Good movie, but too based on the thought that the viewers had already read the book

Rating: 8/10 (25 November 2005)

I thought Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was the best of the series. I was probably wrong.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was a VERY good movie and VERY well done. The movie centers on Harry as he takes his fourth year into Hogwarts. This year, Voldemort's (sorry, "He Who Must Not Be Named") power is steadily growing, thanks to his servants, the Death Eaters. Early in the film, Harry and his pals are gathering at the Quittich World Cup. Quickly into the film, the characters are attacked-not by dementors this time- but by Death Eaters, Lord Voledemort's servants. (This part was very exciting.) The film moves fairly quickly, with more mystery than even the Prisoner of Azkaban had. Harry Potter is entered into the Tri-Wizard Tournament. How? We have yet to find out.
Unfortunately for Harry, he has no choice except to accept what is in front of him. What also sucks for Harry is that people have died in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. Yes, it's that dangerous.
One thing new with Harry is that he is at the stage in life where he is changing. Hormones. More romance takes place, than it did in the others. For example, Harry seems to have a bit of feeling for Cho Chung. Ron gets jealous of his friends, because he can't get a date for himself. Hermione seems to have taken a liking to one of the other competitors. I remember Ron commenting "Bloody hell" when checking out the bodies of the French team.
The movie generally is exciting and face-paced, but even if it has a length of 157 minutes, it still moves too fast for its own good.
For example, they never tell us what a port-key is. (The audience has to figure it out for themselves.) The character, Cedric Diggory is hardly introduced to us. There seems to be no beginning the scene where the Death Eaters attack. It just happens out of nowhere. The movie never tells us why Ron gets mad at Harry. (It is because he is jealous, as previously stated.) The three unforgivable curses are never explained. Even if they took out parts of the book to make the movie shorter, they seem to have taken out necessary parts along with them.
I did like the movie, but.."THE MOVIE BASED ITSELF ON THE THOUGHT THAT THE VIEWERS HAD ALREDY READ THE BOOK." Therefore, it made itself different from other book adaptations such as Jaws, Mystic River, A Simple Plan, Forrest Gump and Silence of the Lambs. Everyone who has read the book has probably seen it already, and knows what was going to happen, so they wouldn't have a problem. But, for newcomers of the series, it would seem badly-paced and a bit shallow at times.
If I remembered the book, I probably would have liked it better. Too bad I didn't remember so much of it, so I will give this movie.
8/10
Good: Darker, better special effects, better story
Bad: Thought viewers had already read the book, which probably contributed to the rush
Feel free to send me a Private Message regarding this comment.