length.. acting.. etc.

Rating: 5/10 (25 February 2006)

Well, first of all, I really loved this movie. I don't know if it's because I really love Harry Potter, or if it was because it really was fabulous, or both. The acting I thought really improved. In PoA it seemed more of a laid back type movie. In the book series, it's really the first one that has a real basis of the over all plot, and is a little darker than the fist two. This is not saying that the other two were just sort of there, but you have to admit that the point of the first one was basically to introduce, and the second one was, hmmm, I don't know. But not to stray too far from the point, I thought that some of the scenes in Goblet of Fire could have been a little longer. For example, the graveyard and Quidditch world cup scenes. In the book the cup takes like, four freaking chapters. In the movie it's gone in like a blink of the eye. Same with the graveyard. Lord of the Rings is three hours long, why can't Harry Potter be that way? I know it doesn't matter if you put stuff like S.P.E.W. in or not, but it would seem better to maybe finish a scene properly. But hey, I'm no director.
The Dumbledore in this film (can't think of his name at the moment) is a little harsher than you would expect Dumbledore to act. He should be the calm one, laid back, but still give you the feeling that he knows everything, but doesn't have to tell you. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) was certainly better in this film than the last. And, I think he needs a haircut, ha ha. The guys at my school have shags, but for some people it just doesn't work. The other characters like Ron, Hermione, Fred, and George were pretty awesome. Fred and George are always my heroes, but maybe that's just because I'm a teenager. Hermione and Ron were pretty good, showing a different side to them than the other films.