User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 783 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 70 out of 783
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. DavidB.
    Dec 4, 2005
    7
    Probably the best potter film yet, yet I did not like the Voldemort adaption at the end... I feel they could have done more with it. However, the rest of the film is great and anyone who likes Harry Potter will dig this film.
  2. KillianF.
    Dec 6, 2005
    10
    Absoloutely brilliant. I have seen this film 6 times since its release (2 weeks ago). I love the underwater scene! The harry potter films are the only films that have, in my opinion, been equal or better to the book.
  3. ShaneB
    Dec 6, 2005
    10
    The best and most original of the potter series yet. It begins to stand alone, not simply a carbon copy of the book. what cuaron started, newell has developed. Everyone should see it.
  4. WallyS.
    Dec 6, 2005
    10
    The best Potter film, the less faithful to the material, but extremely more witty and finally discovers the true meaning of a Potter book. Darker, more adult and trully more powerful. One of the years best.
  5. KeatonK.
    Dec 9, 2005
    6
    Absolutely devoid of any magic but it's own eagerness.
  6. 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
  7. Anonymous
    Jan 18, 2006
    7
    The book was the best of the six... but the movie didn't stay true to it... Should have made it longer, regardless of childrens attentions spans of an hour and a half Lame excuse to make a good story short.
  8. RyanD.
    Jan 21, 2006
    7
    Too many short cuts were taken to make fans of the book truly love this movie. Movie goers will enjoy this story, But real fans are still gonna have to wait for a Great Harry Potter movie.
  9. GilbertM.
    Jan 26, 2006
    9
    Yeah, some of it's a bit different. Which is a shame. But I really don't envy Steve Kloves his job in adapting these, and I'm not surprised he's given the next one to someone else while he buggers off to direct something. Take a look at the book one day. It's huge. It's a housebrick. And the next one's even bigger. I seriously had no idea how they'd Yeah, some of it's a bit different. Which is a shame. But I really don't envy Steve Kloves his job in adapting these, and I'm not surprised he's given the next one to someone else while he buggers off to direct something. Take a look at the book one day. It's huge. It's a housebrick. And the next one's even bigger. I seriously had no idea how they'd shrink this fourth one into one film. More than three hours is for no - exactly three hours is pushing it. Fortunately, they managed it, and if some of the characterisation and plotting is simpler, it's because it's a different medium. You still should read the books before you see the films, because the books are the real story and the films are just moving picture versions of them, but they're damn good moving picture versions. Oh my god, there's a Big Momma's House 2? Okay, this review is over, I've got some calls to make. Expand
  10. 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.
  11. KyleL.
    Feb 10, 2006
    7
    I like the Harry Potter movies and this is just like the previous...entertaining. It wasn't dull, yet I wasn't on the edge of my seat. Perfect for younger tweens!
  12. KarenE.
    Feb 19, 2006
    9
    The last installment of the HP series was one of the best movies I've seen this year. Full of action and mystery, Harry Potter finally meets the badie in the series. there were only a few bad points. Otherwise it was wonderful!
  13. Sam
    Feb 26, 2006
    10
    I loved all of the Harry Potter movies, but this one does something much better than any of the sequels before, it evolves, without losing that magical touch that we all know and love.
  14. 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
  15. RyanQ.
    Mar 25, 2006
    10
    Anyone who said this movie was bad should keep that incoherent mouths shut and bludgeon their head off a wall until they grow what might resemble a brain. YES the movie did follow the book's storyline and YES the acting, effects, and action was more than anyone could dream of asking for. Quite obviously the most spectacular HP movie to date and one of the best movies of the year period.
