CNET Networks Entertainment GameSpot | GameFAQs | SportsGamer | Metacritic | MP3.com | TV.com
Home | About Metacritic | About Metascores | What's New | Wireless Versions | Discussion Forums | Advertising Inquiries | Contact Us | RSS
Metacritic.com: We Deal With Criticism
     Help
> Switch to Advanced Search  
Film Video/DVD Music Games TV

Film

Upcoming Release Calendar
Weekend Box Office
Film Awards & Top 10s By Year
All-Time High Scores
All-Time Low Scores
How Metascores Are Calculated
Discuss Film In Our Forums

 

Wide Releases

sort by name sort by score

Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed movies.

 

Limited Releases

sort by name sort by score

83 Alexandra
80 Band's Visit, The
76 Beauty in Trouble
47 Bella
80 Bigger, Stronger, Faster*
59 Blind Mountain
55 Bra Boys
60 Brick Lane
70 Caramel
49 Children of Huang Shi, The
83 Chop Shop
83 Chris & Don. A Love Story
78 Counterfeiters, The
52 Diminished Capacity
64 Dreams with Sharp Teeth
73 Duchess of Langeais, The
84 Edge of Heaven, The
52 Elsa & Fred
79 Encounters at the End of the World
62 Expired
64 Fall, The
51 Finding Amanda
57 Flawless
86 Flight of the Red Balloon, The
63 Foot Fist Way, The
60 Fugitive Pieces
45 Full Grown Men
55 Glass: A Portrait of Philip in Twelve Parts
69 Go-Getter, The
74 Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
63 Gunnin for that #1 Spot
68 Heartbeat Detector
34 Holding Trevor
68 Honeydripper
55 Irina Palm
69 Jellyfish
60 Jihad for Love, A
68 Kabluey
62 Kiss the Bride
63 Kit Kittredge: An American Girl
82 Last Mistress, The
38 Life Before Her Eyes, The
70 Love Songs
64 Married Life
30 Meet Bill
33 Miss Conception
53 Mister Lonely
74 Mongol
52 Mother of Tears, The
52 My Blueberry Nights
71 My Brother Is an Only Child
84 My Winnipeg
61 On the Rumba River
69 Operation Filmmaker
61 OSS 117: Cairo - Nest of Spies
83 Paranoid Park
72 Priceless
51 Promotion, The
55 Quid Pro Quo
29 Red Roses and Petrol
79 Reprise
71 Roman de gare
xx Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
56 Sangre de mi sangre
51 Savage Grace
76 Shotgun Stories
66 Son of Rambow
70 Standard Operating Procedure
62 Stuck
72 Surfwise
81 Tell No One
56 Then She Found Me
xx Thoda Pyaar Thoda Magic
71 To the Limit
54 Tracey Fragments, The
70 Trumbo
72 Tuya's Marriage
83 U2 3D
56 Unknown Woman
86 Up the Yangtze
79 Visitor, The
62 Wackness, The
37 War, Inc.
64 Water Lilies
66 When Did You Last See Your Father?
55 Without the King
72 Woman on the Beach
64 XXY
67 Year My Parents Went on Vacation, The
75 Young@Heart

Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed movies.

 



Printer-Friendly Version Email This Page Discuss In Our Forums

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Warner Bros.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire reviews
Critic Score
Metascore: 81 Metascore out of 100
User Score  
7.9 out of 10
based on 38 reviews
Read critic reviews
How did we calculate this?
based on 380 votes
Read user comments
Rate this movie

MPAA RATING: PG-13 for sequences of fantasy violence and frightening images

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, Brendan Gleeson, Alan Rickman, and Gary Oldman

Harry and friends are back in this fourth installment of the series.


GENRE(S): Adventure  |  Fantasy  |  Mystery  |  Suspense/Thriller  
WRITTEN BY: Steven Kloves
J.K. Rowling (novel)
 
DIRECTED BY: Mike Newell  
RELEASE DATE: DVD: March 7, 2006 
Theatrical: November 18, 2005 
RUNNING TIME: 157 minutes, Color 
ORIGIN: UK / USA 

What The Critics Said

All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review. Learn more...

