A good entry in the series

Rating: 7/10 (31 July 2009)

Goblet of Fire is better than than first two films, as well as the fifth, but worse than Prisoner of Azkaban. I must admit that this film was better than I expected, but parts of it feels like a TV movie. Perhaps it's because of the weird cinematography, which is the main downfall of the movie.
In Goblet of Fire, the cinematography is slightly inconsistent. Some are grand and film-like, with wonderful tracking, dolly-ins and dolly-outs, while others are strangely static. Static oblique shots are also overused and come off as weird. Moreover, there's a wonderful shot that leads up to a shoe. In a field of static shots, it's one that feels out of place because of its shakiness. Had the preceding shots been hand-held, this great shot would've felt great too. It seems like it was trying to channel the exceptional cinematography of the third movie without fully copying it. However, this hurts the film as it feels disjointed. Some shots, like the establishing shot of the bridge are imitated. However, the director or cinematographer doesn't know how to use the shot.
In Prisoner of Azkaban, the bridge was a place for Harry to express his emotions and vent to Professor Lupin. They were both comfortable there because, not only were they misfits, but the bridge was a misfit as well, differing from the other bridges constructed out of stone. The composition and framing with the windows are exceptional as well, as it meant looking through a window to a person's deepest, innermost feelings. Goblet of Fire is different.
In this film, the bridge turns to a hang-out place, and the conversation that takes place could've taken place anywhere else. There was nothing particularly special about the bridge. This is the case with many of the scenes. Another example is with the introduction. There is a somewhat long take, showing the snake, Tom Riddle's grave, the title and the gardener's house. It was definitely promising; yet immediately after, the shots are static, and the long take then seems out of place. There's another part in the graveyard, where Voldemort was dumped in the pot. Slow motion bodies dropping in water looks incredibly cheesy! Another problem with the film is Emma Watson's acting.
Eyebrow acting is frowned about when acting for film, and if no one thought that it was bad, just look at Emma Watson. Her eyebrows move non-stop, becoming extremely distracting, invoking humor instead of seriousness. More disturbing is the hair.
In this case, it's not the hair of Hermione, who looks increasingly beautiful, but of the others. Harry's hair is extremely shaggy. At times, it's manageable, but there are parts where his hair doubles the size of his head. Also, the male Weasleys (not including the father) have hair suited for girls.However, there are many redeeming qualities.
First of all, the acting of most other cast members have improved greatly. Whereas Harry's crying scene in Prisoner of Azkaban was slightly awkward, it was improved in Goblet of Fire. Unfortunately, the cries of the father had me chuckling for quite a while. Also, Dumbledore seems to be consistently angry, yelling every chance he talks. The acting of others are much better, though, allowing emotions to transfer on-screen to the audience. Another positive quality is the score.
Patrick Doyle is a wonderful composer - his score for Great Expectations was amazing, as is his score for Goblet of Fire. "Harry in Winter" is an amazing piece, and Doyle's adaptation of Hedwig's Theme with strings (instead of trumpets) works well. My only problem is how the music was presented in the film. It was either too loud, too quite or underutilized. By itself, the music rivals that of the third. In the movie, it was good, but not great. The addition of the "rock band" during the Yule Ball hurts Goblet of Fire as well. However, action and dialog are handled well enough.
Overall, the film is good, but with a different director, it could've been as good or better than the current pinnacle of the series, Prisoner of Azkaban (arguably).