PDA

View Full Version : Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire movie


Puddle Jumper
11-22-2005, 10:51 AM
Has anyone else seen the movie? What did you think?

Personally, I think it's the best movie so far though I thought it was the most boring book in the series. I just loved the movie.

mkcbunny
11-22-2005, 11:41 AM
LOL. GoF is my favorite book in the series so far. I enjoyed the movie , but I think [i]PoA is the best of the movies. Oddly, I think Order of the Phoenix will make an excellent movie, even though it is my least favorite of the books.

Puddle Jumper
11-22-2005, 01:24 PM
Funny, "Order of the Phoenix" is my second favorite book in the series. But I'm not looking forward to the movie because I don't think they can do that book justice in two and a half hours. There's just so much in it.

maestrowork
11-22-2005, 05:01 PM
Just saw it. I think it's okay, but a little too long and too serious. I know the book's probably serious (didn't read it), but it kind of just lost that "magic" to me. I think a little more humor couldn't hurt. I, too, think PoA is the best movie so far.

Christine N.
11-22-2005, 06:55 PM
Goblet is definately where the series takes its dark turn, so I would think the movies would as well. After all, things are getting serious - Voldy's return harkens all sorts of danger, and life can't remain as sugar and spice as it was before.

No, I haven't seen it yet - but I did watch the A&E special last night :) I have to find someone to watch the rugrat so I can go. He loves HP, but he's only three. I think GoF would be a little scary for him.

brinkett
11-22-2005, 07:38 PM
I saw it and was unimpressed. However, I haven't read any of the books or seen any of the other movies--this movie certainly didn't offer me a reason to, either. The verdict from the avid HP fans with us: too long.

Puddle Jumper
11-22-2005, 08:26 PM
I wouldn't take a 3 yeaer old either. Though I don't think the violence is too graphic - the camera quickly moved away when the hand was cut off and didn't show detail when the blood was drawn, it's still not a movie for little kids. It's rated PG-13 and rightly so. Aside from the dark and scary moments, there's a lot more sexual innuendos in this film. Some of which I simply did not like and felt they were out of place. Like Moaning Myrtle in the bathroom with Harry and Rita Skeeter in the broom closet with Harry. Poor Harry.

This is the one where the series turns darker. Cedric's death is the beginning of the deaths. A major character died at the end of the fifth book and another major character died at the end of the sixth book. Harry annoyed many people in the fifth book which will be the next movie because he was just over-the-top moody so I imagine a lot of people won't like the next movie because of Harry's moodiness, though there's a very good, dark reason for it which no one realizes though some suspect.

I've seen the movie three times, I plan to go see it again because I keep forgetting to take my coupon that allows me to see it for free and I don't want to waste it.

maestrowork
11-22-2005, 09:11 PM
Please do put SPOILER in your post if you plan to talk about plot or story.

Thanks.

kristie911
11-22-2005, 10:01 PM
I enjoyed the movie...except for Dumbledore. He's way too intense. I liked the original better, too bad he died. When I watched GoF I kept thinking Gandolf instead of Dumbledore! :)

Puddle Jumper
11-22-2005, 11:33 PM
NO SPOILER HERE. :rolleyes: Sorry, I misread what you wrote above.

maestrowork
11-22-2005, 11:35 PM
I think Kristie meant the original actor, the legendary Richard Harris, died, and Michael Gambon replaced him.

trumancoyote
11-23-2005, 12:23 AM
Now Jumper's post is the spoiler :)

Honey Nut Loop
11-23-2005, 12:28 AM
i thought the GoF movie was the best so far. But as in all the movies there are errors, which i will not mention here. And they made the Moody-Crouch thing a little too obvious(oops i wasn't supposed to say anything.):Ssh:


Edited to say: And i agree about the Dumbledore thing. Especially when Harry goes to the room with the other champions and then Dumbledore turns up and grabs him. No teacher would do that.

