Loose adaptation, but still a very fine film

Rating: 9/10 (31 October 2010)

It took me a while to like this film. Five years and four viewings to be exact. When I first saw the film, like many other "Harry Potter" fans, I held it very accountable to its source material, so, naturally, the film did not hold up in my view. However, thanks to a few years of time and a push from a couple of friends who felt they considered this the best of the "Harry Potter" films, I decided to give "The Goblet of Fire" a clean slate and rewatch it. Lo and behold, I was surprised how much better the film played out.
I do want to establish first, however, that this is a loose adaptation. Do not expect the same experience you had with the book. There are no Dursleys, no mention of "Weasleys Wizard Wheezes" (although Fred and George do get more screen time here than they did in the previous three films combined, which James and Oliver Phelps use with mischievous glee), no Ludo Bagman, and no house-elves. I'm not saying these cuts have hurt the film (unlike some other reviewers), I'm simply saying that anyone who has only read the book or maybe held the film extremely accountable to the book should step back and accept that some changes are inevitable in the transition from book to film.
That being said, if you're willing to take the film for what it is, you may find yourself quite impressed with the results. Mike Newell, taking over from Alfonso Cuaron, does more than indicate something wicked is coming. Something wicked is HERE, hovering over Harry and his world like a black cloud. Klansman-like Death Eaters (Voldemort's supporters) are attacking citizens. A muggle caretaker is murdered by Lord Voldemort. And Harry is forced to compete in the Triwizard Tournament, a dangerous series of tasks designed for students far more advanced and mature than he.
When thinking about what makes "The Goblet of Fire" work as a whole, I keep on thinking of what Dumbledore says near the end: "Soon we must all face the choice, between what is right, and what is easy." The tragedy of this story is, arguably, that too often, those above Harry choose the latter over the former. Despite all warnings, the Triwizard Tournament is continued, no one acknowledges Voldemort's potential return, and Harry is thrust into the thick of events despite his young age. What is lost at the end is more than just Cedric Diggory. I think what director Mike Newell and writer Steve Kloves try to emphasize is that the illusion of security, the belief that terrible events can be avoided, has been broken. Harry is starting to leave his childhood behind, and take on the adult responsibility of fending off an older, superior foe. By emphasizing the tragedy of the story and how that impacts Harry as he grows up, both Newell and Kloves demonstrate a good understanding of the darker emotional subtext.
It's not all doom and gloom though. Romance becomes an important subplot for the first time in Harry's life. We feel Harry's awkwardness as he asks a girl out for a new school dance (the Yule Ball). We also get to laugh as Ron handles his insecurities around women by acting like a prat (for lack of a better word). These scenes further strengthen the emotional subtext of the film, and put the onus squarely on the characters.
I think this is the first time Daniel Radcliffe truly holds his own as Harry Potter. He draws out the desperation Harry feels when he wants out of the tournament, and his reaction after his encounter with Lord Voldemort in the graveyard is near- perfect. Speaking of Voldemort, Ralph Fiennes expertly displays his calculated evil. Rupert Grint is used for more than comic relief, as he develops jealousy toward Harry after the actions of the Goblet of Fire. Likewise, Emma Watson continues to hold her own as Hermione. The other major supporting character, Dumbledore, is sometimes played with heart by Michael Gambon, but I did find him abrasive at times.
Fresh talent once again benefits a "Harry Potter" film. Along with Ralph Fiennes, Miranda Richardson and Brendan Gleeson join the party as the gossip-whore Rita Skeeter and the clearly unstable Mad-Eye Moody (respectively). I wished we could have seen more of Tom Felton and Alan Rickman as Draco Malfoy and Severus Snape, but then again, they are not integral to the plot.
I'd also like to credit the film's composer, Patrick Doyle. One of my friends commented that, during the opening overture, you hear "Hedwig's Theme" in a minor key. It's ironic he'd say this, because "Hedwig's Theme" was composed in a minor key, the key of E minor. But because he opens with it in C minor, it sounds more ominous. Some other great themes he composes include "Harry in Winter," "The Hogwarts March," and "The Hogwarts Hymn."
Even when separating the film from the book, are there some weaknesses? In short, yes. Some of the action scenes, such as the Harry's standoff with a dragon, go on too long. Some plot questions aren't resolved, such as how Barty Crouch Jr. got out of Azkaban and what became of Ron and Hermione's relationship after the Yule Ball. I have already mentioned Michael Gambon as Dumbledore.
Still, those are small in comparison to the many positive traits this film holds. Newell keeps the story character-centered, and the cast continues to hold there own. The story serves as both a good tragedy and good coming-of-age tale. I also forgot to mention how funny the film can be, particularly with the buildup to the Yule Ball, but unfortunately, I'm bordering the 1,000 word limit. I'll admit I'm kind of surprised how differently I feel about this film now compared to my initial reaction, but when looking at it more closely, I find myself liking it more and more.