. I think this thread just has a case of the "the book was better" complex. There's nothing wrong with that, though.

I think the people who liked it AND read the book had forgotten most of the book in the first place.

The pace didn't really commit any crimes. And Cedric had enough screen time - he was shown to harry as both the Cho-stealer and the competitor. The quasi-climax of Harry saving him and getting the goblet was pretty much enough to pass.

Re: Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
 

Well I read the book a long time ago, and forgot most of it (hadn't read it since the week it came out, I think), but it still was just a bit of a disappointment as a movie, because of the weak scenes, weak acting, and weak dialogue in certain parts.