User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 791 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 70 out of 791
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. GE
    Aug 4, 2007
    3
    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. 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. Expand
  2. PhilipF.
    Dec 9, 2005
    3
    What a jumbled mess. Special effects ae used to replace the story line. There is little or no character development and little motivation for the conduct of the characters. Only the avid reader will understand who the characters are and their relationships. It is way too violent and scary for pre-teens. As Robert Evans has said, if it's not on the page, it's not on the screen. What a jumbled mess. Special effects ae used to replace the story line. There is little or no character development and little motivation for the conduct of the characters. Only the avid reader will understand who the characters are and their relationships. It is way too violent and scary for pre-teens. As Robert Evans has said, if it's not on the page, it's not on the screen. Avoid this one and rent it if you must. Expand
  3. SamX.
    Apr 1, 2006
    3
    Let me start off by saying that the film in no way follows the book, and that to me this isn't really a bad thing because I hated the book as well. But, instead of adhering to the overhyped book's many followers, the director has managed to cut out half the book and fill it in with fast paced action. The atmosphere the film has has been pilfered straight out of the LotR trilogy, Let me start off by saying that the film in no way follows the book, and that to me this isn't really a bad thing because I hated the book as well. But, instead of adhering to the overhyped book's many followers, the director has managed to cut out half the book and fill it in with fast paced action. The atmosphere the film has has been pilfered straight out of the LotR trilogy, and the musical score was absolutely horrible. For someone who hasn't read the books it would seem confusing and shallow because there doesn't seem to be much of a story, unless a reader fills you in on all the gaps in the plot (of the book) that the film misses out. Collapse
  4. aldrob.
    Dec 2, 2005
    3
    The effects were really great. Outstanding but the structure of the story was somewhat lacking in substance. It all seemed rushed. This movie was based on a fantasy book but somehow it turned out into a drama story. I did not feel the magic at all. Furthermore, changing the personalities of characters is not a good way to make a movie. Too harry centered movie leaving out the supporting The effects were really great. Outstanding but the structure of the story was somewhat lacking in substance. It all seemed rushed. This movie was based on a fantasy book but somehow it turned out into a drama story. I did not feel the magic at all. Furthermore, changing the personalities of characters is not a good way to make a movie. Too harry centered movie leaving out the supporting cast to be undeveloped. Expand
  5. davidc.
    Dec 3, 2005
    0
    Hail to the thief There is not a skant of originality to be found in this waifer thin super british film(why in films are the british so toffy nosed, and exageratedly propper? we are not really like this). The last Harry Snotter film was much better.
  6. Charlie
    Feb 6, 2006
    3
    Come on! This movie left so much of the book out that it was just unbearable to watch. I have gotten 10 times more out of the books and audio tapes that watching these absolutely terrible screen adaptations. This movie in particular did the book no justice what-so-ever. The first movie was very very close where much of the dialogue was taken directly from the text or used in a way where Come on! This movie left so much of the book out that it was just unbearable to watch. I have gotten 10 times more out of the books and audio tapes that watching these absolutely terrible screen adaptations. This movie in particular did the book no justice what-so-ever. The first movie was very very close where much of the dialogue was taken directly from the text or used in a way where you knew they were trying to consolidate the book, but not leave anything out. But this movie just cut HUGE parts of the book out and massacred the theme. This was nothing more than an action movie and was not even close to the book. Terrible. I gave it a 3 because the special effects were good. The next book is going to be much harder to make into a movie because there is almost no action until the end. This could be bad. Expand
  7. EricS.
    Mar 20, 2006
    2
    When I saw it for the first tme, I saw it with a friend who had never read any of the books. I spent half the time filling in the gaps in the plot that were left out. The other half I spent marveling at the large amount of cuts from the book. I gave it a 2 becasue if you have read the books like I have, there is no choice but to see them or there is a void left somewhere. All in all, a bad movie.
