A good adaptation, and the most cinematic Harry Potter yet

Rating: 9/10 (19 November 2005)

"Goblet of Fire" is my favorite of the Harry Potter books, so I was particularly looking forward to this movie. It did not disappoint.
The main reason why I like "Goblet" is that it kicks the major storyline - the second coming of Lord Voldemort - into high gear. No longer is the Dark Lord a bogeyman villain, hiding in the shadows and merely threatening to return. Here, we get to see him in all his malevolent glory. Ralph Fiennes plays him in a suitably suave, sadistic and extremely memorable fashion. His resurrection is, as I expected, a great scene, and it's also genuinely scary.
Equally exciting are the dragon duel and the underwater sequence, both of which are beautifully realized on the big screen. Unlike the previous Harry Potter films, "Goblet of Fire" boasts blockbuster-level spectacle; the special effects, for the first time, are epic and amazing instead of merely lovely and quirky. The trademark Harry Potter quirkiness is still present in this movie, of course, but it's blended very smoothly with big-time action and arresting imagery. In other words, it looks cool.
Of course, the book's plot has been edited down somewhat here, and I see a lot of users on this site are bugging out about that. I understand that, if you love the source material, it's hard to see it chopped down so much. But that's what adaptation is all about, folks. A film is not - can never be - a book. Movies are, by their very nature, shorter. Material must be excised. In this case, I think screenwriter Steve Kloves did a good job. He cut out quirky little subplots, like the house elf business, because they weren't necessary to the main action, and because they'd pad out the movie to a heinous length. To be honest, I didn't miss anything he removed. All the essential stuff is retained.
One day, maybe, a forty-hour Harry Potter miniseries will be filmed that'll cover every last event in the books. Until then, I'm fine with the edited-down movies.
In fact, I'm ecstatic about the movies. The casting continues to be great, with some fun new faces joining the already-awesome series regulars. The seemingly ageless Miranda Richardson does well, with just a few scenes, as the oily reporter Rita Skeeter, and new Doctor Who David Tennant is gloriously OTT as the panting lunatic Barty Crouch Jr. And finally, the semi-new Albus Dumbledore, Michael Gambon, really gets a chance to shine. I've heard some criticism of his performance, which really mystifies me, since I think he captures both the whimsy and the gravity of the character perfectly. He's like a scatterbrained Merlin in wizard pyjamas with bread-twisties in his beard - what's not to love?
Another newcomer to the series, director Mike Newell, also acquits himself well. I've enjoyed Newell's work for years - particularly "Enchanted April," "Four Weddings and a Funeral," and the sublime "Donnie Brasco," all of which are great films in very different genres. Here, he successfully tackles the fantasy genre, striking a nice balance between Chris Columbus' nuts-and-bolts directing style and the arty-farty (but really quite superb) work of Alfonso Cuaron.
Newell proves particularly adept at romance scenes. There's definitely a strong scent of hormones about this movie, but thankfully the teenage angst never gets too overwhelming. The scene when Moaning Myrtle tries to sneak a look at Harry in the bathtub is very strangely sexy. It works.
Speaking of Harry, Radcliffe gives his best performance here. He's turning out to be a good actor.
All I can say is...bring on the next one. I'm game.