User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 837 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 71 out of 837

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. Aug 27, 2010
    5
    Though the book was tantamount for the series, this is most definitely the weakest of the Harry Potter movies. The biggest travesty is that the movie completely loses steam halfway through and ruins arguably the best climax of all seven books because of it. It's also frustrating to watch the movie straddle between being a "grown-up" vs. a "kiddie" movie, as if the producers struggled toThough the book was tantamount for the series, this is most definitely the weakest of the Harry Potter movies. The biggest travesty is that the movie completely loses steam halfway through and ruins arguably the best climax of all seven books because of it. It's also frustrating to watch the movie straddle between being a "grown-up" vs. a "kiddie" movie, as if the producers struggled to plaster the movie with a PG rating while it was destined to be PG-13. Expand
  2. GeorgiaW.
    May 30, 2007
    5
    I thought that the movie 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 I thought that the movie 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 excellent 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. Expand
  3. Sophie
    Jul 31, 2007
    5
    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'.
  4. Mar 25, 2012
    6
    This Harry Potter is pretty good especially the ending, which might have the best scene in Harry Potter to date. But i had one major problem with this film which was the dancing and the modern day kind of music mixed with the dancing . What was up with that?
  5. Rob
    Apr 30, 2006
    4
    I was really looking forward to this movie as I was home for Thanksgiving break from college. When I did see it, I thought it was great due to the action and the special effects. But then, about a week later, I thought to myself that it was exactly the same way I had thought about Revenge of the Sith. The bottom line is that there are many flaws in the movie. Supporters of HP movies say I was really looking forward to this movie as I was home for Thanksgiving break from college. When I did see it, I thought it was great due to the action and the special effects. But then, about a week later, I thought to myself that it was exactly the same way I had thought about Revenge of the Sith. The bottom line is that there are many flaws in the movie. Supporters of HP movies say that naturally, the movie will add things in and leave some things out, as it never will follow the book perfectly. That is exactly true! Except in TGOF's case, the things that were left out (little as they seemed) had a tremendous negative impact on the portrayal of the story. There seemed to be almost no continuity to the film. [***SPOILERS***] Rather than have a central theme like #1 and #2 have, and that #3 sort of has, this movie didn't have any! Rather, it seemed like a showcase of Harry Potter scenes rather than a movie that is supposed to tell a story. The obvious problem with the movie was the rushed sequences. It seemed as if we saw the first 200 pages of the book displayed in less than 15 minutes! Some of this is okay, but it is sad for other parts because we miss some very important things and we don't understand some of it at all. The most obvious example was when they showed the Quiditch World Cup, but no game. I was like, "Are these story writers serious?" Then, they rush straight to the dark mark scene with the death eaters parading through the camp grounds. The scene just appears out of no where, and for the person who hasn't read the book, they wouldn't have a clue what goes on!!! All things seem to focus around the triwizard tournament, which is an okay thing to focus the majority of the movie on, but it dominated the movie and forced special effects to be the only redeeming quality of the movie. Not to mention that the dragon scene took about 5 to 10 minutes too long and that time could have easily been used to fill in the missing gaps in the story. One thing that made me mad was the portrayal of Mad-Eye Moody. The acting was great, but it made the audience, even the people who hadn't read to book, to suspect him of mischief the entire time. No where in the book does it make him seem like a paranoid freak of nature who drinks from his hip flask every minute of the day. Just as an example of a missing thing, why the heck would Neville be so terrified of Moody's Cruciatus curse and nobody else? The writers don't let us know anything about Neville's parents being subjected to this when he was a child. Another example is the random part when Snape get pissed at Harry for thinking he's been stealing his polyjuice potion. That scene was so out of context and just confused us more! One thing that was just WRONG was including Barty Crouch Jr. at the Riddle home scene with Voldemort and Wormtail. We