Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire movie

Status
Not open for further replies.

Puddle Jumper

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

Bufflehead
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2005
Messages
2,344
Reaction score
361
Location
Oakland, CA
LOL. GoF is my favorite book in the series so far. I enjoyed the movie [it had a few problems, but I don't want to spoil anything for those who have not seen it], but I think 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

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

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
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.

haz a shiny new book cover
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,705
Reaction score
1,336
Location
Where the Wild Things Are
Website
www.christine-norris.com
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

Elder Scrolls devotee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
930
Reaction score
79
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

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.
 

kristie911

Happy to be here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
2,460
Location
my own little world
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

NO SPOILER HERE. :rolleyes: Sorry, I misread what you wrote above.
 
Last edited:

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
I think Kristie meant the original actor, the legendary Richard Harris, died, and Michael Gambon replaced him.
 

Honey Nut Loop

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
428
Reaction score
46
Location
Merry old England
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

Where's my tea, please...?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
11,724
Reaction score
2,085
Website
peterdamien.com
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

Happy to be here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
2,460
Location
my own little world
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

Where's my tea, please...?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
11,724
Reaction score
2,085
Website
peterdamien.com
It wasn't a spoiler, honest, it was just a misconception. you don't have to vanish. :)
 

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
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

Where's my tea, please...?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
11,724
Reaction score
2,085
Website
peterdamien.com
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.")
 

Lantern Jack

My kitten knows kung-fu!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
1,244
Reaction score
234
Location
Minneap
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, 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

Where's my tea, please...?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
11,724
Reaction score
2,085
Website
peterdamien.com
...

*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

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.

PeeDee said:
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.

Honey Nut Loop said:
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.

Honey Nut Loop said:
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.
 
Last edited:

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
11,724
Reaction score
2,085
Website
peterdamien.com
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.)
 
Last edited:

Lantern Jack

My kitten knows kung-fu!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
1,244
Reaction score
234
Location
Minneap
Michael Gambon's Dumbledore is the queenliest of kingly super-spellsters!

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

Where's my tea, please...?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
11,724
Reaction score
2,085
Website
peterdamien.com
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.