PeeDee
11-23-2005, 12:43 AM
It had problems, and it was missing a lot of stuff, but I was expecting both and was otherwise very happy. Very happy indeed. Book four was my favorite until book five came out, which was then replaced by Book 6 (Book 4's probably second favorite, but it depends on what day you ask me) and the movie did what I wanted it to do. It had some really good humor in it, before it turned grim. Mad Eye was better than I had hoped. He wasn't a character I expected to translate easily to the screen.

I like how they didn't bother walking on eggshells when they didn't need to. They treated the kids (the audience that is) with respect and assumed that they can handle a good deal more than a lot of people are willing to give them credit for. They handled it nicely, says me.

I wish Richard Harris would've waited a little longer to die (He was 235 years old, he couldn't have held on a few more years?) but Michael Gambon did all right in this movie. I didn't care for him in PoA. Honestly, I don't think Richard Harris would have done well as Dumbledore in this fourth movie. You needed a Dumbledore with more intensity, with more vim and vigor. (Sir?) Richard Harris did very well in the first two, when things were calmer and he was more mystic.

Says me. :)

kristie911
11-23-2005, 01:06 AM
WOW...I apologize. I didn't think saying an actor died was a spoiler. I assumed everyone knew Richard Harris died and the new Dumbledore was the same guy that played Gandolf in LOTR. I'll be exiting stage left now...I'll just follow the rest of the thread without comment.

PeeDee
11-23-2005, 01:09 AM
It wasn't a spoiler, honest, it was just a misconception. you don't have to vanish. :)

maestrowork
11-23-2005, 01:13 AM
Kristie... you didn't spoil anything. It's Jumper who's the spoiler.

We really do need a big SPOILER sign on this thread. People are just DYING to reveal plot twists, don't we?

p.s. Michael Gambon didn't play Gandolf in LotR. That was Sir Ian McKellen.

PeeDee
11-23-2005, 01:18 AM
I don't know if I would like Ian McKellen as Dumbledore (in theory, had he been dumbledore). Honestly, that would've been odd. Like trying to have Elijah Wood as Harry himself.

(a cool scuttlebutt rumor I heard on the net awhile back; one of the original casting choices for Gandalf was Sean Connory, who backed out because of a scheduling conflict with his work in the adaptation of Not-Alan-Moore's "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen." Can you imagine him as Gandalf? "Well, Frodo, that was naughty.")

Christine N.
11-23-2005, 01:52 AM
OK, someone please fix Jumper's post before someone reads it and falls apart. LOL

Lantern Jack
11-23-2005, 02:34 AM
Okay, in my possibly erroneous and fallible opinion, there is a major difference between an adaptation of source material and a transcription. Shakespeare and Stanley Kubrick both took their narratives solely from previous works of literature or lore, yet their versions are radically different, wholly lyrical works of art. Film is a venue completely separate from, and superior to, literature, in its astonishing capacity to galvanize our dreams. Many a writer, including the Bard, deeply lamented the written word's impotence when expressing human experience. Again, Stanley Kubrick once famously remarked, "If it can be thought, it can be filmed," then proved it by filming the unfilmable: 2001: A Space Odyssey. Rabid fans grow upset and inflammatory when their beloved works of literature aren't translated, tittle for tittle, into celluloid, like a sect maligning the church for not adopting its beliefs. The simple fact of the matter is, J.K. Rowling's works are, at best, glorified English school novels, pulp thrillers with pedigree and derivative mythological resonance. Only through the aesthetic filters of Cuaron and Newell (I'm not even going to mention that marshmallow, Columbus) has Harry Potter taken on any form of reality, of weight, of mythology all his own. A hurrah's nest of subplots does not equal genius. An army of scantly-drawn characters does not signal depth. Only by eclecticizing the proper compendium of metaphor, and infusing them with poignancy, can a work of art take shape, draw and imbue meaning. Film, and these ones specifically, do that spectacularly. To quote Stephanie Zacharek's review of the film at www.salon.com (http://www.salon.com), the film is "a somber, shuddering, gray mosaic, a solemn reassurance that, just as I've always feared, everything is not quite right with the world." It's raw yet refined, funereal yet edged with whimsy. Epic length does not denote epic scope. But the qualities of the adaptation aside, the simple fact of the matter is, these films are filtered through artists. Plural. It's wrong to assume that J.K. Rowling's way is the only way because it's not. She can't even grasp basic grammar (have you seen her adverbs?), let alone how to forge a clean narrative drive. Honestly, aside from teaching how to read literature in school, they need to teach kids how to read film. So many people are film illiterates. You read film like a work of panel art. Personally, I thought there was much import to the film: an old mariner's boot filling the screen, such a mangy thing, yet brimming with power. The living, rabid hedge (a nod to Kubrick) reflecting the labrynthine depths of dreams. And on and on. These are things literature cannot do: shock us with the primal power of unadulterated image, and we are visual creatures. The printed word is dead; film is eternal.

