The Goblet of Fire burns, but not as hot as I'd like...

Rating: 7/10 (5 January 2006)

The fourth Harry Potter film, "The Goblet of Fire", was probably hoping to breath a sigh of relief this year. After all, no Tolkein to compete with, so all the fantasy buffs must surly come to this movie, right? Well, things have changed, as Hermione (Emma Watson) points out. CGI is no longer new, it can be seen in virtually every movie. So a film director, when choosing CGI, must decide whether or not to put more emphasis on it, to compete with the special effects of Tolkien's Secret Son Peter Jackson and his film "King Kong" or to put emphasis on the story, and compete with the allegorical story lines of Tolein wanna-be "The Lion,The Witch and The Wardrobe." Here, Mike Newell, the third director for the franchise, has opted to try for both. Unfortunately, this does not work all of the time. There are a number of problems with this method.
Firstly, the original source. God bless JK Rowling for bringing books back to kids and all, but I feel sorry for the poor scriptwriter of this film. The book is so large and so full of essential plot devices that to truly do it justice you would probably have to make an eight hour long film. (Don't get any ideas, Jackson).
Secondly, when the CGI really starts to work, it quickly becomes overlong and boring. Gone are the realistic touches from "Prisoner of Azkaban", probably the best so far of the series, and in goes effect after effect after effect. The dragon scene is a prime example, extended merely to try and add a bit of exciting CGI into the film - here we see the "King Kong" competition.
The cast try their best. From the welcome surprise of finding Eric Sykes and Jarvis Cocker making brief appearances, to the regular cast of Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane, we truly have the best of British. Michael Gambon's Dumbledore is a somewhat darker character than previous, but then this is a darker movie. Only Gary Oldman disappoints - well, HE doesn't, but his limited screen appearance does. As for Ralph Feinnes, I reckon Nicole Kidman nicked his nose for "The Hours"...
Of the kids, it's wonderful to see the Fred and George roles expanded so to add much needed comic relief into this darkest of Potter movies. The usual three - Radcliffe, Grint and Watson - do their usual roles -hero, comic sidekick, brainy sidekick - as well as usual, though I'm still not a great fan of Harry Potter himself, Radcliffe.
I think the main problem with this movie is the script. Because of the amount of stuff in the book, they've tried to get it all in, spoiling what could have been fascinating character development, as was done in the third film. We see no Quidditch action, Miranda Richardson's Reeter Skeeter is wasted, and even David Tennant's superb Barty Crouch Jr doesn't seem to have the same kind of twisted evil that the character in the book does.
The fourth film shows a change, not just in our three heroes and the development of the story, but also in the films themselves. I fear that, as the next two books are the same length as the fourth one, and indeed the last one will probably be as well, the films are going to stay on this level forever - full of delights, but with a sense of been crammed into a box.
7/10