Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire - Page 2

MuGen · 11-20-2005, 10:13 PM

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

Quote:

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 · 11-21-2005, 03:45 PM

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 · 11-21-2005, 03:55 PM

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

DarrenMcLeod · 11-21-2005, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sony

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

Haha no problem, buddy.

Xantar · 11-25-2005, 01:48 AM

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.

Quote:

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 · 11-25-2005, 02:06 AM

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.

Swan · 11-25-2005, 05:47 PM

Was Dobby still in the movie?

And what about the House Elfs?

Teuthida · 11-25-2005, 05:53 PM

Not a single House Elf to be seen...which I suppose is a good thing.

Bube · 11-27-2005, 09:08 AM

Aside from the scene leaping (which the other movies also suffered from), I thought it was a good movie. GoF is my favorite book in the series, and it's also the best HP movie in my opinion.

MuGen · 11-28-2005, 12:42 PM

what are you all talking about!? The ps3 is so much better then the xbox 360...

oh... wrong topic...

LOL No, this probably was my favorite of all HP movies. In fact I agree with Xantar about Cedric's chara development. A lot of my friends who saw it with me never read the books and absolutely love the HP movie series.

Swan · 12-05-2005, 12:36 AM

Just saw this on the weekend. I liked it, I probably would have liked it more if I hadn't read the book though. Good movie though.

I have to admit that it did feel a rushed at points, but that is to be expected.

And for the Cedric thing, I think it was pulled off well, I was more effected with the movie then with the book.

Professor S · 12-05-2005, 02:35 PM

I have never read a Harry Potter book, but Ihave seen all of the movies, and Goblet of Fire is BY FAR the best of the series.

Chris Columbus was far too loyal to the books, and it showed by a lack of coherency and this character development in his first 2 movies. The third movie was an improvement as you began to see a character arch developing for Potter and his mates and the themes were darker but yet suitable for children. I still didn't really like it as the movie drug on in parts and seemed to be afflicted with the same disjointed feeling of the first two.

Goblet is just a flat out good movie. I'll even say that it is the Empire Strikes Back of the Harry Potter movies (in fact, the similarities are astounding). Harry is beginning to feel more of the weight of his destiny, seeing that his legend may be his death, while trying to handle the awkwardness that comes with adolescence regardless of magical abilities.

I thought the acting was quite good for the most part, especially Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and the actor who played Moody.

Mostly I'm appreciating the darker turn that the series is taking that began with Prisoner of Azkaban. Moody is obviously scarred from battles with Death Eaters, Voldemort is back and the tide seems to be turning to the "dark side". Each movie seems to get more intense and the sense of impending drama and doom is palpable.

Long story short, this is the first Potter movie that made me eager to know what was going to happen next.

DimHalo · 12-05-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor S

I have never read a Harry Potter book, but Ihave seen all of the movies, and Goblet of Fire is BY FAR the best of the series.
...
Mostly I'm appreciating the darker turn that the series is taking that began with Prisoner of Azkaban. Moody is obviously scarred from battles with Death Eaters, Voldemort is back and the tide seems to be turning to the "dark side". Each movie seems to get more intense and the sense of impending drama and doom is palpable.

Long story short, this is the first Potter movie that made me eager to know what was going to happen next.

In that case, I would have to say that the movie did an excellent job of accomplishing the goal. For those who read the books, we're pleased to see our favorite worlds and characters visualized. For those who don't, it is drawing you in and making you want more.

jeepnut · 12-05-2005, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor S

I have never read a Harry Potter book, but Ihave seen all of the movies, and Goblet of Fire is BY FAR the best of the series.

Chris Columbus was far too loyal to the books, and it showed by a lack of coherency and this character development in his first 2 movies. The third movie was an improvement as you began to see a character arch developing for Potter and his mates and the themes were darker but yet suitable for children. I still didn't really like it as the movie drug on in parts and seemed to be afflicted with the same disjointed feeling of the first two.

Goblet is just a flat out good movie. I'll even say that it is the Empire Strikes Back of the Harry Potter movies (in fact, the similarities are astounding). Harry is beginning to feel more of the weight of his destiny, seeing that his legend may be his death, while trying to handle the awkwardness that comes with adolescence regardless of magical abilities.

I thought the acting was quite good for the most part, especially Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and the actor who played Moody.

Mostly I'm appreciating the darker turn that the series is taking that began with Prisoner of Azkaban. Moody is obviously scarred from battles with Death Eaters, Voldemort is back and the tide seems to be turning to the "dark side". Each movie seems to get more intense and the sense of impending drama and doom is palpable.

Long story short, this is the first Potter movie that made me eager to know what was going to happen next.

I have read the fifth and sixth books and I can tell you that the series continues to get darker and more mature.

Professor S · 12-06-2005, 02:01 AM

This movie actually makes me want to read the books. Thats the best compliment I can give it.