Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire

[DarrenMcLeod]

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.

[MuGen]

I really don't know where you get weak acting.

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

I'm trying to understand what you mean by 'dramatc without actually having substance.'

The only scene I could think of that would bring up that question is

********SPOILER****************










is when Hermione is at the dance, and cries when Ron gives her the cold shoulder.

Far be it for me to understand that she is a 15 year old girl who was just told that her date is just using her and doesn't really like her by a jealous friend.

Dramatic yes, not enough substance? Maybe not for you but for a 15 year old girl, that can have as much substance as a full cup of milk.














*****************************************************



As an individual I thought the acting was good. Not the best, but good.
But I have to agree w/ Dyne. If you think this movie had poor dialogue and awkward moments, it's only because you imagined them being portrayed differently from the book, and the dialogue didn't follow the book to the tee.

This is the kind of critique movies from Comics get, and movies from games get....

The more I take the time to understand the more I come to the conclusion that people are more likely to compare the movie to the book rather then critique the movie as a movie.

[DarrenMcLeod]

Well, I haven't read this book since the week it came out. That was what... 4 years ago, maybe more? I didn't remember anything other than Cedric dying. Prisoner changed just as much stuff, yet it is still my favorite of the movie. As far as the dramatic without having substance, I mean there were times when they'd play really dramatic music during scenes that were supposed to convey emotion, but they felt cheap and forced... just unnatural.

It was by no means a bad movie, but I just think they should've stuck with Cuaron, who would've done a better job (in my opinion).

[MuGen]

oh ok.... thats cool then. Sorry for calling you out D.Mac

[DarrenMcLeod]

Originally Posted by Sony

oh ok.... thats cool then. Sorry for calling you out D.Mac

Haha no problem, buddy.

[Xantar]

It's kind of interesting to read this thread because it's one of the few where I've seen multiple people saying they liked the third movie more than the first two (for the record, so do I). A common complaint I saw on other message boards about the third movie was that it was disjointed and lacked character development. Hmm....

Anyway, I liked the fourth movie, and I think it's probably the best adaptation that could have been made. Remember, the original book was huge. I can only wonder how they'll handle the upcoming books because they're even longer. Yeah, some scenes were disjointed, but with a book that long, what else are you going to do? They dropped bunches of side plots as it was already.

Mike Newell's strategy for dealing with this was to throw in lots of small little moments that were charming and rang true. Things like the expressions on Harry's face when Hermione yells at him to go to bed or the way Fred (or was it George?) Weasley asked a girl out to the dance or Ron's reaction when Professor McGonnagall tells him to put his hand on her waist. These kids are in the process of growing up, and like all of us, they sometimes do it clumsily. If some scenes are awkward, I think that's because they're supposed to be. And I can tell you right now that most of those moments weren't a part of the book. They're purely Mike Newell's additions.

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.

I've got to disagree with you there. I suppose I should spoiler tag this, but come on now. You really shouldn't be in this thread unless you've seen the movie.

Anyway, Cedric was even more of a non-entity in the book. Not only was he not around very much, he basically had no personality whatsoever. And I think the actor who played him managed to actually impart something to the character so that we could recognize that he was basically a good and honorable person instead of simply thinking of him as, well, just some other guy.

[Teuthida]

As a stand alone movie I think I was quite good. Perhaps helps that I don't remember the book too well...just that Harry gets the gillyweed from Dobby and not Neville.