100
The Hollywood Reporter Kirk Honeycutt
The best one yet.
Read Full Review
100
Premiere Sara Brady
Newell puts his own stamp on the franchise and delivers the best Potter movie yet filmed.
Read Full Review
100
Slate David Edelstein
No, I couldn't be more pleased with what the screenwriter, Steven Kloves, and the director, Mike Newell, have wrought this time.
Read Full Review
91
Portland Oregonian Shawn Levy
A mature, tense, frightening and altogether masterful film.
Read Full Review
91
Christian Science Monitor Peter Rainer
There's ample reason to stay with this series. When Harry says "I love magic," you believe it.
Read Full Review
91
Seattle Post-Intelligencer William Arnold
Harry IV is an intelligent, visually seductive and mostly very satisfying fantasy epic of the first order.
Read Full Review
90
Los Angeles Times Kenneth Turan
It's not until Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire that a film has successfully re-created the sense of stirring magical adventure and engaged, edge-of-your-seat excitement that has made the books such an international phenomenon.
Read Full Review
90
Wall Street Journal Joe Morgenstern
The studio, like plucky Harry, passes with flying colors. The new one, directed by Mike Newell from another astute script by Mr. Kloves, is even richer and fuller, as well as dramatically darker. It's downright scary how good this movie is.
90
Salon.com Stephanie Zacharek
Its look has the same grudging beauty that, once you get used to it, English weather does: It's so defiant in its grayness that you come to appreciate its conviction.
Read Full Review
90
Variety Todd McCarthy
Last year's "The Prisoner of Azkaban" seemed dark, but this excellent fourth film derived from J.K. Rowling's books is the darkest "Potter" yet, intense enough to warrant a PG-13 rating.
Read Full Review
88
Chicago Tribune Michael Wilmington
J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter just keeps growing up. So do the Potter movies, in size, in ambition and in visual splendor - and with increasingly stunning results.
Read Full Review
88
The Globe and Mail (Toronto) Liam Lacey
Death, torture, humour and even budding eroticism -- now this is more like it.
Read Full Review
88
New York Daily News Jami Bernard
The darkest, most thrilling entry yet in the movie franchise.
Read Full Review
88
Chicago Sun-Times Roger Ebert
The film is more violent, less cute than the others, but the action is not the mindless destruction of a video game; it has purpose, shape and style.
Read Full Review
88
Boston Globe Ty Burr
Goblet of Fire is the entry in which Rowling finally took off the gloves.
Read Full Review
80
The New Yorker Anthony Lane
By a pleasing irony, the parts of the film that stay with you are concerned not with the dark arts but with something far more unstoppable: teen-agers.
Read Full Review
80
Film Threat Pete Vonder Haar
The film's quick pace and near-constant action carries you along quite nicely, and by the time Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) makes his climactic appearance, one can't help but look forward to the remaining films.
Read Full Review
80
Washington Post Desson Thomson
Probably the most engaging Potter film of the series thus far.
Read Full Review
80
The New York Times Manohla Dargis
His (Ralph Fiennes) Voldemort may be the greatest screen performance ever delivered without the benefit of a nose; certainly it's a performance of sublime villainy.
Read Full Review
80
Dallas Observer Luke Y. Thompson
In the grand scheme of things, Goblet of Fire is perhaps closest to the original "Sorcerer's Stone."
Read Full Review
80
Newsweek David Ansen
The uncontestable triumph of Goblet of Fire, however, is Brendan Gleeson's Alastor (Mad-Eye) Moody, the grizzled new Defense Against the Dark Arts professor.
Read Full Review
80
The Onion (A.V. Club) Tasha Robinson
Whenever it hits its stride, it's a well-acted, vividly executed, full-speed-ahead special-effects extravaganza that puts as much bang as possible into every remaining scene.
Read Full Review
78
Austin Chronicle Marrit Ingman
Qualitatively different from its cinematic forbears: It doesn't linger on the gothic curlicues of its source material, it moves straightforwardly from place to place, and it emphasizes the emotional development of its characters with dramatic interplay rather than expressionistic, atmospheric gloom.
Read Full Review
75
Charlotte Observer Lawrence Toppman
The best thing about the picture is Harry's new maturity: For the first time, he dominates a picture named for him.
Read Full Review
75
Philadelphia Inquirer Carrie Rickey
Goblet of Fire, fourth in the fantasy franchise, is the most fun and the most fraught with conflict.
Read Full Review
75
New York Post Kyle Smith
Fine for people of developing minds, but the story so often stops its forward motion to take us on long detours into the land of CGI effects that it amounts to a $150 million magic show.
Read Full Review
75
ReelViews James Berardinelli
Imperfect, but magical nonetheless.
Read Full Review
75
Rolling Stone Peter Travers
With the cast getting looser and the mind games kinkier, it's hard to resist.
Read Full Review
75
San Francisco Chronicle Ruthe Stein
Offers a brew of wondrous chimera combined with the wonders of human nature.
Read Full Review
75
USA Today Claudia Puig
It's hard to beat the last movie, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," and this film is not better, but it has much to recommend it.
Read Full Review
75
TV Guide Maitland McDonagh
Inventive visuals and funny bits abound, but the film's gritty look and unsentimental characterizations - Harry, Hermione and Ron are far from golden teens - ominously foreshadow the truly wicked shape of things to come.
Read Full Review
75
Miami Herald Connie Ogle
It's a testament to the power of the story -- and this engaging adaptation -- that leaving Hogwarts is tough anyway.
Read Full Review
70
Chicago Reader J.R. Jones
A 157-minute holding pattern in which neither of the ongoing stories--Harry's conflict with the evil sorcerer Voldemort, the young schoolmates' coming of age at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft--progresses much.
Read Full Review
67
Baltimore Sun Michael Sragow
Too bad the bulk of Rowling's humor goes down a black-magic drain.
Read Full Review
67
Entertainment Weekly Owen Gleiberman
Kids may be appropriately terrified, but to this overgrown Potter fan, Voldemort, the Darth Vader of the black arts, was a heck of a lot scarier when you couldn't see him.
Read Full Review
60
Village Voice Ed Park
To this viewer and reader, the decade-old juggernaut is as deeply felt as it is flawed, dense and illogical and laudably "weird."
Read Full Review
60
Empire Angie Errigo
Terrific effects and considerable charm, but, once again, you can't help wishing the filmmakers had been bolder with the adaptation.
Read Full Review
60
LA Weekly Scott Foundas
Came alive only in the presence of a supposed dead man -- specifically, the nefarious Lord Voldemort.
Read Full Review