were never supposed to even see Barty Crouch Jr. until Harry Potter sees him in Dumbledore's pensieve. That got me skeptical from the very beginning. All I've done is talk about what should have been done, but offer no solutions as to how the movie could have been like TSS, TCS, & TPOA. Well, I could name a hundred little scenes that could have been switched around, added in, or done better. The most important thing that was left out was the second plot of the story other than the triwizard tournament--Voldemort's phantom but understood presence throughout the entire story. The only time we see or think about him is at the very beginning and in the graveyard. I had to explain a dozen things to my little brother who hadn't read the book because of this. For example, what happened to Bertha Jorkins? What happened to the plot that was talked about in the Riddle House? What is the significance of the Dark Mark? What is Ludo Bagman's (who is never even mentioned) role in the book? What is the reasoning behind Barty Crouch, Jr.'s trial? Why is Barty Crouch, Sr. never mentioned to be murdered by his son? Why didn't the writers put in the confession by of Barty Crouch, Jr. into the story at the end? This last question was the most important because it would have explained everything that the book told us about Voldemort. The movie makes it seem as if everyone accepts the fact that Voldemort is back, when Fudge (who is never even seen) should be denying it. In fact, this and the story of Barty Crouch, Jr. set up the most important part of The Order of the Phoenix because it makes everyone doubt Harry, and in the case of the ministry, cause people to make sure they believe otherwise. Another interesting the book has that the movie didn't touch on, which would have made the teen hormonal urges get more intense, was the rivalry that Harry and Cedric had. This would have made Harry much angrier when learning that Cho is going with Cedric to the Yule Ball. Overall, the movie seemed to do a showcase of the events in the book, rather than trying to be the book itself, hence the title The Goblet of Fire. In addition to the plot being confusing and entirely unfinished, the acting of Michael Gambon playing Dumbledore was atrocious to say the best. Richard Harris definitely was the best actor on the face of the earth for Dumbledore, but since he passed away, the writers should have found a worthy actor to follow in Harris's footsteps. Gambon was the second biggest turnoff in the movie for me. He did not match Dumbledore's character at all. Instead of being a loving, confident sage, he was an angry, uncaring, and confused man. His should-be consoling scene with Harry at the end is completely unnecessary, and does nothing to strengthen their relationship is the book does. Also, he frequent yelling completely takes away from the Richard Harris-esq Dumbledore we all love. With all of that said, I still give the movie a 4 rather than a 2 or 3 because most of actors did a good job. Ralph Fiennes (although he could have had red eyes and had a slightly more intimidating presence) was a great Voldemort. While Mad-eye did not act that way in the book, the acting was great. The 3 main characters, particularly Emma Watson as Hermione, are really beginning to progress. Hagrid was always great as usual! All in all, if this is how the 4th book was portrayed, and because of the way the writers didn't include the information that was crucially needed to lead in The Order of the Phoenix, I'm afraid for when the next three movies come out, if they want to keep making them. Expand
  6. Joe
    Dec 4, 2005
    4
    I found the other Potter movies entertaining, but I thought this one was the least entertaining by far. I just didn't care about the plot. I felt throughout the movie that it wasn't getting anywhere, and lacked inspiration. Who cares who wins the contest? Not me.
  7. Constant
    Jan 11, 2006
    6
    HP4 suffers from heavy rhythm problems. You can tell from the directing that scenarists have struggled for months to fit the whole book into a 3-hour footage, yet at the end of the day so much is eluded and things stay at such a superficial level (dialogues never longer than 2 lines) that no pace can possibly install. Ironically for "too short a movie", you end up looking at your watch. HP4 suffers from heavy rhythm problems. You can tell from the directing that scenarists have struggled for months to fit the whole book into a 3-hour footage, yet at the end of the day so much is eluded and things stay at such a superficial level (dialogues never longer than 2 lines) that no pace can possibly install. Ironically for "too short a movie", you end up looking at your watch. Technically, it is good though (but who would rate a movie on its technical achievement? so easy nowadays), despite the age problem for the main actors, which can easily be abstracted. In a nutshell, not essential, less interesting than the previous one. Expand