PeeDee
11-23-2005, 02:44 AM
...

*blink. blink.*

Lantern Jack, you hurt my head.

So. SweetTarts anyone?

I just paid attention and read Jumper's post. Zoiks! What a spoiler. Being thoroughly caught up on the series, I just laughed at it. Had I not been caught up, I would have screamed and cried and gnashed my teeth. This needs to be Edited By The Man. :)

Puddle Jumper
11-23-2005, 03:16 AM
LanternJack - are you saying that you think movies are better than books? That's blasphemy on this board! We need to hang you out by your toenails for that! :guns:

As ya'll can see, I edited my previous post. Sorry for the confusion.


I don't know if I would like Ian McKellen as Dumbledore (in theory, had he been dumbledore). Honestly, that would've been odd. Like trying to have Elijah Wood as Harry himself.

I agree. I don't think it's good for an actor to play the exact same type of character in more than one film role.

Hmmm...

Ian McKellan as Dumbledore
Elijah Wood as Harry Potter
Billy Boyd as Ronald Weasley
David Wenham as Remus Lupin
Viggo Mortensen as Sirius Black
Whoever played Wormtongue as Wormtail (Peter Pettigrew)
Miranda Otto as Lily Potter
Hugo Weaving as Severus Snape
John Rhys Davies as Hagrid
John Noble as Mad-Eye Moody
Ian Holm as Flitwick
Orlando Bloom as Draco Malfoy
Sean Bean as James Potter

Seriously though, I could see the guy who played King Theoden playing Dumbledore.


But as in all the movies there are errors, which i will not mention here. And they made the Moody-Crouch thing a little too obvious(oops i wasn't supposed to say anything.)

You can share them here, that's what this thread is for, to talk about the movie after you've watched it. Anyone opening this thread should assume details will be shared about this movie since the movie is released and anyone can now go and see it.

I don't think they made the Moody-Crouch thing obvious until later when his lip slipped when talking to his dad. I thought that was a bad idea.

What bothered me was them showing Karkaroff near the beginning going into the empty Great Hall where the goblet of fire was and closed the door behind him as he looked cautiously out. Why? What was the purpose? To try and throw us off the trail of Moody? They didn't need to do that. They pointed enough fingers and Karkaroff with what Sirius said in the fire and with the penseive. I saw no reason why they had that scene in there.


Edited to say: And i agree about the Dumbledore thing. Especially when Harry goes to the room with the other champions and then Dumbledore turns up and grabs him. No teacher would do that.

Is that true for boarding schools in Great Britain? I honestly don't know how professors and headmasters are over there. Maybe they are allowed to get more physical with a student.

But then again, what would anyone do about it? First of all, Dumbledore didn't hurt Harry, second, Harry suffered worse abuse from his uncle and aunt and cousin growing up, third, Harry's not going to complain that Dumbledore shoved him like that, fourth no one else in that room seemed to think anything of it.

It did seem very out of character for Dumbledore though and considering the life Harry's had with his uncle and aunt, you would think that Dumbledore would be a little more kind. Snape was just as bad when he kept hitting Ron and Harry's heads.

However, it's a British director this time and I've read that he brings with him his own personal knowledge of what British boarding schools are like and that this movie most closely resembled one out of all the movies so far. So these physical altercations between professors and students may be normal.

