OK for the fans and non readers but directorial decisions may leave the avid fan a bit disappointed.

Rating: 7/10 (19 November 2005)

In a word TERRIFIC as far as special effects go but in a word Disappointing in terms of direction. The best to date as far as big screen wow-wow and while that may leave the non-reader pleased the real fan may find the film lacking in certain areas.
There are lots of changes as is to be expected when a nearly 700 page novel is transformed into film, some secondary characters are even left out, however, for the most part the changes are sensitive to the book and in the spirit of the story. The real difficulties lie in the handling of certain characters, Dumbledore in particular and the pacing of certain scenes.
The acting has come a long way, improving as it does in every movie but Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe have reached a greater level of maturation as actors are giving us the "real deal" in this one.
Most of the new characters do an adequate job in support, particularly the adults (Mirand Richardson as Rita Skeeter stands out). Stanislav Ivaneski as Krum and Predrag Bjelac as Karkaroff bring life to their stock characters. Roger Lloyd Pack is good as Barty Crouch, more nervous and weird than in the book book but a lot of fun never the less.
However, Clemence Poesey is miscast as Fleur Delacour. While Poesy is a beautiful girl and fine actress she just does not generate the necessary heat for a part Veela who is supposed to be able to stop men in their tracks and cause them to act the fool with a bat of her lashes. Clemence seems a bit too serious an actress for this comic relief role. A young lady of talent but a bit more curvy and with a young Angelina Jolie type facial feature would have been a better choice.
The massive speculation as to "What is Voldemort going to look like?" is resolved and there is absolutely no room for disappointment here, his transformed self is PERFECT!!! Fiennes is brilliant and an inspired choice for the player. However, the pacing of the final scene and the blocking does not leave Fiennes much to work with, it is almost as if he is dancing about at times. The whole thing seems rushed.
To the writers credit the horror aspect is given fullest reign, more so than in any other movie and true to the book because JK is bringing the reader into a time of torture, murder and doubt with a villain that will go down in history with Dracula as one of the most evil of all time, brought to life in a classic set piece of terror.
Where the film runs into trouble is in the way certain characters are portrayed. As happens with so many projects, director Mike Newell seems more concerned with big screen bombast than showing a keen understanding of his material, especially the characters within. Which is rather glaring since characterization is Rowling's strongest aspect as a writer.
Nowhere is this more apparent than with Dumbledore. In the film, calm, controlled, wise and confident Dumbledore comes across as a shrill, panicky, cantankerous old fart which is a shame because Michael Gambon did a more than adequate job replacing Richard Harris (who is still, however, the better Dumbledore) in the third film. Therefore I feel it is the direction more than the actor that has to be blamed for the lack of a consistent Dumbledore performance in Goblet.
Frances De La Tour is OK as Madame Maxime although she is neither very comely or olive skinned as she is described in the book. Frances delivers a very motivated performance and things are fine until she eats the bug (or whatever it is) that she picks off the front of Hagrid's shirt. Hagrid and Madame Maxime are supposed to be misunderstood outsiders, not revolting freaks! The dealing with outsiders, their place in the world and their struggles to fit in is a main point of HP and to fall down in this area is something a good director/writer should strive to avoid when rendering this type of fiction for the screen.
And this tongue thing they had David Tennent doing as Barty Jr., what was up with that??? Yes, I get it that they needed a recognizable facial tick to provide a give away so that Barty Sr. can see through his son's disguise. But the snake tongue thing almost made me laugh. An eye gesture or any number of other things would have served the plot better. This father-son conflict is supposed to be tragic but came across as rather silly and was wholly underdeveloped.
One last thing and it is a small point but in a film where the special effects are particularly excellent for the most part it grated. What was the deal with the sleeping kids in the underwater scene??!!? Totally fake looking or what??!!? Next time Newell needs to pick out a better rubber dummy supplier. One really expected Harry to start stretching Ron or Hermione's face, jabbing Cho's cheeks or whatever. I am wondering if any of the actors had a good time punching these silly things between takes.
My daughter and myself are huge fans and have read the books many times and find the film a worth while experience. Our Mom/Wife has not read the books but thought the movie outstanding. Those who want to quibble about changes and cannot accept that to turn an hours long reading experience into a movie some things must change/go will be left out. Which is unfortunate because it is a worthy watch even with some of its more rankling aspects.