  8. JeremiahM.
    Apr 5, 2006
    6
    Chris Columbus staged his "Potter" as a kind of droll pageant, like a "Harry Potter's Greatest Hits" that inexplicably insisted on remixing every song, draining away their grungy vitality and blissful wit by burying them under a pyre of studio redubs, children's choirs, and "Home Alone"-level John Williams. Alfonso Cuaron reconceived of the series as a canny mix of the Chris Columbus staged his "Potter" as a kind of droll pageant, like a "Harry Potter's Greatest Hits" that inexplicably insisted on remixing every song, draining away their grungy vitality and blissful wit by burying them under a pyre of studio redubs, children's choirs, and "Home Alone"-level John Williams. Alfonso Cuaron reconceived of the series as a canny mix of the eccentric, the frightening, and the beautiful. His film is the one J.K Rowling had embedded in her story all along. Mike Newell, with "Goblet of Fire," comes to the preceding with a patience long-eroded by television, or "Mona Lisa Smile," or the sugar he might have compulsively consumed to "brainmeld" with the world's kids. His movie simultaneously feels repellently unmagical and drunk on the idea of magic. [***SPOILERS***] When Harry says, "I love magic," he's stepping far outside the confines of Rowlings verisimilitudinous world to be cute. And that's precisely where this film fails. Rowling crafts a world where magic is the order of the day, every day.At times, it's so familiar as to seem frustrating, or absurd. This movie loves magic and has the special effects to prove it in court, if need be. But where's the life behind it all? Not in Hogwarts' paintings, or in its musty halls: Newell has done the greatest disservice of all by imagining Hogwarts as a boarding school- Rowling's starting point- and then stopping. Instances of the novel or beautiful occur at precisely spaced intervals- namely, when the kids' patience might start to wear thin. Speaking of patience, Newell has none to speak of. He has conceived of "Goblet of Fire" as a three-act drama. Everything prior to and including the first challenge is Act One; suddenly, as if someone forgot to mention it, the Yule Ball and, shockingly immediately thereafter, the second challenge are upon us in Act Two; Act three has no structure to speak of but contains the good, Hammer-horror stuff from the book, slapped onto an unbelievably brief third trial. Are we to believe that after the dragon, that's all the tournament would have for Harry? Doesn't old Voldy (Ralph Fiennes, for Chrissake) need to slow down a little so that all those long awaited curses can be uttered? Doesn't Harry's adrenaline flow compensate for his youth by allowing him to experience the most climactic moment of his life thus far without feeling that it's all far too ephemeral? The whole affair seems ingloriously rushed, and Newell has so pounded our brains with vain special effects that when the really beautiful image of the wand-beams meeting comes about it feels like so much more of the same. Yes, Potter stories require the sum of effects present here. But no other Potter film has so shamelessly rubbed them in our faces. It felt like "Revenge of the Sith" all over again. Newell, to be fair, does much better with the humans in the film; this Potter, even more than Cuaron's, seems populated by breathing individuals. Apparently, directing Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts puts one at ease with the lesser celebrities of Potter's world, because Mike here has done an excellent job capturing the mannerisms, rough speech, and conflicted emotions of adolescence; he seems more at ease when relaxing with his cast than when sitting beside the editor or parsing through thousands of effects shots. The episodic nature must be due in part to Kloves, but I liked his work on the last one (and "Wonder Boys") so much I'm hesitant to blame him. To close, Rowling's "Goblet" was the least magical of the series so far; Newell's is on par with Columbus's for that title among the films. It doesn't fix any of the book's problems, but creates new ones; thankfully, it's all very well acted (kudos to Michael Gambon & Brendan Gleason). The film simultaneously is tiring and needs to be longer (to compensate for the rushed feel), and needs desperately for Rowling's whimsy to save it from its dour self. Expand
  9. YawnBumblebore
    Nov 19, 2005
    5
    [***SPOILERS***] 10 for special effects, zero for plot, which works out (rather charitably, I think) to a 5. Visually, this is a spectacular film. But visuals should always be in the service of a film's story line; not the other way around, and this film's plot was a shambles. The film had scenes and events that contributed absolutely nothing to the story., entire plot lines[***SPOILERS***] 10 for special effects, zero for plot, which works out (rather charitably, I think) to a 5. Visually, this is a spectacular film. But visuals should always be in the service of a film's story line; not the other way around, and this film's plot was a shambles. The film had scenes and events that contributed absolutely nothing to the story., entire plot lines developed halfway and then rudely abandoned. Example: Harry's budding romance with some undistinguished girl that never either blossomed or died, but just sort of withered away of neglect, I guess, somewhere offscreen. Example: The