I thought the personalities of the key characters was the best so far. Harry's performance outshined everyone else for the first time. In the past I always felt that Ron outshined him but I think Daniel Radcliffe has improved 100% since the last movie. It was good to see Ron's darker side finally show itself. And Hermione felt every bit a 14 year old girl with complex emotions - I totally found myself identifying with her because of it. Dumbledore was more true to his character in the books. Moody was just awesome. Snape's physical humor was a bit unexpected but still funny, though I'm not sure it's that true to his book character. I loved that we saw McGonagall a lot more, Maggie Smith is a wonderful actress. Fred and George are really starting to feel like their book chararacters. Love their humor.

PeeDee
11-23-2005, 03:22 AM
Hmmm...

Ian McKellan as Dumbledore
Elijah Wood as Harry Potter
Billy Boyd as Ronald Weasley
David Wenham as Remus Lupin
Viggo Mortensen as Sirius Black
Whoever played Wormtongue as Wormtail (Peter Pettigrew)
Miranda Richardson as Lily Potter
Whoever played Elrond as Severus Snape
John Rhys Davies as Hagrid
Whoever played Denethor as Mad-Eye Moody
Ian Holm as Flitwick
Orlando Bloom as Draco Malfoy
Sean Bean as James Potter

Seriously though, I could see the guy who played King Theoden playing Dumbledore. Miranda Richardson played (if I'm not a twit at this particular moment) Rita Skeeter, didn't she?

John Rhys Davies as Hagrid would be more along the right size. He's a fairly big fellow in real life... :)

We don't need Hugo Weaving (Elrond) in any more roles, please. It's confusing enough having him as the Matrix's Agent Smith AND Elrond (Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson)

And you forgot to include Treebeard as the Whomping Willow. :)

EDIT: ...and I forgot to include Christopher Lee as Voldomort himself, really.

(and on further pondering, I think that Ian Holme would make a pretty good Cornelious Fudge.)

Lantern Jack
11-23-2005, 03:29 AM
Film is superior to literature. It's like comparing a cornucopia to a pitch pit, really.

And Michael Gambon, my third favorite actor, is the greatest Dumbledore of all time! Ian McKellan isn't fit to buff his wand. Richard Harris's Dumbledore was a doddering, old scarecrow. The only thing that could've possibly endeared him to me is if Maggie Smith had lit her broomstick ablaze, barked, "Have some fire, Scarecrow!" then torched Harris's Dumbledore!

Richard Harris was the tritest of necromancers.

Michael's Gambon's Dumbledore is deranged, devious, tortured into madness by his own brilliance, has no concept of personal space, dresses like a refuge from Arabian Nights and acts like Harvey Keitel's pimp in Taxi Driver! He even has a coke scoop!

Michael's Dumbledore's a mental and mischievous man, not a mouse like Harris's!

Who wants a safe, comforting and collected Dumbledore!?!

Michael Gambon's Dumbledore is Ahab's madness maddened ON ACID!

Rowling should take notes!

PeeDee
11-23-2005, 03:33 AM
I am sticking by the old adage of what to do if you cannot say something nice.

I am also listening to Harry Potter music. That was another point of this movie. I was very annoyed (loudly annoyed too, as my wife can attest) when I saw that John Williams was not to be doing the music for this installment.

The music, though, was very good. I was very fond of the way they twisted and distorted the trademark Harry-Potter-Theme when we saw the logo. It was fitting. So I was appeased.

Puddle Jumper
11-23-2005, 06:17 AM
Miranda Richardson played (if I'm not a twit at this particular moment) Rita Skeeter, didn't she?
I meant Otto, I changed it. :tongue

We don't need Hugo Weaving (Elrond) in any more roles, please. It's confusing enough having him as the Matrix's Agent Smith AND Elrond (Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson)
Funny, when I saw the first Lord of the Rings movie in theaters, I kept waiting to hear him say "Mr. Anderson." I like him better as Elrond, but then I thought the second and third Matrix movies should have never been made.

And you forgot to include Treebeard as the Whomping Willow. :)
Instead of whomping people, he'd bore them to tears.