  16. AndyO.
    Mar 7, 2006
    7
    Not my favorite of the series, and NOT because the movie left a lot out from the book (I prefer to read the books after seeing the movies, that way I don't miss anything), but just because I didn't think the movie was as good as those that came before it. Currently I believe Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite, I wish they had used Gary Oldman's character more in this film Not my favorite of the series, and NOT because the movie left a lot out from the book (I prefer to read the books after seeing the movies, that way I don't miss anything), but just because I didn't think the movie was as good as those that came before it. Currently I believe Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite, I wish they had used Gary Oldman's character more in this film as he's always been one of my favorite actors, and his part in the book was slightly bigger than the movie gave him credit. Can't wait for the next one in 2008 or whenever. Expand
  17. Jackie
    Aug 8, 2006
    8
    I must admit, I liked this movie. Lots of people are saying that it is not true to the book, but think about it. There is no way a book that is over 700 pages long is going to fit well into a movie. They put the parts into the movie that will be important later in the movies. I admit, I was disappointed with the parts about Nevilles parents; if you haven't read the books, you would I must admit, I liked this movie. Lots of people are saying that it is not true to the book, but think about it. There is no way a book that is over 700 pages long is going to fit well into a movie. They put the parts into the movie that will be important later in the movies. I admit, I was disappointed with the parts about Nevilles parents; if you haven't read the books, you would defiantly miss that little bit in the Pensieve where Kakaroff mentions his parents. Harry should have talked to Dumbledore about it afterwards. It would take 5 minutes. Then we could cut that stupid dragon scene. Does Harry really need to be flying around the castle all the time? Expand
  18. Louis'sBro
    Mar 21, 2007
    9
    Best Harry Potter movie I've seen (thus far). After reading the book, I couldn't wait to see how the movie would turn out. The action was amazing and the acting was incredible. However, I wouldn't give this movie a ten because the creators cut out too many parts from the book.
  19. TomK.
    Aug 19, 2007
    7
    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.
  20. 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
  21. DaleP
    May 12, 2008
    7
    Agree with Tom K. The third movie is by far the best.
  22. Hannah
    Nov 17, 2005
    10
    This movie was GREAT i love it!
  23. Mrs.PiyawanPitaksakorn
    Nov 17, 2005
    10
    II waiting for along time for look this part 4 of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. I very exciting when I look the movie on the fiirst day on the show. I read the book and look for the movie it have some thing diffreence.
  24. HQYT
    Nov 17, 2005
    10
    The best harry potter movie yet.
  25. OwenD.
    Nov 18, 2005
    10
    It was fantastic!
  26. DavidK.
    Nov 18, 2005
    9
    Excellent story and acting. It is very impressive that after four installments the sequals have not started to weaken. This is a major credit to the "quality" that is so consistent in the movies. Two thumbs up and a job very well done!!!
  27. JenF.
    Nov 18, 2005
    9
    Clearly, the series is maturing along with it's cast and audience. This is the best of the bunch so far - with stunning, seamless visual effects.
  28. JoslynW.
    Nov 18, 2005
    10
    The BEST one yet!!
  29. A.d.W.
    Nov 18, 2005
    7
    Seemed very very rushed - almost should have made two movies out of the book - too much information for 1 movie - FX were great - The young actors were great and carried the movie, Watson and Radcliff are fine actors - I missed some of the previous 3 movies "touches" - the theme music is hidden in a new "darker" form which is missed and the music just wasn't as memorable as in the Seemed very very rushed - almost should have made two movies out of the book - too much information for 1 movie - FX were great - The young actors were great and carried the movie, Watson and Radcliff are fine actors - I missed some of the previous 3 movies "touches" - the theme music is hidden in a new "darker" form which is missed and the music just wasn't as memorable as in the previous movies- Snape is not as menacing as he was in number 3 and Michael Gambon has got to read the books - his potrayal of Dumbledore was much much better in The Prisioner of Azkaban. He does push and shove his way through this one - which Dumbledore just doesn't have to do. Harry seems very slow to react and clueless in all the tasks yet he wins - I seem to remember the book to be like that so no real compliant - just kinda odd - one of the champions and he hasn't a clue - All in all a good film and much to like but I liked 3 better- Goblet of Fire just doesn't seem to have as much charm as Prisoner of Azkaban did. Expand
  30. Billy
    Nov 18, 2005
    2
    It's the best of the series, but that's not saying much. wait for video
  31. BenA.
    Nov 18, 2005
    10
    Absolutely Astonishingly Good. Loved it!