death of ------, which was unnecessary and had absolutely zero significance for the story line. The worst violation of form comes in what was evidently intended to be the film's climactic moment: Harry's great encounter with the arch-villain Waldemort. This is a joke, with Harry and W. spraying streams of sparks at each other from their wands in some kind of an adolescent Wiz contest, then abruptly stopping so that Harry can exit stage left. Nothing ever comes of this scene; dramatically and plot-wise it is a big unresolved hole that the characters blithely ignore right up to the end of the film like the proverbial elephant in the room. Someone has *got* to be paying at least *some* of these reviewers for the inflated ratings that I see posted on this site. And the rest of you are, I don't know, some kind of J.K. Rowling sycophants. But, hey, the kids in the audience where I saw it absolutely loved it, so maybe I'm the one whose clock needs adjusting.. All I can say is, if you are willing to completely suspend all critical thinking and just immerse yourself in right-brain activity, you should definitely see this film; otherwise, stay far away. Expand
  10. BrandonM.
    Nov 27, 2005
    4
    This movie wasn't bad. Though I had expected more of a story here but they just jumped right into action and never let up on it. I felt for the first hour they were just setting so much up and than rushed to the end. I haven't read this book myself and still felt there was an underlining story missing. This could have had an extra hour easily to tell that story and I don't This movie wasn't bad. Though I had expected more of a story here but they just jumped right into action and never let up on it. I felt for the first hour they were just setting so much up and than rushed to the end. I haven't read this book myself and still felt there was an underlining story missing. This could have had an extra hour easily to tell that story and I don't think any one would have noticed the extra length. Expand
  11. DerekP.
    Jan 17, 2006
    6
    I overall think it was worth the admission, but I would have liked to see Newell throw out the rulebooks and go for something outside of the box. Put his own stamp on it. I mean, you can't really go wrong with making such a film from a great and appealing novel. But would someone please teach these kids how to act? Please.
  12. ChingF.
    Apr 15, 2007
    5
    As a fanatical Harry Potter fan, I cannot give this film a 0 (though I want to). There were many, many errors in this movie, and I believe that has been the worst movie yet. Though CoS was the least well-received, it stuck well to the plot-lines, and the major theme, and POINT of the story. GOF however, detracted completely from the plot of the book, and boomeranged off into the Forbidden As a fanatical Harry Potter fan, I cannot give this film a 0 (though I want to). There were many, many errors in this movie, and I believe that has been the worst movie yet. Though CoS was the least well-received, it stuck well to the plot-lines, and the major theme, and POINT of the story. GOF however, detracted completely from the plot of the book, and boomeranged off into the Forbidden Forest with unnecessary focus on the first task, the "motherly" relationship from Hermione, the Yule Ball event, and the Quiddtich World Cup. I am not saying that Quidditch should not have been in there -- but if the director wanted to completely cut off the game, then why not cut off the entire sequence in general, and have the Death Eaters attacking the World Cup through the Daily Prophet, while Harry stays at the Weasley's and allows the characters to develop personalities (something LACKING greatly). Moving on with the character development, let me just say this to Mike Newell, Steven Kloves: YOU HAVE FAILED! Not only were the dialogue delivered cheesy (ahem, "I love magic"? What the f.ck?), the trio seemed like people from Orwell's 1984. Hermione was this overly protective mommy, and yet, Emma Watson's acting never ceases to amaze us with its poor quality, makes it seem as though her "love" may be borderline sexual. Her eyebrows certainly tell a different tale. Michael Gambon as Dumbledore could not have been worse, if not, catastrophic -- it destroyed the loving, cool, grace of Harris' work, and made Dumbledore into a confused, blibbering, irrational, untrusting lunatic. The real dumbledore would have never pushed Harry into a pile of pots/pans/trophies. Though Rupert and Dan seem to be improving (not well, but working hard), Emma is simply embarrassing next to them. The third movie, Prizoner of Azkaban, was my favorite. Although Cuaron snipped off critical bits of information, altogether, it seemed like a film that followed a plot, a string of events that tied together, and smart dialogue that brought quirky humor (except for the talking heads) and subtle, yet blush-worthy, enjoyable adolescent moments (not like it overboard, and useless in GOF). The budding adolescence theme in GOF was overworked, and cutting some of it out could have been used to cover some gaping plot-holes. In general, PoA was an artful film, one that seemed like it was delivered by a true film maker, an artist -- NOT some bimbo who could only string a slideshow of events together. GOF deserves a 5. Perhaps even less. But I'll do it some dignity, as a Harry Potter fan. Expand
