GameSpot | GameFAQs | SportsGamer | Metacritic | MP3.com | TV.com
 |
|
||||
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Upcoming Release Calendar
34
10,000 B.C. Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed movies.
83
Alexandra Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed movies.
|
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||
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 |
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...
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.
 |
Return to top of page |  |
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
