The Best Potter yet, though that isn't saying much.

Rating: 7/10 (1 December 2005)

The first three Potter films are some of the lamest excuses for a blockbuster ever. I always thought they picked all the wrong actors, the child characters became chartoonish and slapstick, and the screenplay is some of the hokiest, most clichéd stuff written (Especially the first film). However I feel that they are improving with age, and that GoF is the best yet.
I understand that there are so many 'purists' who hate the films because they leave out so much of the books' content. But the films need to stand alone, and shouldn't be compared to the books. I was initially upset after watching the film as I realised there was a lot left out, but would you really want to see this book made into two films? The first film would be this long introduction that is exciting in the novels, but would be boring and stretched out when translated into the film. The first film would be 2 hours of Harry Potter before he even starts the first task. Plus aside from that the actors would all look strangely years older than before when the 2nd of the GoF film was released, and they are growing up too fast as it is.
The action was kept fast-paced although I felt had I not read the book, I would have no idea what was happening (especially at the end with the 'Priori Incuntatum (excuse the spelling)', as all Dumbledore did was say the those words and then move on. However most of it was kept well organised, and I think they kept enough of the book's detail in to sustain the film.
At last, for all these years, the makers have promise a darker Harry film, and finally we have it. Scary, brooding and not for the very young, it captures the feel of the book, which I don't think the others did.
The older actors are all fantastic, especially Maggie Smith, who steals every one of the few scenes she has in the film, Brendon Gleeson, who is clearly loving being Mad-Eye-Moody, and finally Ralph Fiennes, who creates a chilling Voldemort that we have all been waiting for. The only adult I am slightly unsure of is Michael Gambon (Dumbledore). I know that he has tried to make Dumbledore his own, but at times he seems quite violent and shouty, a far cry from Richard Harris's portrayal. However, I do think he succeeds in making Dumbledore more human - in this film he really doesn't have the answers, through the previous books/films he was always there, all-knowing. But now he is unsure, and it effects him.
The child actors are improving with age, some faster than others. Emma Watson (who's Hermione in the first film was embarrassing), is the best out of the trio by far. She has a lot of emotional scenes, and she cries very well for her age! Rupert Grint is not bad, but is still left with the lines that make the 6 year olds in the audience laugh, but it is Daniel Radcliffe who is still unimpressive. With all due credit, he is SO much better in this film, and that could be down to direction, or just coming of age. His emotional scenes when he is crying at Cedric's body are actually moving instead of the laughable scene in PoA ("He was their friend etc etc") which was cringe-worthy. Hopefully he'll be better again in the next film.
The special effects are fantastic, and the dialogue is less cheesy but still pleases the younger audience.
Bring on Order of the Pheonix!