  32. BobX.
    Nov 18, 2005
    8
    Just saw it, pretty decent flick but if you need more assurance you can see that Michael Scraglow has given it his patented seal of crap low ratings. A Scraglow high rating is the kiss of death.
  33. Ashley
    Nov 18, 2005
    10
    This movie was the best one yet. I saw the midnight showing, the theater was packed, and it was a lot of fun. GOF is dark, scary, funny, sad... it runs the gamut of emotions. GO SEE IT!!!!!!!
  34. 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.
  35. D.Perez
    Nov 19, 2005
    10
    Do people really think it's possible to capture evry detail of a 754 page book in a two and a half hour movie. Some things were left out, but overall it captured the most important aspects of the story with incredible performances and special effects. The best movie yet!!!
  36. 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.
  37. DustinW.
    Nov 19, 2005
    10
    I have read the books about 5 times, and noticed things that were cut...and I didnt care at all! It made up for it for being able to make such a good movie out of such a LONG book...the acting including Dan,Emma,Rupert,Maggie,Michael, were amazing and my favorite was Fiennes(he was amazing...I loved his Voldemort...amazing work from him), the effects were seamless and very good, and while I have read the books about 5 times, and noticed things that were cut...and I didnt care at all! It made up for it for being able to make such a good movie out of such a LONG book...the acting including Dan,Emma,Rupert,Maggie,Michael, were amazing and my favorite was Fiennes(he was amazing...I loved his Voldemort...amazing work from him), the effects were seamless and very good, and while I missed Cuaron,Newell did a fantastic job...the best in the series...and(so far) my favorite movie of the year...I cannot wait to see what they do with OotP... Expand
  38. BsAt
    Nov 19, 2005
    10
    I got one word for this movie and thats "wow."
  39. Alisha
    Nov 19, 2005
    7
    Overall, this is an enjoyable film. But it left me wondering how much different it would've been had the visionary Alfonso Cuaron directed it. I have a feeling that all of its shortcomings come from it's inability to be adapted well into a movie. I am not sorry that they cut out a lot of the plot from the novel, but the pacing was terrible and there were several loose ends that Overall, this is an enjoyable film. But it left me wondering how much different it would've been had the visionary Alfonso Cuaron directed it. I have a feeling that all of its shortcomings come from it's inability to be adapted well into a movie. I am not sorry that they cut out a lot of the plot from the novel, but the pacing was terrible and there were several loose ends that were never resolved. All of the key moments were cut short in favor of showy visual effects, and it left the viewer wondering what actually happened. At some points it seemed as if Steve Kloves and Mike Newell were having an argument about which plot points should be admitted into the film, and then as a compromise they would introduce the point, but never resolve it. Its predecessor, the Prisoner of Azkaban, was a much better FILM, while this movie probably was better when it comes to what Harry Potter fans are looking for. Expand
  40. Dave
    Nov 19, 2005
    8
    I have read all of the books, only once though. The 3rd movie dispointed me quite a bit, changing much of the plot from the book. Going into this movie I was still expecting a lot and was generally not let down. Considering the amount of content from the book...700 some pages, I think a good job was done in boiling the book down to its core so that it would work as a movie. There are many I have read all of the books, only once though. The 3rd movie dispointed me quite a bit, changing much of the plot from the book. Going into this movie I was still expecting a lot and was generally not let down. Considering the amount of content from the book...700 some pages, I think a good job was done in boiling the book down to its core so that it would work as a movie. There are many bits, some small others not, from the book that have been left out, but only a few of them I would have liked to see in the movie. Special effects were great, and I liked the "horror-movie" musical score, it seemed to help create suspense quite well. The acting has improved significantly, Harrys tears at the end seemed believable and true and Ron's jealousy was played well. Overall a good movie, not great but enjoyable. Expand
  41. ClintM.
    Nov 21, 2005
    9
    When so many big budget movies being made are crap (ie: Fantastic Four ... which for some reason audiences seemed to love?!) it's always nice to be entertained and treated to something that's worth watching! I'm not sure if I put this one ahead of "Azkaban" but it's definitely standing there next to it. It was wonderfully acted, deliciously creepy and visually When so many big budget movies being made are crap (ie: Fantastic Four ... which for some reason audiences seemed to love?!) it's always nice to be entertained and treated to something that's worth watching! I'm not sure if I put this one ahead of "Azkaban" but it's definitely standing there next to it. It was wonderfully acted, deliciously creepy and visually arresting. I'll be seeing it again very shortly! Expand
