communication breakdown

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

[ 8 / 10 ] Film four in the wildly popular Harry Potter franchise has a tall order, as "Goblet of Fire" is commonly considered one of the best, if not the best, of the six novels to date. I, for one, was nervous about the decision to allow Mike Newell to take the helm as director for the fourth installment. Previous to his work on Harry Potter, his resume spanned the good (Donnie Brasco), the bad (Pushing Tin), and the ugly (Mona Lisa Smile). However, I am willing to admit when I am wrong, and in this case, I was very wrong. Newell's offering is a smash hit, and in my opinion, is the best Harry Potter film yet created...

"Goblet of Fire" is a complicated book, in that it deftly intertwines awkward relationship drama with palpable evil and an ever-increasing sense of danger. One thing that must be considered is that the book is quite long, and though the film times in at 2.5 hours, there was no possible way to cram all of the book's action into the movie. Naturally, there had to be some cuts, and I must admit that they took some great liberties with the script. But I must commend the decision-makers in that what was cut seemed to be acceptable, while still keeping the core spirit of the novel alive. Book "purists" who feel the movie must follow the novel exactly might be disappointed, but those who are open-minded, as well as those who haven't read the books, are all likely in for a great time.

The film is fast-paced right out of the gate, as we begin by watching Harry, Ron and Family as they attend the Quidditch World Cup. But there's not much time to focus on quidditch, as sinister events soon take center stage. Before you're even settled in your seat, a group of Voldemort's followers, known affectionately as the "Death Eaters", terrorizes the attendees, voraciously declaring the return of the Dark Lord. Luckily our favorite family escapes unscathed, but for Harry, it is a case of being out of the frying pan and into the fire.

The trio soon head off to Hogwarts, only to find that the Triwizard Tournament has been resurrected from the grave and will be hosted this year at the school. The tournament is a multi-school wizarding competition in which a single champion from three different schools is selected to participate in three highly-intensive and extremely dangerous feats. Besides Hogwarts, the other competitors include the ravishing ladies of Beauxbatons Academy from France, and the intimidating men of the Durmstrang Institute from Northern Europe. The three schools could not be more different in their student population and in their core teachings, which is sure to guarantee a thrilling competition.

Luckily for Harry, participation in the tournament requires such a level of wizarding prowess that an age limit for entry was enforced - and Potter missed the cut. Potential champions are required to submit their name into a Goblet of Fire, and once all applicants have been accepted, the Goblet will spit out a champion from each school. Unfortunately for Harry, the Goblet has a surprise in store for him, and he finds himself in the midst of a competition involving, among other things, dragons and a maze full of dangerous creatures. As if that weren't enough, he finds himself struggling for the first time with "real-world" problems, like learning to dance and being in the awkward position of having to invite a girl to a ball.

As it turns out, Newell's varied directorial background suited him perfectly to film both ends of the spectrum quite well. Harry's stress in choosing a date to the Yule Ball is filmed equally as tense as his battle with the fearsome Hungarian Horntail dragon. The sets are wonderful, the costumes are top-notch, and the cinematography is oftentimes breathtaking. But perhaps his greatest achievement is squeezing every bit of talent out of his young cast of heroes. You can debate their acting prowess in the earlier films, but there is little question that Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson all turn out fantastic performances in this film. Watson, in particular, is amazing - she has a difficult role, balancing the parts of friend and romantic interest as she begins to grow into womanhood, and she finds just the right notes of insecurity and frustration to play the part perfectly.

The two main adult roles somewhat offset one another. I was not crazy about Richard Gambon as Dumbledore in "Prisoner of Azkaban", and I was less enthusiastic about him in this film. Perhaps it is unfair to compare him to the late Richard Harris (who played Dumbledore in the first two films), but Gambon lacks the twinkle in the eye and austere warmth which permeates through the chacter of the great wizard. However, Ralph Fiennes' portrayal of Voldemort is stellar - he is downright chilling and just plain terrifying. Miranda Richardson as the nosy and exaggerating reporter Rita Skeeter also does a wonderful job with her role.

If anyone in the Harry Potter film world deserves top credit, it has to be Steven Kloves and David Heyman, who have penned the screenplay and produced (respectively) each of the four movies. In my opinion, all of them have been fantastic films, all quite close to one another in quality. There has yet to be a bad Potter movie, and with any luck, there won't be. The fact that three very different directors have created these films, all of which have been box office and critical successes, is a testament to the hard work of those involved at the top. I think "Goblet of Fire" gets the slight nod over all the others, in that it is just a touch better across the board: the acting is better, the technical aspects are flawless, and the mood is more complex and fluid, which makes things more difficult to film well, and that much more commendable for such talented execution.