What Our Users Said

Vote Now!The average user rating for this movie is 7.9 (out of 10) based on 380 User Votes
Note: User votes are NOT included in the Metascore calculation.

Bam M. gave it a10:
I dont think it was bad at all I mean some parts could have been better but for the most part I LOVED IT! I cont think the movie is getting the perks it deserves. If you think it was bad I dont think we were watching the same movie. Watch it again if you think its bad maybe youll change your mind!!!!!

K P gave it a2:
The Goblet of Fire is the worst Harry Potter film of them all so far. Mike Newell was terrible as a director and I'm not sure if he entirely understands the world of Harry Potter as well as the other directors, Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron and David Yates, do. They complety changed certain characters. Dumbledore, for instance, they changed him from the book. They changed him from a nice, careing, believing guy into an agressive, shouting, unnice lunatic. For instance that line where he said to Harry "I thinks its unwise for you to linger over these dreams, Harry" Dumbledore from the books would NEVER say that. Dumbledore from the books believed Harry in thinking that the dreams might be happening. Dumbledore sending Barty Crouch Junior to Azkaban? That's not Dumbledore! Barty Crouch junior's character was terrible. They changed him from a clever, disguising, death eater into and agressive, lunatic, who wants to fight all the time. I feel sorry for David Tennant, playing a character like that. THey didn't include the fact that he got kissed by a dementor. That was important. Daniel Radcliffe's acting wasn't very good, niether was Emma Watson's. Rupert Grint as Ron is by far the best out of the main 3 characters. I thought Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort was good, and Brendan Gleeson as Moody was good. Robert Pattinson as Cedric was quite good. The only 2 bits of the film I reallly liked were the Defence Against the Dark Arts class, when Moody's teaching them how to use unforgivable curses, and I like sections of the bit where Voldemort returned. Mike Newell tried to include too much romance reference bits in the film. He was to focused on bits like the Yule Ball, and the humour, and not focused enough on bits like the tasks, the pensive scene and the bit where Voldemort returns. Emma Watson thought that they included the bits that need to be there from the book...she was WRONG! There were plenty of bits that weren't in the film that need to be there. My sister was confuesed by many bits and she hasn't read any of the books. How Harr Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the film, became as successful as it is I have no idea!! It was that bad. There were 38 diffrences from the book and the film! That's shocking! J.K. Rowling should be furious. Obviously I don't expect them to include everything from the book, butr they should have put enough in to keep everyone in character and to make it have sense! I'm a huge Harry Potter fan, and it made me angry seeing the 2nd best book of the series being made into a film like that. Here's a list of things they didn't explain in the film: They didn't sa who killed Barty Crouch Senior. They didn't explain why Barty Crouch Junior fired the Dark Mark. They didn't explain why Harry's scar kept hurting. They didn't explain how Barty Crouch Junior got to Azkaban. They cut the scene where Karkaroff and Snape are discussing the dark mark, it was in the deleted scenes. They changed it to make it look like Karkaroff was threatening Snape, when he was supposed to be terrified and begging Snape to believe him. They didn't include the fact that Karkaroff ran away at the end of the Triwizard Tournament. They didn't include enough magic. It was to muggle like at alot of times, especially the bit where Fred and George try to put their names into the Goblet of Fire. Krum's character didn't have much to say. The list is almost endless.

