Better than I thought after the first viewing, though that doesn't say a whole lot!

Rating: 7/10 (20 February 2007)

The most disappointing of the first four movies for a number of reasons, GoF is a good movie though significantly different from the books. I wouldn't be bothered too much by the differences with the book, but it is important to recognize that there are some crucial aspects to the story that one can't change or ignore. In any story of the genres associated with this story (coming of age and fantasy), until the end of the story, the young and growing hero learns from a mentor who is the intellectual fulcrum of the story just as the hero is the emotional fulcrum. We experience the growth and the emotional upheaval of the story with the hero but are comforted (just as the hero is) in the guidance of his/her mentor. This setup allows the focus to dwell on learning about the world the hero inhabits and the various tools needed to survive in that world. The mentor represents the storehouse of all knowledge about the world that we enter, inhabit and learn about (along with the hero). Thus the mentor also represents a sense of stability of the world. Only when the hero is "ready" is this stability removed and this is done usually by the loss of mentor or loss of contact with the mentor. For those who are not into fantasy and/or coming of age genres, consider the role of Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings. (LoTR messed it up a bit as well, especially in the 3rd movie, but nothing so major.) The most disappointing feature of GoF was that both the emotional and the intellectual fulcrums are muddled. This results chiefly from the characterization of Dumbledore. Gambon gets the lion's share of the blame. Kloves and Newell are also to blame, Newell in particular for not restraining Gambon at all. It looks like they were all cheering for Dumbledore to lose all his marbles. Dumbledore in this movie is haunted, confused, scared, lost and so on - all that Harry is supposed to be! So, all sorts of dynamics in the movie are misplaced and there's a sense of chaos. May be they wanted to convey chaos, but we are supposed to feel Harry's sense of chaos, not that the entire wizarding world is lost. That happens in the future. Besides, as long as Dumbledore is around, there ought to be hope. That's the general idea. Here it's confusion galore! This weakness is major, because it shows that the people behind the scenes possibly don't understand the genre as much. That does not bode well for the rest of the movies.
The second biggest weakness of the movie is that everyone, including the death eaters started calling Voldemort by name! After establishing the You-Know-Who theme so heavily in the first three movies, hearing his name so often really undercut the terror he's supposed to project. Yeah, You-Know-Who is a really cheesy name, I'll grant that. But the whole point is that Voldemort's name shouldn't be used, except by a select few. If not, he becomes a regular-issue villain. Besides, who in the world imagined Ralph Fiennes' look? They really, really need to be fired. Voldemort is supposed to have RED eyes, no nose, is supposed to be bony like a clothed skeleton. Ralph Fiennes camped it up unrestrainedly (much like Gambon did) and that severely undercut the power of the movie. Frankly, I wouldn't have minded Voldemort being computer generated with motion capture (like a cross of Sauron's look and Gollum's filming technique in LoTR). Having an identifiable actor, however much his face was distorted, provided a human quality to Voldemort, significantly reducing his menace. Once again, fantasy villains are supposed to be really, really creepy. Why is Darth Vader, Sauron and every other fantasy villain cloaked and hidden? Revealing who they are makes them pedestrian. Once again, this doesn't bode very well for the rest of the series.
Other than that, I'll not complain too much. Special effects are fairly brilliant, though the changes made from the book were not all good or even necessary. Performances, except that of Michael Gambon, are good. Quidditch world cup was a sore tease. They could've shown two minutes of the game! I always imagined a certain class to death eaters. Mostly, they looked like amateurs. The first task with the dragon was done well. The third task was mostly disaster for anyone who has read the book, but those who haven't won't feel much of a loss. The movie looks fabulous, score's good and overall it's a good entry. Just much, much short of the greatness the book is. So far GoF is the second best book in the series for me (closely behind OotP). This movie is the worst of the adaptations. That summarizes it all.