  8. ChuckieK.
    Apr 30, 2006
    2
    There were many things on the surface that would make the average movie goer rave about it. But being a Harry Potter reader, I just have to say that this movie disappointed me very much. It skipped many important details, as well as leaving out an entire "theme" of the story. The whole aura surrounding Voldemort is very confusing, and I want to laugh and cry from embarrassment for the There were many things on the surface that would make the average movie goer rave about it. But being a Harry Potter reader, I just have to say that this movie disappointed me very much. It skipped many important details, as well as leaving out an entire "theme" of the story. The whole aura surrounding Voldemort is very confusing, and I want to laugh and cry from embarrassment for the directors when the Barty Crouch scene ended so quickly when leaving out pretty much everything that explained why the events happened as well as foreshadowing for the next book. I seemed to be reading sparknotes of Harry Potter as the scenes in the movie had almost no connecting transitions. Get a new director! Expand
  9. SidF.
    Sep 4, 2006
    0
    This movie was like no other Harry potter! It sucked! It was crap! I hated it and I give it a 0
  10. KurtS.
    Nov 24, 2005
    3
    I went to this movie, expecting some sort of story line, but what I got was a jumbled collection of scenes with few connecting threads to a story (or logic). Sure, it looks pretty in parts, but those scenes are derivative of some prior movie. I suppose this excusable for a children's movie, but far too many adult film critics are raving about this one. What gives-- were they all paid I went to this movie, expecting some sort of story line, but what I got was a jumbled collection of scenes with few connecting threads to a story (or logic). Sure, it looks pretty in parts, but those scenes are derivative of some prior movie. I suppose this excusable for a children's movie, but far too many adult film critics are raving about this one. What gives-- were they all paid off? Wait for this one on DVD. Expand
  11. AnnoyingredPie
    Nov 20, 2005
    3
    Terrible dialouge, abandoned most of the storyline in the book, (over half of it was cut out) and had more holes in the plot then swiss cheese. HUGE disappointment.
  12. ZippyZ.
    Jan 22, 2006
    1
    No relevance to the book at all. terrible Hollywood garbage.
  13. JenK.
    Feb 28, 2007
    1
    It want that good and was as close to the book and the graphics stunk. It was more drama and not enough info that should've been on there. They took half the book out and added what they wanted. The best movie to me was the third. Keep them coming but try not to make them so corny. Stick to the book some more. I mean the maze was poor and it would've been cool if they kept some It want that good and was as close to the book and the graphics stunk. It was more drama and not enough info that should've been on there. They took half the book out and added what they wanted. The best movie to me was the third. Keep them coming but try not to make them so corny. Stick to the book some more. I mean the maze was poor and it would've been cool if they kept some parts in it. Although movies cost money the book I would rate like a 9. Oh well. Expand
  14. Carp
    Nov 24, 2005
    3
    This is better than the last 3 movies, of course that isn't saying much at all. The movie leaves out far too many key details and has a constant feeling of rush, like trying to see all of a zoo in the last hour before it closes, the overall experience sucks, badly.
  15. NatS.
    Mar 21, 2006
    2
    The 2 points I gave this movie were only because it was Harry Potter. This film was a joke compared to the other HP's. Half of its lines are completely made up and extremely corny. I have to surpress a laugh everytime I see this movie, it's a complete joke. Watching this movie is like trying to read a book on a roller coaster. They try to combine complicated plots with The 2 points I gave this movie were only because it was Harry Potter. This film was a joke compared to the other HP's. Half of its lines are completely made up and extremely corny. I have to surpress a laugh everytime I see this movie, it's a complete joke. Watching this movie is like trying to read a book on a roller coaster. They try to combine complicated plots with fast-paced action, leaving those who haven't read the books dazed and confused. Plus, the music was the worst of all of the other films. Expand
  16. KP
    Aug 23, 2007
    2
    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 completely changed certain characters. Dumbledore, for instance, they changed him from the book. They changed him from 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 completely changed certain characters. Dumbledore, for instance, they changed him from the book. They changed him from a nice, caring, believing guy into an aggressive, 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 aggressive, 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, neither 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 really liked were the Defense 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 humor, 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 confused 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 differences 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, but 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 see 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. Expand
  17. Billy
    Nov 18, 2005
    2
    It's the best of the series, but that's not saying much. wait for video
  18. RamirezFamily
    Nov 19, 2005
    3
    If you're a fan, do not look to this movie to be true to the book. Pertinent details that fill out the characters are missing while other things written in were out of character and/or not in the book to begin with. Portrayals of Dumbledore and Voldemort were sub-par at best. Disappointing.
