Totally inconsistent - and misogynistic to boot!

Rating: 3/10 (10 June 2009)

It was a terrible, awful mistake not to convince Cuaron to direct this movie. Mike Newell obviously has a VERY different vision of what a Harry Potter movie should look like - think Baz Luhrman for tweenies - and he was obviously unwilling to sacrifice any of that vision for the sake of consistency. There is no reason why he could not have filmed the sequel to Prisoner of Azkaban in his own style while remaining true to the central characters, as directors have done with the previous three films. Instead, he directs GOF as if it's part of an entirely different series of books, resulting in so many inconsistencies and loose ends that the film becomes unwatchable.
First off, we have these militant looking, Cold War/SS dudes appearing out of nowhere, conducting trials and making threats in growly, Eastern European accents. Who were they? I still have no what the *&^% they wanted! Secondly, as many other people have already pointed out, Dumbledore has undergone a radical and inexplicable change in his character. Instead of the solitary, solemn and often-overlooked wizard, we now have a growling power monger (all the men in this movie seem to growl when they speak, for some reason). The new Dumbledore also makes threats, shouts and fraternizes with the Cold War baddies as if they were his oldest and dearest friends.
Bafflingly, the rest of the cast all behave as if Dumbledore's behaviour is entirely normal. Meanwhile, anybody who has seen the previous three movies knows that this is not the same Dumbledore. And yet Newell offers no explanation as to why he's changed.
Thirdly, and most disappointing of all, is the demotion of Hermione from the 'bloody brilliant' girl who was 'the brightest witch of her age' to an insecure piece of arm candy. What a coward Newell must be if he can't even bear to have a 14 year old girl playing a strong role in his film! I also wonder how this sudden change in Hermione will affect all the young female fans of the Potter movies, for whom she must have been a bit of a role model. They probably came away from this flick thinking that it's not okay to be strong once you're a woman; that having boobs and boys means that you can no longer be outspoken or intellectual. What a load of misogynistic BS! I don't blame the author however. I haven't read the book but somehow, I just can't imagine a smart woman like JK Rowling painting such an unrealistic portrait of a girl on the brink of womanhood. Confident young girls don't normally morph into wallflowers once they hit puberty. If anything they become louder, more snappy and quite confused. Hermione, on the other hand, has become totally one-dimensional. But then Newell is probably setting her up to play a diminished role in future films, so he can focus even more obsessively on Harry.
Actually, I found that the almost all of the women played second-class and hyper-sexualized roles in this film, to the point of being nonsensical. Take, for instance, the French babes that arrive in skin-hugging outfits at the start of the film, flaunting perfect 36-28-36 figures. There aren't any teenagers in the world who look like that!! And why are they even at the competition? The only magical ability they demonstrate is the ability make showers of fluttery, flowery shapes appear out of thin air. They too are nothing but arm-candy in this film.
In a nutshell, I think that the Harry Potter franchise should fire Newell and make Goblet of Fire over again from scratch. That is probably the only move that could improve this film.