Tom K. gave it a7:
The fourth film in series is better than the first too, but not better than the third one. it is matching the books in style and environment, but it's moving too fast and skipping important events from the book. Still, the movie stands, but not as the third one.

GE gave it a3:
Watched it again on dvd the other day, and have to say it's pretty dreadful. It wasn't the special effects or how faithful it was or was not to the book, but the acting! Man, totally sucked. Newell obviously wanted to give his version some theatrical flair, and because of that everyone acts really over the top, turning every character into a caricature and no nuance whatsoever. There were nice scenes and all, but on the whole the bad acting destroys it.

Sophie gave it a5:
I could go on for hours about my problems with Goblet Of Fire, and 99% of them have nothing to do with being faithful to the book in the slightest. Complete void of the magic and fun of the first three movies, and makes a poor attempt at going adult. If you want to see the first truly magical and more adult Potter movie, go and see 'Order Of The Phoenix'.

Andrew N. gave it a6:
Goblet of fire turned out to be pretty much what i expected it to be. An average book to movie adaptation. It also could not live up to the standard of the book, just like the previous films. Still this is definitely the strongest Potter movie yet. The set pieces were amazing and i thought that the overall tone of the film was much darker than previous Potters. The quality of the acting is improving as the actors themselves become more mature. However the film is just found wanting in so many areas. Without doubt the biggest problem are the numerous episodes missing from the film. The book is over 500 pages so the film would have to be condensed, but these compromises make the film seem rushed and its unsatisfactory that the film feels like two-thirds the experience of the book. There are other elements overlooked too. Why is it that Snape (Alan Rickman), who is one of the best characters, plays such an insignificant role in the film. Fred and George don't have any of the wit and humor that they portray in the book. There were some fantastic scenes in the film, such as the third task and Harry's confrontation with Voldemort. Sadly though these scenes were too short and overall were few and far between. For those who have not read the book, this is certainly a very enjoyable watch. For the many who have read the book, the film will only feel like a compromised adaptation.

Georgia W. gave it a5:
I thought that the moie was enjoyable, definitely. However, I thought that Dumbledore was far too harsh - um, why would he push Harry? - and I preferred the original Dumbledore. I thought that Rupert Grint was excellent (easily the best of the trio), followed by Daniel Radcliffe. Emma Watson has issues with her acting. Seriously. Why would you continuously wiggle your eyebrows when trying to show an emotion? Why? WHY? Its useless - i'm so glad other people agree with me. I would have given up on her a long time ago too if i were her acting coach. Dear Lord. Also, the dress. You know the one - purple, floaty, various tiers...absolutely VILE. I don't think they could have possibly made a more disgusting dress. In the book it is periwinkle blue at least, not pink/purple (which, in itself, I don't have a problem with. Just as a dress...) And why the tiers? Couldn't they have made something elegant and chic? Why does she have to look like a meringue that was tie-dyed??? Otherwise, I thought it was excellent; very amusing. Daniel Radcliffe has certainly grown up, hasn't he? Very nice. Robert Pattinson, Clemence Poesy and (can't remember actor's name) Krum gave excelletn performances, as did Miranda Richardson (fabulous fabulous fabulous). I though Katie Leung was pretty good too, though I wasn't at all expecting a Scottish accent (which, eventually, I got used to). Mad-Eye Moody was very funny, but lacked the mad bit, especially for those who wouldn't have read the book (not me - I am an avid Harry Potter fan, but I know they are out there). Ralph Fiennes was excellent also; rather creepy as opposed to downright terrifying, as he is in the books. Then again, I suppose thats the only way to portray a wizard like Voldemort, as the sheer dangerous elegance is impossible to act. Snape as always gave the best performance (he is my favourite character); Alan Rickman can really pull off the cruel, mean, but somewhat good character (is anyone else having issues about believing Snape's Death Eater-ship? I can't figure him out. Shame we don't know anything about his patronus or boggart). All in all, the most enjoyable Harry Potter film, but the fifth looks excellent.

Read more user comments...

Discuss this movie in our forums

Return to top of page
Home | FILM | DVD/VIDEO | MUSIC | GAMES | TV | Forums | About Metacritic metacritic.com

Popular on CBS sites: World News | Fantasy Football | Amy Winehouse | Baseball | E3 | Batman | Firefox 3 | iPhone 3G

About CNET Networks | Jobs | Advertise

© 2008 CNET Networks, Inc., a CBS Company. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use