  19. AmyC.
    Nov 21, 2005
    3
    This film was silly. Silly and contemporary in a way that belies the tone of the Potter franchise. Cuaron's Potter was by far the most fantastic and complex, both visually and character-wise, and throughout that third film I consistently loved the choices he made as a director. Not so at all with Newell. Do we really need 4 Weddings and Funeral bad humor slap-dashed throughout? This This film was silly. Silly and contemporary in a way that belies the tone of the Potter franchise. Cuaron's Potter was by far the most fantastic and complex, both visually and character-wise, and throughout that third film I consistently loved the choices he made as a director. Not so at all with Newell. Do we really need 4 Weddings and Funeral bad humor slap-dashed throughout? This movie was a very odd mix of dark elements with non-witty, dumb adolescent humor, as if it's supposed to show us, "wow! Look! they're really growing up!" Example: Ron (and the camera) leering at a girl's swishing bottom, the twins moving and chiming simultaneously (wow! They Expand
  20. DGirl
    Nov 20, 2005
    3
    If you've read the book consider this a disappointment. Storylines and charectors were dropped, actors were changed, it was scary. The only thing stopping me from giving it a zero is the wonderful effects.
  21. DaveQ.
    Nov 22, 2005
    2
    It's obvious that the book is always better than the movie. but i've never seen a moive based on a book that actually made me wish it had never been adapted in the first place. i have to blame the director and his shoddy shoddy editing. there is a clear lack of exposition. no direction in story-telling. and while the visuals during the tournament were stunning, i can't helpIt's obvious that the book is always better than the movie. but i've never seen a moive based on a book that actually made me wish it had never been adapted in the first place. i have to blame the director and his shoddy shoddy editing. there is a clear lack of exposition. no direction in story-telling. and while the visuals during the tournament were stunning, i can't help but wonder what our director was thinking half the time. the greatest offense of all, however, is the portrayal of dumbledore. awful. just awful. dumbledore is supposed to be a beacon of strength - a symbol of all that is smart and good in the world. he's supposed to be unstoppable. a father figure to harry, who even in his mystery is honest and supportive. this dumbledore was all over the place: yelling at students, nervous, scared. he completely discredited the character. by the sixth movie, who is even going to care? same thing with sirus. downplay him in this movie - reduced his storyline to one letter and one fire appearence. and then tell me how i'm supposed to care what happens to him next time around? i'm disgusted. i'm disappointed. and i wish the movie was never even made in the first place. i agree with amy c. - cuaron's film is much better. Expand
  22. BIllyBob
    Nov 23, 2005
    2
    When did this become Sweet Valley Grifindor?
