Harry's enemy is Hollywood not Voldemort

Rating: 4/10 (28 November 2005)

There are already too many reviews of Harry Potter and the goblet of fire; however, I cannot pass the opportunity to express my disappointment with this last installment, script and director.
The fourth Harry Potters book is probably the most complex and important of the series. It completes the setup, started on the "Prisoner of Azkaban" which was the best adaptation yet of the series.
"Goblet of fire" is a rather difficult book. It is not kid oriented at all. Hard matters like racism, government totalitarism, youth rebeldy and adult distrust are treated far from light all over the book. Something that continues even harder in "Order of Phoenix".
Mike Newel, a romantic comedy creator, was in my opinion the worst selection for this one. He could probably be able to handle the first lighter installments but this one was a job for Cuaron or probably Tim Burton. This is far from his league and it shows.
Newel / producers decided to make a "Politically correct movie". Subjects of racism and fascism together with government corruption and bureaucracy are nowhere to be seen here. The strong riot in the "Quidditch World Cup" are gone, just a brief look of burned tents. The alteration of the news by a selfish reporter is barely seen and more as comic matter than the prejudice caused to everybody. Even the end has been lightened as much as possible (it is a miracle they did not change it at all).
What is still there of course are the usual Hollywood blockbuster things. Very simple story, lots of action / digital effects (not too good, my 9 years old nephew said that the movie was "too digital").
Still, my biggest disappointment was J. K. Rowlings has become so money desperate to allow the slaughter of one of her best novels.
Beware, the Harry Potter's series is really a literature classic. It is one of few books I ever read that span imagination while TEACHING DIFFICULT SUBJECTS that parents have difficult to touch.
I want the whole series made movies as everybody else, but perhaps it is time to say enough. Literature is art, and a couple of "functionaries" do not have the right to destroy art to fulfill their commercial needs.