Is everyone under the Imperious Curse?

Rating: 7/10 (21 November 2005)

Now mind you, I love Harry Potter. However, I can separate film from book and enjoy a film on its own, dealing with some differences here and there.
So believe me when I went on early Friday to see Goblet of Fire with nothing but the best expectations and a secret smile (as I sat next to a green-hooded, obviously Slytherin kinda guy), I was astounded to be walking out of the theatre bleary-eyed, (for fear of blinking and missing anything,) annoyed and somewhat disappointed.
Yes, the film was full of great action and I got that it was supposed to be a thriller and dangerous and all that. I got that Newell was playing up on the teenage angst and the trials and tribulations everyone goes through at that time. I understand that it was a dilemma trying to condense a 734 page book (a daunting task) and that some things would have to be left out...but why oh why did they change some key elements crucial to the plot of the Harry Potter series? And why did they overlook common sense details in having the flow make sense?
My grievances (***SPOILERS***):
Why is Dumbledore so crude and practically man-handling Harry by shaking him and yelling at him at every chance he gets? Why is he breaking tradition and visiting Harry in his bedroom dorm and not in Dumbledore's office? Why is he practically unintelligible and annoying as he mutters after Harry comes out of the pensieve? Everything we associate and know about Harry and Dumbledore's relationship of solidarity and kindness is upended which is so crucial to the plot throughout the whole series (especially Half Blood Prince). This was probably the biggest mistake in the film aside from all the other not as important stuff I'm listing subsequently.
Why was the Dragon hanging on the roof for so long? Hell, it's a Dragon fer cryin' out loud! If I were a Dragon I would've crisped Harry in all that screen time by using my god-given wings and FLEW! Isn't Harry's focus supposed to be about getting the egg? Why is he flying away from the egg to hang out on the roof with the Dragon?
Now I'm glad Neville finally gets something good happening to him, being the last one partying into the early morning (go, Neville go!), but why prolong certain tortured minutes of seeing him dance? Sure, keep it in but keep it shorter.
Hermione. Ugh. I can't believe Newell has her sobbing and crying. Totally un-Hermione like. Also, I don't understand why Hermione throughout this whole film is jumping up and down and is filled with such energy every time she's on-screen. It was over-done and felt totally pushed over the edge. A regular hug in the tent would have sufficed. Newell turned Hermione's concern for Harry's life into something very strange and forced.
In the camp why is Harry still there after the whole camp has already been burned down? He would've been trampled or something. And then all of the sudden the Weaslys pop up all clean and suddenly find him in this barren landscape? This detail annoys me to no end. I understand they were probably trying to show how devastating it was by showing the camp all burned up but it really didn't make any common sense.
So those were my most annoyed grievances. I just had to address these things because I feel like everyone is under an Imperious Curse, thinking the film is all that dishing out perfect 10's when basic filming principles of making sense aren't there. Goblet is closer to an action film and leaves out much of the emotional involvement, plot-important details, and continuity to other Harry Potter films past and future. Harry Potter is not just a teenage thriller, the stories have always been about mystery and time spent with Harry trying to figure out who he is and where he's going next (age-old questions of existence). There was no space and air to breathe, no time of contemplation or to establish emotional closeness. Again, I understand the time limits on-screen, but maybe making two films would have been the way to go. (I shake my head sadly at the unfortunate exclusion of the ton tongue toffee scene.) Oh yeah, and by the way, Voldemort wasn't very scary. Sure, no nose equals creepy but there was a definite chill missing. I always thought he was more freakish, more spidery, maybe skinnier and taller. Maybe more moldy looking, I dunno. I think he's scarier when you can't see him, like the Thing-Under-the-Bed.
I don't want to be too down on the film, there were funny moments and interesting things happening like with the ferret-in-the-pants, practice dance lesson, the ever ominous head-bashing Snape. The stadium scene was executed quite well with Krum's image done that way on the crowd and the little dragons-in-bag-with-smoke-coming-out was great. All of Maggie's Smith's lines are perfect and she executes it so well as McGonagall. The death eaters forming out of black swirls of their cloaks--very cool. And so is the grave marker statue death thing that moves. A++ to Stuart Craig, as visually the film is stunning.
I'm giving my review of Goblet of Fire a 7 out of 10 because although it did not meet the completeness and better storytelling of Prizoner of Azkaban, it is a formidable project to have undertaken and aside from the big boo-boos of Dumbledore and editing, it was a good effort.
I really hope they get it right with Order of the Phoenix though. Expecto Patronum pretty please! And they better include the Weasly twins' Great Exit or I'll have to write up another darned review spewing about it.