Hackneyed Pantomime and The Graceless, ostentatious Foray!

Rating: 7/10 (18 November 2005)

'The Goblet of Fire' is the most traditionally exciting (a maze, dragons, mermaids, flying horses) of all the Harry Potter books, so expectations for this film are greater than for the other films. I expected to see Screen magic. Once Mike Newell had decided which plots to omit completely he should have made up for loss of comedy (Dursleys, House Elves), proved to be a success in the other films, but he didn't. The result is reminiscent of Director Chris Columbus's handling of the 1st film, 'The Philosopher's Stone', which was almost impossible to follow unless having read the book first. Of the three Directors to make the Harry Potter films, it was the Director whose first language was not English, who made the most complete and professional film - what does this mean?
The Worst Bits: Newell has not understood the heart/pulse of 'The Goblet of Fire' and treats it as a Pantomime of Goodies and Baddies! What? It is a Theme that is utterly annoying and destroys credibility: the constant, unrelenting flicking of tongues (like a snake), which signify the Baddies. This is too immature a device for a film of this calibre and it's shocking the actors did not know better, nor the Editor! But it's the music that kills the audience's relationship with the film. Patrick Doyle's replacement music for the much over-used John Williams is irritating, intrusive and antiquated; all wrong for the images it is meant to support. The combination of annoying music, bits of stories, lacklustre makeup, boring costumes and minimal comedy is an odd mess. Moreover, there are Veela (alluring Beauxbatton Sirens) in this film and only once was this utilised, mainly there are lots of provocative images of boys (poor Harry in the bath)! You'd never guess that Newell went to an all-boys school (sarcasm)! It's like a bad 'Tom Brown's School Days' Opera Video! It is time a female Director took charge of the franchise to stop the films becoming a Tim Burton issues retrospective; after all, a woman created Harry Potter! Is Nora Ephron available?
The Best Bits: The special effects were better than in previous films, but isolated, unexplained (my audience laughed when the Durmstrang boat submerged "Look, it's sunk!" someone shouted). The Quiddich World Cup and the Yule Ball looked wonderful, so it was sad that nothing was shown, not even the outfits (apart from Hermione's)! The only redeeming aspect of this film (which makes it worth watching) is the acting; in particular: - Emma Watson, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Frances de la Tour and Oliver & James Phelps. These six actors carry the whole film in a way that they never have in the previous Potter films, because this time they under-acted, using emotion as a tool of radiance. Plus, Rickman gives the impression of knowing what will happen to Snape in book seven (he didn't flick his tongue)! Newell will go down in history as The One who spoiled the Final Book for everyone!
My Rating: Film/Movie 7/10, Special Effects 9/10, Acting 9/10, Makeup & Costume 4/10, Music 2/10, Directing 5/10, Editing 3/10, Screenplay 7/10, Cinematography 6/10.
Certification: UK Law states that scenes of children being stabbed, with blood evident must make this a 12A. Everything else in the film children will probably have seen before. This film is nowhere near as horrific as 12A 'The Brothers Grimm' (parents removed their little children when they saw how sick this film is). The main reason that 'Goblet of Fire' is unsuitable for under 12yrs old is because they will be bored (in my Cinema, little ones running about playing, not watching film)!
Why See This Film: Because you love Harry Potter or always watch fantasy films or because you like to see Special Effects on the Big Screen. Preferably read the book, so you can follow the story (bits in film not explained by end, but are in the book), and then don't compare the film to the book! If you want a rewarding Harry Potter film, then see 'Prisoner of Azkaban'.