EDIT: ...and I forgot to include Christopher Lee as Voldomort himself, really.
Only problem is that Voldemort wears black not white. :cool:

Not to forget the Nazgul as the Dementors.

Film is superior to literature. It's like comparing a cornucopia to a pitch pit, really.
Film takes away from the imagination of the viewers. Those who watch a movie are not stirred to use their own imaginations. Anyone can watch a movie with no skill, but one must possess the skill of being able to read to read a book. Reading a book also forces the reader to use their own imagination. And in reading a book one's imagination can be stirred to imagine things that others don't and would never be captured in film.

Michael Gambon's Dumbledore is Ahab's madness maddened ON ACID!
Speaking of madness... :crazy:

I am also listening to Harry Potter music. That was another point of this movie. I was very annoyed (loudly annoyed too, as my wife can attest) when I saw that John Williams was not to be doing the music for this installment.
I believe he retired, so I wasn't too annoyed. When people get old, they retire. Unless you're an actor and your health isn't failing, though that doesn't stop everyone either.

I think I heard some of the traditional themes in the score for this movie. At the end of the credit one of the song titles was called "Hedwig's Theme." That's probably the little ditty that everyone knows is Harry Potter when they hear it.

I liked the music - especially the music that was used to introduce the boys from Durmstrang. I like rythmic music like that. Funny, I loved their entrance and hated the girls entrance. I would have been sitting there like Hermione looking less than awed by their entrance.

Now here's a question to ponder. If the tournament had been held at another school - how do you suppose Hogwarts students would have made an entrance?

Here are some things I loved about this movie...

1. Fred & George- they were just too funny! Every scene they were in was great. When they tried to enter their names in the goblet of fire, when they were joking around at the dance class about saying McGonagall's line five times fast and making fun of Ron when he had to dance with her, everything. They finally performed in this movie like the books have them written.

2. Hermione - her emotions felt just right for a 14 year old girl and I thought her performance was brilliant, the best yet.

3. Harry - his performance was also the best it's ever been. Daniel has definitely improved his acting skills and I thought his performance was the best in this movie over all the others and the best performance he's ever done.

4. Ron - showing a dark side really adds to his character to make him more rounded. As is a rule of fiction, you don't want your characters to be perfect, they need to have flaws. Ron's is that he feels jealous at times of his best friend's fame and wealth.

5. Moody - despite looking like his mad-eye is an eye-patch (which I never imagined in the book that there would be a black strap holding it there) I thought this actor played him perfectly and looks perfect for the part. He was also surprisingly funny.

6. Ginny - giving her more lines to let her character grow and develop as it does in the book and which is important given that she is a major, key character.

7. The ferret scene - I'm so glad they didn't cut it out of the movie.

8. Hermione's emotion at the very end about things changing. That would have been my reaction to it all so again I found myself identifying with her character in this film.

9. The look of the Great Hall for the Yule Ball. It was just so beautiful.

10. The champions - I thought they were all right for their parts.

11. Karkaroff - same.

12. Graveyard scene - just like I imagined it in the book. Wonderfully done.

13. Neville - same reason as Ginny. And I just love his character.

Things I didn't like...

1. Moaning Myrtle in the bathroom - too much sexual innuendo or whatever you call it.

2. Rita Skeeter and Harry in the closet - same reason.

3. World Cup - too short and too different from the book. I would have liked to have seen Winky in this film and Dobby once again though I'm glad they took S.P.E.W. out of the movie.

4. The physical violence (mild as it was) of staff towards students. Dumbledore grabbing and shoving Harry, Snape hitting Ron and Harry over the head...

5. No Dursley's - I so wanted to see Dudley eat the candy and Arthur come back to the burrow being furious.

kristie911
11-23-2005, 08:59 AM
p.s. Michael Gambon didn't play Gandolf in LotR. That was Sir Ian McKellen.

You're right...my bad. I didn't wait for the credits after the movie. He still looks a lot like Gandolf...must be the grey beard. Dumbledore had a white beard for the first movies. That must be what was throwing me.

And sorry about earlier...I felt really bad after reading Puddle Jumpers first post to me. I wouldn't want to spoil anything for anyone.