Finally back on track

Rating: 9/10 (20 November 2005)

Given the monstrous popularity of the book series, the Harry Potter films have always had sort of a tough act to follow; as the teen wizard's adventures have continued, the books have become darker, more complex, and a little bit more adult. Though the third installment, Prisoner of Azkaban, tried hard to move the films in that direction, it was a mostly unpalatable attempt, and I wondered if any of the later films would ever be able to stack up to the first two, which are admittedly light hearted (and obsessively faithful adaptations). In addition Goblet of Fire remains my favorite book, in my opinion the piece where Rowling is at the height of her literary prowess. So, for me, this movie had the deck stacked against it.
But director Mike Newell seems to understand the material a lot better than predecessor Alfonso Cuaron (whom many people lauded because he's an indie darling, not because he did a good job with the franchise, because, frankly, he didn't); there's far more humor, more done with the characters, and a sense that every attempt was made to stay closer to the book than last year's disappointing outing. Of course with a book almost 900 pages long you had to expect some cuts in the material, but this time those choices were made wisely and judiciously.
Once again we find Harry, Ron, and Hermione returning to school at the start of the film, but the double treat of no Dursleys and the Quidditch World Cup (some of Rowling's best material ever) kick off the movie in high fashion; a pity we're yanked out of it so soon, but again, 900 pages of ground to cover. The big plot twist this time is that Harry must compete against young wizards from other schools in a dangerous contest known as the Tri-Wizard Tournament. Rowling's world expands from a predominantly English metaphor to include the French and Bulgarians as well, and the results are very satisfying, just as they were in the book.
Newell does his best to stay true to the material, putting the kids back in their class robes for most of the movie and adding tons of generous little touches to the film (reaction shots are a specialty, from Hermione's disgust at the boys' very positive response to the arrival of the French maidens to Harry dribbling water down his chin as he locks eyes with his object d'amour, Cho Chen. This sense of playful humor so prevalent in the books was almost wholly absent in the last film and was a welcome addition to this one.
The casting was superb, even by the usual high Potter series standards (it's unlikely they will ever top Ken Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart). Mad-Eye Moody, one of my favorite characters in all the books, was vividly brought to life by Brendan Gleeson; Moody is a constant crotchety joy throughout the whole film. Also looking the part very well, though admittedly given little to do, were Stanislav Ianevski as Viktor Krum and Robert Pattinson as Cedric Diggory; both were able to capture their characters in a few simple turns. Less satisfying was Clémence Poésy as Fleur Delacour; Poésy came off completely flat and unappealing, baffling given the high quality of the other casting and really the first let-down in the entire series as that sort of thing goes.
The leads (Dan Radcliffe as Harry, Emma Watson as Hermione, and Rupert Grint as Ron) are all getting a bit long in the tooth to pass for their ages, which I felt with the last movie as well. Ron looks in his early twenties, and while Hermione mostly passes (Watson only outstrips her character by a year or two now), Radcliffe is no longer a boy, he's a man (if there were any doubt, a scene where he lingers topless in a bath  to the very ardent delight of the teenaged girl behind me in the theater  puts any debate on the matter to rest). By the time Rowling finishes book seven and they get around to the movie in 2008-9, the kids will seem old enough to be their own parents.
The production design deserves a note  particularly effective and appealing this time, from the smart French outfits to the especially well-rendered Durmstrang suits, coats, and furry hats, a clever amalgamation of Baltic, Russian, and old world design that evokes many cultures in general but none in specific. Excellent work.
The film runs more than two and a half hours, but it moves at such a breakneck pace that it feels just a tad over two. Though Potter maniacs (Pottheads?) might whine about this or that detail being overlooked, face it, some of it had to go, and Newell and company keep the emotional core of the work intact, which is the most important thing. Though critics keep calling it 'dark,' I found the movie high-spirited and engaging, pulling me into its alternate world the way the first two did (and the books excelled at). Though it'll be tough to top the first two films, Goblet of Fire proves a worthy successor to the Potter tradition, a film certainly worth your time to go and see this holiday season.