  42. RoleenAnthonyB.
    Nov 21, 2005
    10
    I didnt see any HP films ever made except this one. Its the grandest and boldest of them all. [Ed: Huh?] From the Quiditch Cup ( which a bit upsetting ) to Voldemorts rise, trully magical! From the lovely ladies of Hogwarts and Beauxbaton. The Legolas of Harry Potter which is Cedric Diggory, it was all perfect. I dont bother what they'd cut in the movie. Because all I can say, it was I didnt see any HP films ever made except this one. Its the grandest and boldest of them all. [Ed: Huh?] From the Quiditch Cup ( which a bit upsetting ) to Voldemorts rise, trully magical! From the lovely ladies of Hogwarts and Beauxbaton. The Legolas of Harry Potter which is Cedric Diggory, it was all perfect. I dont bother what they'd cut in the movie. Because all I can say, it was breathlessly fantastic! two thumbs up for Goblet of Fire movie! Expand
  43. 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
  44. 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.
  45. ThomasM.
    Nov 21, 2005
    10
    What an amazing film! By far the best harry potter film of the bunch. This film just took my breath away. I loved it! It was so emotional esp. at the end, so many people in the theater were crying. It was a great movie. Go see it!
  46. CameramsMay
    Nov 20, 2005
    9
    Best Harry Potter movie, yet. Though the movie was long for this genre, it wasn't possible to capture all of the nuances of the book (I would have preferred a longer film with more of the book's storyline). However, it captured the mood of the book stunningly. The special effects were good, but not overwhelming. A few of the scenes given minor play in the book were overly long Best Harry Potter movie, yet. Though the movie was long for this genre, it wasn't possible to capture all of the nuances of the book (I would have preferred a longer film with more of the book's storyline). However, it captured the mood of the book stunningly. The special effects were good, but not overwhelming. A few of the scenes given minor play in the book were overly long in the movie (e.g. Moaning Myrtle and the bath). Although dark and more adult than the other films, this film kept its sense of humour throughout. I suspect that those who have read the book, as I have, will find the movie much less confusing than those who have not; for example, it is not possible to fully understand the climax of the movie without having read the book, though one doesn't need to comprehend it in its entirety to enjoy the film (without giving too much away for those who haven't seen the film, think "ghosts" of Harry's mum and dad). I saw the film with my husband, my three children and two of my chidren's friends. Husband thought the film was OK (not having read the book) and the children and I quite loved it. The children were disappointed that so much of the book was left out, and felt that the movie was "way too short"! Considering the length of this film, I consider that, in and of itself, to be a positive review on their parts. They were riveted. I agree with some other reviewers about two things, however - neither Dumbledore nor Voldemort were quite accurately represented. However, that did not decrease our enjoyment of the film. Expand
  47. MitchellF.
    Nov 21, 2005
    8
    I can help but wonder what the movie would be like if they went by the book. Although this was a good adaptation if the forth book, and had great special effects...they tried to pack a 600 page book into 2 hours and 17 minutes. It was skipping all over the place. All in all I recommend this movie for all you Harry Potter fans. The effects are great, the acting is good and Emma Watson is hot.
  48. Fixating
    Nov 21, 2005
    7
    I enjoyed it...but I could have done with less sweeping panoramic shots of the landscape and more of the story. I'll be interested to see what was cut when the dvd comes out.
  49. JulioM.
    Nov 20, 2005
    10
    This is the best Harry Potter movie ever made. Voldemort is Great. Hermione is so beautiful. This Movie is perfect. Mike Newell thanks!!!