  13. JoS.
    Mar 8, 2009
    6
    Good attempt at my favorite of the books. I think K P's response was head on. What made me love this book was the of course Goblet of Fire. But the Yule Ball seemed to last forever with the odd punkish band. After the Ball it seemed that they raced against time to catch up with the story and the 2nd competition was over before it even started.
  14. Efrozen
    Nov 20, 2005
    6
    To many holes! Dumbledore is suppose to be this strong powerful wizard with few words, and he was like a timid coward in this one. I hated how they filmed the dragon cut scenes (harry just sitting on the bed), they could have had flashes of the other students fighting. Second is still the best.
  15. KeatonK.
    Dec 9, 2005
    6
    Absolutely devoid of any magic but it's own eagerness.
  16. DanielV.
    Jan 18, 2006
    5
    This movie was total mockery of the novel. More than half the story was missing, characters were portrayed wrong (eg Barty Crouch JR., Dumbledore, Voldemort), and scenes were changed dramatically ( e.g. the dragon scene). I personally did not like the other movies, and I was hoping for this one to be much better, but it only made me mad. Had I not read the book I may have found the movie This movie was total mockery of the novel. More than half the story was missing, characters were portrayed wrong (eg Barty Crouch JR., Dumbledore, Voldemort), and scenes were changed dramatically ( e.g. the dragon scene). I personally did not like the other movies, and I was hoping for this one to be much better, but it only made me mad. Had I not read the book I may have found the movie entertaining so that is why I gave it a five. I hope J.K. Rowling is resenting that she had signed off her books to these directors who can't seem to get it right. And for the love of God please get these kids to act. Emma is by far the worst( also seeing her face constantly contorting when she talks is really annoying)but Rupert is decent compared to the others. Expand
  17. RitaP.
    Jan 31, 2006
    6
    Would've given it an 8 if it was truer to the novel. If they couldn't get the whole plot in then they should've made it a two parter rather than take shortcuts - also they would've made twice the money. It was also a bit too violent for kids.
  18. JRMinter
    Nov 19, 2005
    4
    This did a terrible job of keeping the movie flowing smoothly. If you did not read the book I would imagine parts of the movie were confusing. You didnt really feel like you knew the characters as well in this movie. Dumbledore is awful and Snape and Malfoy were almost nonexsistent. Big disappointment.
  19. DanaM.
    Nov 24, 2005
    5
    I must confess I didn't read the book. But still a movie director must ensure that the plot follows smoothly from one event to the next. This seemed a hodge-podge of semi-related events with virutally little flow. Dialogue at times was impossible to hear, especially with the heavy english accent. Poor microphone placement. This movie should have been done in two parts if it I must confess I didn't read the book. But still a movie director must ensure that the plot follows smoothly from one event to the next. This seemed a hodge-podge of semi-related events with virutally little flow. Dialogue at times was impossible to hear, especially with the heavy english accent. Poor microphone placement. This movie should have been done in two parts if it wasn't possible to capture the characters completely. And what's with the dwarf? What part did he play? A ying to the tall womans yang? The ball scene was strained and argumentative. Sorry, I was very disappointed. Expand
