Four champions and a funeral

Rating: 6/10 (24 November 2005)

So this is the new, long awaited Harry Potter, the adaptation of the fourth part of the legendary magical book series. I've been waiting for this movie for, let's say a year now. And from what I've heard, seen in the trailer and the MTV Making of I was optimistic. Even more so because Mike Newell directed the film who also did one of my favourite films, "Four weddings and a funeral". And yes, I had high expectations.
The beginning is spectacular. I didn't mind that they left the Dursleys out  we had the Weasleys rescuing Harry from his summer holiday jail in the second Harry Potter film already. Then the film directly dives into the Quidditch finals and all the scary events surrounding it. Now, I thought, now we'll see the spectacular game! But would you believe it, after some impressions of the audience and a spectacular appearance of the two teams, the Irish and the Bulgarian, we are already taken away from the game. And so on, and so on. This is basically how the whole film goes: The director throws us into a situation and after some minutes takes us out of it without letting us time to understand or let it work. Don't get me wrong, the film has its moments. And Mike Newell shows that he has a good sense of humour. But Harry Potter is not a slapstick-comedy and we don't need a laughter every two seconds.
The fourth Harry Potter book has so many interesting moments and potential  the stunning Quidditch World Championship final, the dangerous tasks at the Triwizard Tournament and its tragic ending, the romantic moments at the Yule Ball. Those were the scenes I was most looking for and Mike Newell spoiled ALL of them. Where is the wonderful scene in the garden that takes place after the Yule Ball? Where are all (or at least some) of the great obstacles that Harry has to face in the maze when it comes to the final showdown between him and Cedric in the tournament?
In my opinion the best two adaptations of Harry Potter are still the first two films under the direction of Chris Columbus. Some say those films are way too kitschy, but they had something you love in the books but never find in the third and fourth film: A heart, a soul and  most of all  magic. Mike Newell himself said that the fourth book is a thriller. Yes, it is. But it is also a fairy tale and about magic. We can't find neither of these two qualities in the film. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" is nothing more than situations and impressions lined up after one another. Without emotion, without sense and without giving the viewer time to breath in between. So at some point you just lean back, switch your head off and watch the kids and adults work in their roles. But if this moment arrives during a film it's the worst thing this film can do. Besides, I don't want to criticize it just because I'm a fan of the books. I'm glad I read the book before seeing this film. Because if somebody sees this film without reading the book first he will get more questions than answers. For example  Harry's dream of the house, where he sees Voldemort, is never explained in the film. Yes, it is foreshadowing the ending but we all know that there is another link (and is explained in the book). If you don't know the link you ask yourself: Why the heck did he show this dream sequence? He might as well have left it out.
A word about the cast Nothing to complain about the adults  they're gorgeous as usual. As for the trio  I really liked Daniel's performance  he's getting better with every film and this one was maybe his best so far. Rupert "Ron" Grint is the only one of the three who really goes through a change  he is no clown any more and not only a sidekick  he begins to question things (including his friendship to Harry) and to develop his own personality. Emma Watson  well, what shall I say? She's not a bad actress but thanks to the director she behaves like a hysteric little girl throughout the whole movie  which most of the time is absolutely unnecessary. In general I must say that the director really achieved making slapstick clowns of most of the cast. Hello, we're not in a Charlie Chaplin movie here! In my opinion the best performance of the film comes from a youngster that stayed in the background and was nothing but a laugh so far  Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom. He's basically the only teenager that could carry the character of the book to the screen and through the whole movie  he is a shy boy discovering the girls and maturing. His performance was really touching.. It's a good co-incidence and a good job by the young actor because in the next Harry Potter movie Neville Longbottom will play an important role. Nice performances also by the gorgeous and hunky Robert Pattinson as the tragic hero Cedric Diggory and the charming Katie Leung as Cho.
All in one "Harry Potter and the GoF" is a 3-hour-trailer: Scenes and people are introduced without letting them space to develop their character, we get hints and foreshadowings, surprises and impressions but you cannot really see a flow or a plot. So for everyone who doesn't want to think, doesn't care about magic or good cinema, this is the right film. I do and this is why I was very disappointed.