  23. MirandaF.
    Nov 28, 2005
    1
    I thought this movie was terrible. I loved the books, but the movies have been dissappointments from the beginning. The best of the movies so far was the second movie: it was the longest and in my opinion the truest to the book. I understand that film makers have time constraints, but that should not give them permission to cut 50-75% of the book out! I went to see this movie twice: the I thought this movie was terrible. I loved the books, but the movies have been dissappointments from the beginning. The best of the movies so far was the second movie: it was the longest and in my opinion the truest to the book. I understand that film makers have time constraints, but that should not give them permission to cut 50-75% of the book out! I went to see this movie twice: the first time I got free tickets to a midnight showing and the second time I got in free with a school group. Neither time did I have to pay, and I am greatful for that. I would never forgive myself if I wasted $6.00 on this movie. The movie was not any better the second time; if anything it was Worse! I am not telling those people that enjoyed this movie to stop enjoying it. All I'm saying is it could have been much Much better. Expand
  24. Justin
    Dec 19, 2005
    2
    Garbage! I have a difficult time accepting the praise this jumbled, preposterous, and over-the-top CGI incest-fest is receiving. Newell takes no time to develop any new characters, the soundtrack is a mess, there's all those laughable dance sequences, and instead of adapting any of Rowling's more complex social commentaries for the likes of our inner-child, Newell focusses Garbage! I have a difficult time accepting the praise this jumbled, preposterous, and over-the-top CGI incest-fest is receiving. Newell takes no time to develop any new characters, the soundtrack is a mess, there's all those laughable dance sequences, and instead of adapting any of Rowling's more complex social commentaries for the likes of our inner-child, Newell focusses mostly on the "Hogawarts tortures children" aspects. I should have done my research, then I would have known than Mike Newell also directed "Mona Lisa Smile." That alone is worth the $10 that would have been in my pocket tomorrow if not for "Harry Potter 4: Puberty" Expand
  25. Anton
    Dec 23, 2005
    1
    This is the American Pie in the Rowling's decorations.
  26. AlisterL.
    May 17, 2006
    2
    Some are calling this the best of the series. Some are even suggesting it was a good movie. What I saw was yet another turgid, effects heavy attempt at bringing spirited, energetic children's literature to the silver screen. The only thing that separates 'Goblet of Fire' from penniless amateur community hall drama (other than the uninspiring digital effects) is Brendan Some are calling this the best of the series. Some are even suggesting it was a good movie. What I saw was yet another turgid, effects heavy attempt at bringing spirited, energetic children's literature to the silver screen. The only thing that separates 'Goblet of Fire' from penniless amateur community hall drama (other than the uninspiring digital effects) is Brendan Gleeson's enjoyable turn as 'Mad Eye' Moody. Note to Hollywood producers- when casting child actors, how about going for the ones that can actually act (yes, I'm also looking at you, Narnians)? The series' trio of adolescent protagonists sure are pretty but boy do they lack the chops to carry these characters off. If I was Emma Watson's acting coach, I would have long ago given up on attempting to explain that wiggling one's eyebrows continuously does not convey any emotion that exists in the spectrum of the human psyche, and simply have a truckload of Botox shot straight between those furry jumping caterpillars to keep the damn things still. Grint and Radcliffe are obviously trying hard but their lack of real talent for the craft is painfully apparent, and the real actors in the piece: Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Gary Oldman (and the list goes on and on) are relegated so far into the periphery their parts would be more aptly described as cameos. And yes, a book stuffed so thickly with story, subplot and character development is difficult to adapt, and it was done here as best I think it could be. I just couldn't get past how awful and forced the acting was, and how much time was spent dwelling on romantic subplots that have no resolution until the next installment of the series. The movie's already nearly three hours, do we really need 10 minutes of Harry and Ron moping in the corner at the yule ball? All in all I have to say that the entire series is a disaster, and the rollicking good time of the books has been clipped down to a flashy, stilted highlights package that looks nowhere near as impressive as it did in my imagination, which is where it should have stayed. Go back to the library kids, this sound-stage facsimile adds nothing to the mythos. Expand
  27. MattH.
    Nov 21, 2005
    3
    I simply can't believe this is getting such good reviews. It was at BEST a mediocre movie. It felt clumsily filmed and hastily put together. There's no time for story or character as they try to cram plot-point after plot-point with no introduction or explanation at all. They commit unforgiveable story errors that seem to be forgiven due to the fact that so many have read the I simply can't believe this is getting such good reviews. It was at BEST a mediocre movie. It felt clumsily filmed and hastily put together. There's no time for story or character as they try to cram plot-point after plot-point with no introduction or explanation at all. They commit unforgiveable story errors that seem to be forgiven due to the fact that so many have read the book and know what's going on. I haven't read any of the books, but have enjoyed the movies (especially Azkaban). I had to keep leaning over to my friends who'd read it to know just what the hell was happening. Don't believe the hype. Goblet of Fire is a Goblet of Poo. Expand
  28. KevinG.
    Nov 21, 2005
    3
    When the movie was over I was still in my seat waiting for the climax. It wasn't until the credits started rolling that I actually believed the movie was over. I love the Harry Potter movies but this one was very disappointing.