  20. TimD.
    Nov 26, 2005
    5
    I wanted to love this movie. I went to see it ready to be bowled over. I've read all of the Harry Potter books more than once, and the fourth, for me, is a high point of the series. After being underwhelmed by the first two Harry Potter films, 'The Prisoner of Azkaban' left me much happier and looking forward to the next chapter. Yes, a lot of the story was shaved away in I wanted to love this movie. I went to see it ready to be bowled over. I've read all of the Harry Potter books more than once, and the fourth, for me, is a high point of the series. After being underwhelmed by the first two Harry Potter films, 'The Prisoner of Azkaban' left me much happier and looking forward to the next chapter. Yes, a lot of the story was shaved away in 'Azkaban,' but the streamlined product had wings and I enjoyed it. The book of The Goblet of Fire, however, is twice as long as The Prisoner of Azkaban, and in slicing it down to a 2 hour and 20 minute movie (not counting the seemingly endless credits), they eliminated so much that the result came to feel to me like a Reader's Digest condensed novel -- compressed, unsatisfying, with most of it feeling rushed and superficial. Yes, there are aspects I appreciated -- Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Brendon Gleeson, for example. I liked that the Weasley twins got a fair amount of screen time. There were some good laughs, and the dragon they came up with for the first round of the tournament is dynamite (though that sequence is an example of where I wish they'd just followed the story instead of Hollywoodizing it -- on the other hand, I'll take that round over the film's version of the second and third rounds). But it when it came to the two key climactic scenes -- the confrontation with Voldemort and Moody's big final scene in his office -- the rampant cutting and compacting worked against them in a terminal way. For me, anyway. A lot happens in those two crucial scenes and I might have been able to live with the hypercompression of what had come before if those two scenes had been given the time they demand. (Plus, I never believed for a second that Harry couldn't have easily freed himself from the statue supposedly holding him in the graveyard.) For the life of me, I can't understand why the filmmakers haven't paid more attention to Peter Jackson's handling of the Rings trilogy -- a classic case of when excessive cutting of the story would have been fatal (as it was for me here) and where more turned out to be more, serving the material in a way the moviegoing public recognized and responded to. Expand
  21. MelissaM.
    Dec 25, 2005
    6
    Was okya, not much of a plot, other than to setup #4. Definitely not my favorite, but not as bad as the giant snake.
  22. DanC.
    Dec 3, 2005
    5
    [***SPOILERS***] I liked the first three very much. But this was a very unsatisfying film to me. I'm extremely surprised by the many strong reviews. I don't know if the movie simply plays differently for people who have read the book. This film seemed to be a series of terribly-written and staged scenes with little connection. On a large scale, there was absolutely no feel of an [***SPOILERS***] I liked the first three very much. But this was a very unsatisfying film to me. I'm extremely surprised by the many strong reviews. I don't know if the movie simply plays differently for people who have read the book. This film seemed to be a series of terribly-written and staged scenes with little connection. On a large scale, there was absolutely no feel of an entire school year passing- the action seemed to take place over about a week. Ron and Hermione had little to do; Hermione's romance took place without a single scene of conversation between her and the boy! CAUTION: SPOILERS. The worst part of the film was the utterly bizarre way that many scenes unfolded. Harry appeared to have no idea what to do during the challenges - he hardly used magic at all! In what way did he use his skills as a wizard to defeat the dragon? For the underwater challenge, he was simply given a solution, and once he was underwater, he used no magic except at the very end. Also, are we to understand that Ron, Hermione, and the others would have died if they hadn't been rescued? If yes, that's insane and it makes no sense that the Hogwarts faculty would go along with it. If not, why does it matter that Harry saves the French girl and why should her sister be so thankful? In the final challenge, Harry again never uses magic until he frees Cedric. When he and Cedric are transported to the graveyard, Voldemort's underling kills Cedric with no apparent difficulty, at a moment when Cedric is already on his guard - and this is supposed to be the strongest final-year student at Hogwarts, who has already succeeded in three Triwizard challenges??? And there Harry hangs in the graveyard, so helpless that he can be sliced open to collect his blood (and so passive that he does nothing at all while the underling goes thru a lengthy process to revive Voldemort), but neither Voldemort or his underling kill him right then when they have the chance? Also, Harry sees with his own eyes that Malfoy's father is in league with Voldemort- what does he do about it when he returns to Hogwarts? What happens to Malfoy or his father after that? Nothing, as far as we know. And then Harry walks into Moody's office and stands there passively waiting to be killed once false-Moody reveals himself to be in league with Voldemort, until Dumbledore bursts in to save him- Harry literally does absolutely nothing while Moody walks around and gives a movie-bad-guy speech about how he's about to kill him. Maybe these events are more coherent and well-written in the book, but in the film they made no sense and were maddening in their illogic. Expand
