This Cup runneth under.

Rating: 6/10 (21 November 2005)

Note: I have read only the first four Harry Potter books. Take that as you will.
Isn't this inevitable in any cinematic series? Maybe even more so given all of the behind-the-scenes changes between the Harry Potter films? Isn't one of the movies eventually doomed to fall short of its predecessor? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" did.
The story of "Goblet" takes a different turn, as the once-in-a-generation Tri-Wizard Tournament comes to Hogwarts, whose top students are joined by comrades from two other schools of magic in battling each other and colossal obstacles for the top prize. As the tournament progresses, Harry Potter endures issues with relationships and a mysterious pain emanating from the famous lightning bolt on his forehead. A very promising premise that ultimately shortarms its potential.
The roots of "Goblet"'s shortcomings lie in its predecessor, Alfonso Cuaron's "Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban". Had "Goblet" been released after Chris Columbus's two faithful but uninspired renditions, this movie would have been better. But Cuaron raised the bar for the screen translations with his breath-taking scene-setting and finely crafted shots. He infused the series with life by adding a dose of reality to Columbus's magical world. Newell wisely maintained the grounded portion of Cuaron's tone, but inexplicably drained it of Columbus's child-like wonder, while fading into typical technical film-making, feats that constantly leave the audience wanting more of everything.
"Goblet" is an epic book, a linchpin as the middle tome of seven. After You-Know-Who was absent in Azkaban, his presence returns here, turning the series in an entirely different direction. But despite the enormous themes of life, death, courage, and danger; despite the fact that Goblet contains more action than "Azkaban"; despite scenes with Quidditch, dragons, and mermaids, nothing in the movie gets the blood pumping. Even a massive confrontation in the final act leaves one feeling short-shrifted, emotionally for those who know the story and informationally for those who have not. The same material produced a pulsing thread of underlying tension throughout the book, and the absence of that drama points to the way the movie was made. While Cuaron adroitly fashioned a soul for his movie and built everything around that hub, Newell and cinematographer Roger Pratt ("Chamber of Secrets"), who semi-successfully warms up the screen by emphasizing oranges and greens, seem to have ploddingly shot the movie on cruise control. By utilizing far too many close-ups and intercutting tight shots, and eliminating much of the enchanting background, the scope of the movie leans toward claustrophobic rather than expansive.
The music doesn't help either. The fitful work of Patrick Doyle leaves one longing for the occasionally melodramatic John Williams, whose lingering themes are the only memorable part of the orchestrations. The veteran Doyle, who has a few quality scores to his credit (Henry V, Hamlet), seems determined to tell the viewer what to think and how to feel, as though composing from a How-to-write-a-movie-score book. The music intrudes at some key times, then suddenly vanishes at others, screaming PAY ATTENTION THIS IS IMPORTANT in its absence. Like the movie, Doyle's compositions never find a rhythm with the story.
The pacing of that story doesn't aid the rhythm. Even though Goblet as a whole moves quickly, small portions less integral to the core story periodically stagnate the movie. Numerous new supporting characters require valuable time to be introduced; several decent but truncated scenes and characters (Quidditch World Cup, Rita Skeeter, etc.) should have been omitted altogether but were probably crammed in to appease fans; and the broad humor seems forced and out of place. The end result is an choppy episodic olio that deprives the movie of any rapid undertow that might whisk an eager audience into the story.
All of these issues prove that a Harry Potter director should not be merely a guiding hand, but a creative force as well. Fortunately for Newell the source material for "Goblet", as in his Donnie Brasco, is so potent that even his workman-like turn doesn't cripple Rowling's towering tale. But his restraining hand lowers the level of exhilaration, the difference between admiring the Grand Canyon from on high and hang-gliding directly between its prodigious walls.
Having said all of that, "Goblet" is not terrible, and the massive amount of genuine effort is apparent. The majority of credit for the movie's success though stems from the original story, which weaves classic motifs into a richly textured saga. To transform the book into a bad movie would be a truly stunning feat, one not accomplished here. Many of the effects-laden magical scenes are a treat despite being underdone, and familiar characters in new situations are rarely dull. Most of the adult actors are virtually reduced to cameos; but they perform admirably, except Michael Gambon, who is misrepresenting Dumbledore by stressing anger over wisdom. Separating the kids from their roles is difficult, and perhaps actors with more training could more effectively display a range of emotions, but even that is difficult to say, because these actors are their characters. Replacing these cinematic friends at this point would be utterly ludicrous.
Overall, "Goblet" isn't bad, but neither is it actively good or absorbing. Very little wows or stokes emotional fires, a fact exacerbated by Azkaban's pronounced excellence in such situations. If the first and second movies were simple melodies, and the third blossomed into classic four-part harmony, then "Goblet" is a barbershop quartet in which at least one part struggles throughout, missing notes and creating a movie that never enraptures as it could, leaving the uninformed viewer partially in the dark, and the informed viewer underwhelmed, longing for a film that fully addresses all the fantastic elements that comprise "Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire".
Bottom Line: "Goblet" tries to soar to great heights, but finds itself chained down by its own shortcomings. 6 of 10.