  29. NickG.
    Dec 11, 2005
    2
    Oh come on... this harry potter lacked all the magic and excitement that the others had. All the acting was delivered like a nativity play. The main plot thread was terrible and based on a series of spectator events that no one could watch. And guess what? for the 4th time in 4 movies/books the good guy turns out to be the bad guy. Do you all really buy this? Does some nice cg dragons Oh come on... this harry potter lacked all the magic and excitement that the others had. All the acting was delivered like a nativity play. The main plot thread was terrible and based on a series of spectator events that no one could watch. And guess what? for the 4th time in 4 movies/books the good guy turns out to be the bad guy. Do you all really buy this? Does some nice cg dragons really get an average of 81? The opening 5 mins and the voldermort scene were great but the other 2 and a half hours were total rubbish. Sorry. Expand
  30. NoahB.
    Dec 11, 2006
    0
    This movie was absolutely terrible. My problem with this movie is not that it didn't stick to the book although I did love the book. My problem with this movie was that it destroyed all the characters and any sort of character development, had numerous plot-holes which were certainly not present in the book (Where the deuce did Barty Crouch Jr. come from. They certainly didn't This movie was absolutely terrible. My problem with this movie is not that it didn't stick to the book although I did love the book. My problem with this movie was that it destroyed all the characters and any sort of character development, had numerous plot-holes which were certainly not present in the book (Where the deuce did Barty Crouch Jr. come from. They certainly didn't explain how he got out of azkaban). They utterly destroyed Albus Dumbledore's character. The character of Dumbledore is very calm and collected old and wise, but never rash and gruff. In the movie when Harry's name comes out of the goblet of fire, Dumbledore shakes Harry violently and smashes him into a bunch of trophies. The main argument defending the inconsistencies with the book or just things that generally are not explained or the lack of character development is that the book is over 700 pages long and needs to fit into a movie. However so much time was wasted with useless and boring sequences, such as the huge focus on the Yule ball and the ridiculously long action sequences such as the scene in which the dragon chases Harry. I'm tired of writing about this, but I have a billion more reasons why this movie sucked so much when it could have been so good!!!!! ARRRG!!!! Expand
  31. Jul 17, 2011
    0
    personally, the worst of the whole "Harry Potter" series, which is a shame, this chapter doesnt represent part of the saga,but just something completely apart, and the romance scene are too many and just plain. Sure had his own good special effects and im always impressed by them, but they just dropped out the storyline this time.
  32. Nov 25, 2012
    3
    For some reason, I didn't really care for this installment. Maybe it's because the entire series was finally getting into the 'dark stage', which is (book-wise) the way in which the saga was unfolding. Also, the effects didn't seem to grab me too much. I do want to point out that, even though I didn't like it, I still would recommend it...if anything, just to maintain the continuity ofFor some reason, I didn't really care for this installment. Maybe it's because the entire series was finally getting into the 'dark stage', which is (book-wise) the way in which the saga was unfolding. Also, the effects didn't seem to grab me too much. I do want to point out that, even though I didn't like it, I still would recommend it...if anything, just to maintain the continuity of the film series. I may change my feelings about it at a later date, but for now I'll stick with my wand...uh...guns. Expand
Metascore
81

Universal acclaim - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 38
  2. Negative: 0 out of 38
  1. The best one yet.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    90
    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.
  3. Reviewed by: Angie Errigo
    60
    Terrific effects and considerable charm, but, once again, you can't help wishing the filmmakers had been bolder with the adaptation.