  23. LeeR.
    Dec 4, 2005
    4
    Too much left unshown. Whoever directs the next flick will have a heck of a lot of explaining to do. For example (one of about 23) , how do Fred and George get the cash for the joke shop? Kudos, though to all the kids, who, along with Gleeson, did a great job. I'm blaming Newell for letting Gambon misread Dumbledore.
  24. Harryluver
    Jan 13, 2006
    6
    I think the special effects were great but I have read the book and think that this movie is to short and doesn't have what is should have.
  25. S.M.
    Apr 11, 2006
    6
    First off, I'd like to say: it's Harry Potter, so I think it would be hard to screw up _completely_. Goblet of Fire is an intense book with far more action than the books previous, and although it does leave some of the whimsy of the previous books behind, it's still there. The movie, however, ignores that completely. Relative to the previous film, the Prisoner of Azkaban, First off, I'd like to say: it's Harry Potter, so I think it would be hard to screw up _completely_. Goblet of Fire is an intense book with far more action than the books previous, and although it does leave some of the whimsy of the previous books behind, it's still there. The movie, however, ignores that completely. Relative to the previous film, the Prisoner of Azkaban, it's a much more lackluster film (though that may be unfair because, out of the two, Prisoner of Azkaban is the better book---of all the series, in fact). Less artsy, I think. (Though, I'd like to note that the World Cup at the beginning of the movie looked absolutely SUPERB. However, the fact that you didn't actually get to watch the course of the game disturbed me immensely.) What turned me off the most about this movie is the dramatic change in Dumbledore's temperment that is not synonymous with how he behaves in the actual book. It seems like he's always angry and yelling and confused, and that's a LOT different than what happens in the book. The fifth movie is where he should show some anger, though not even of the degree shown in this film. I just really hated how they portrayed him in this film. Expand
  26. Louis
    Apr 11, 2006
    5
    I read only the first HP book and found it 1-dimensional and predictable. This movie is not different. In most books/movies the "twist" is that one of the professors turns out to be the baddy. Special effects are entertaining though. But otherwise dull. A children's story does not need to be so shallow.
  27. AndrewN.
    Jul 13, 2007
    6
    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 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. Expand
  28. Sammy
    Nov 18, 2005
    6
    As much as I love Harry Potter, I have to say this movie was disappointing. It is mediocre at best. There are so many changed and left out parts. Also, the moviehas so many jokes and tries to make a dark story more light hearted. The book is great, the movie is far from it.
  29. BC
    Nov 19, 2005
    4
    I was quite disappointed with the film. It didn't flow smoothly at all. I felt as if the director pasted together several scenes in order to cover plot points without transitioning them well. More importantly, a great deal from the book is left out of the film. No mention of some characters (e.g.- Dobby, Ludo Bagman), no time at the Dursley's and only the team intros for the I was quite disappointed with the film. It didn't flow smoothly at all. I felt as if the director pasted together several scenes in order to cover plot points without transitioning them well. More importantly, a great deal from the book is left out of the film. No mention of some characters (e.g.- Dobby, Ludo Bagman), no time at the Dursley's and only the team intros for the Quidditch World Cup final left me feeling shortchanged. Moreover, the parts from the book that do make it into the film are often incorrect. Despite all that, what irked me the most is Michael Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore. He simply is not accurate to the Dumbledore of the books. Richard Harris was spot on as Dubledore and I sorely miss him in the role. On the positive side, Ray Finnes was great as Voldemort and seeing the magic from the books come to life on film is always entertaining. But for me, this is the poorest of the 4 films. I hope Order of the Phoenix is better. Expand
  30. BrianG.
    Nov 19, 2005
    4
    Major, major disappointment. The plotline jumps around so much, it is hard to keep up, even for someone like me who has read all the Harry Potter books. For instance, the novel leads up to the Quidditch World Cup, all the way to the announcement "Let the game begin", then it completely skips the match and goes on to another scene. Whilist I know that the book is rather large to be Major, major disappointment. The plotline jumps around so much, it is hard to keep up, even for someone like me who has read all the Harry Potter books. For instance, the novel leads up to the Quidditch World Cup, all the way to the announcement "Let the game begin", then it completely skips the match and goes on to another scene. Whilist I know that the book is rather large to be captured into a movie, I believe a better version could have been produced. Hell, introduce two movies if necessary, but sacrificing so much plot for airtime is no good for future movie goes (5th, 6th and 7th movies) Expand
  31. CriticsRMad
    Nov 23, 2005
    6
    Dumbledore was horrible. What the heck are they trying to do to the character? Otherwise, I was satisfied with the movie. It was definitely watchable. A few changes from the book and plots left out, but hey, the book is HUGE. They can't possibly be expected to put everything in. Nice to watch in the theater, but if you can wait, a TV/DVD would work too.
  32. Bluescreen
    Nov 24, 2005
    6
    As someone who hasn't read the books and isn't much of a Harry Potter fan, I didn't enjoy this installment as much as I did the third film. However it was enjoyable and believe this film would entertain most people.
  33. DanB.
    Nov 25, 2005
    6
    I rather liked it but am left with a feeling that it was really... pedestrian. It's the only word I can come up with to describe the feeling, like there were no grace notes, like everything aside from the subject matter was done just adequately well, and it's only the subject, culled from the books, that is good enough to save the movie from being rather bleh. But that's I rather liked it but am left with a feeling that it was really... pedestrian. It's the only word I can come up with to describe the feeling, like there were no grace notes, like everything aside from the subject matter was done just adequately well, and it's only the subject, culled from the books, that is good enough to save the movie from being rather bleh. But that's just me being picky, like I said, it's not bad at all. Expand
  34. DarthMoonJohn
    Nov 26, 2005
    5
    The movie looks good,it has very well directed scenes but it feels like the events arent so connected to each other.The Voldemore scene was the best. It lacks depth.
  35. SueG
    Dec 14, 2005
    4
    Dumb. It's a teenie-bopper movie with wands. The others were great, but this one was long and dull.
  36. Aug 11, 2012
    5
    Out of all the Potter movies, this ranks as the worst. while adapting any book there are problems but this can be solved by cutting some side plots to make way for character moments and the main plot. not what they did here which is to say, cutting most of the main plot and character moments to focus on the side plots. There are some great performances from the main trio and the rest ofOut of all the Potter movies, this ranks as the worst. while adapting any book there are problems but this can be solved by cutting some side plots to make way for character moments and the main plot. not what they did here which is to say, cutting most of the main plot and character moments to focus on the side plots. There are some great performances from the main trio and the rest of the main cast working around some truly terrible dialogue that the script gives them. If you haven't read the book you're probably going to be lost. Apparently the explanation given at the end of the book where the entirety of Voldemort's evil scheme is revealed and making some seemingly random events all connected isn't good enough for the movie so most of the plot makes no sense if you haven't read the book. This is the first Movie to feature the brilliant Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort so at least we have that to be thankful for. Also, why is the hair of all the boys so ridiculously long? Could they not afford hairdressers? Too much focus on the side plots, not enough explanation for the main plot and an atrocious script make this the black sheep in an otherwise amazing film series. Expand
  37. May 4, 2012
    6
    This was not a movie I really liked but it's at lest watchable for most people. Never had really spesal stuff for me .But you guy's might like it. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 6.1/10
  38. Oct 25, 2013
    6
    I find 'Goblet of Fire' luridly monotonous. Though effects are as great as they will be, I found that the films began to degrade significantly after this sequel.
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.