  50. AshleyW.
    Nov 20, 2005
    9
    Though many critics wish to complain about how things were "left out", I personally being a major fan of the books found this film to be near perfection. I mean LotR could be said to do the same but with so much material to cover how is a verbatim film version to take place without being 10 hours long ! Bottom-line, Goblet of Fire was a thrilling well-paced movie that is sure to ensnare Though many critics wish to complain about how things were "left out", I personally being a major fan of the books found this film to be near perfection. I mean LotR could be said to do the same but with so much material to cover how is a verbatim film version to take place without being 10 hours long ! Bottom-line, Goblet of Fire was a thrilling well-paced movie that is sure to ensnare old and new fans alike. Expand
  51. KellyK.
    Nov 22, 2005
    10
    I thought that this movie was a fantastic, frightening film. All the characters grow up and there seems to be some love in the air. I think that this movie will be and is one of the best Harry Potter movies we have seen yet so far. I do hope that they other Harry Potter movies will be met to expectations or better.
  52. 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
  53. BIllyBob
    Nov 23, 2005
    2
    When did this become Sweet Valley Grifindor?
  54. LewisM.
    Nov 23, 2005
    9
    Great movie, ashamed they had to leave out so much though - should have either been longer or split into two movies.
  55. PaulF.
    Nov 23, 2005
    10
    The visuals were incredible, better than I even seen them. The acting was very good but not great. I loved the theme of occultism, any well done entertainment in this field facinates me. Overall I give this movie a 9.6 out of ten. A few scenes were disjointed like the areana cut to the tents scene and the Ballroom scene cut to the argument. Also the reaction to one of the death scenes was The visuals were incredible, better than I even seen them. The acting was very good but not great. I loved the theme of occultism, any well done entertainment in this field facinates me. Overall I give this movie a 9.6 out of ten. A few scenes were disjointed like the areana cut to the tents scene and the Ballroom scene cut to the argument. Also the reaction to one of the death scenes was a bit cliche. I thought a different approach could have been used which would have been much more powerful. Overall this movie was great and is one of the best examples of what modern entertainment has to offer. We truly have come a long way, at least when hollywood tries to make an effort. Expand
  56. RyanC.
    Nov 23, 2005
    10
    I felt like a loser going to this movie by myself (I'm 28), but I'm glad I did. Easily the best of the series. It's too bad it took them this long to make such an engaging Potter film. I guess it took an English director to properly translate the books to film.
  57. RalphP.
    Nov 24, 2005
    10
    It was brilliant. The best yet.
  58. BobbiG.
    Nov 24, 2005
    9
    This, I must say, is the best of all previous editions to the Harry Potter series. In this movie, I found the introduction to be very choppy and disoriented. Being a rather large fan of Rowling's books, I noted several things that should have been added in to make sceen to sceen changes move smoother through out the movie. Yes, I am quite aware of what it takes to create a film and This, I must say, is the best of all previous editions to the Harry Potter series. In this movie, I found the introduction to be very choppy and disoriented. Being a rather large fan of Rowling's books, I noted several things that should have been added in to make sceen to sceen changes move smoother through out the movie. Yes, I am quite aware of what it takes to create a film and many beloved things in the books have to be taken out, but some of the things they did keep seemed unessessary and could have been replaced with another sceen somewhere else in the script. I do, however, think there is an admirable balance between graphics and acting. The wonderful fantastical events, like dragons and Port Key travel, were awesome in graphics. At this point, it is less believable that charactors such as Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton 18) and Ron Weasley(Rupert Grint 17) were really 14. By the time the charactors have reached seventh year, the actors will be in their early twenties. I know that changing actors is very risky business, but I am sure that Draco legally able to by Alcohol in the USA is quite a ridiculous thing. I do admire the actors increasing skill and maturity throughout the film series. Thank you for your time. Expand
  59. 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
  60. Sarah
    Nov 25, 2005
    10
    I think this movie was excellent, i felt it was funny and had many action in it, and it was a very good film i love the fact that everyone is changing and it makes them seem much older but it was very good film.
  61. JenB.
    Nov 26, 2005
    8
    Very enjoyable but it felt a big long. My favourite scene was Hermione appearing in her ball dress - after putting up with Ron's crap for so long it was fantastic to see her get one back. The whole adolesence/relationship thing was I thought in the end more enjoyable than the 'magic'. Both my kids loved it, and hey after all isn't that what it's all about. Very enjoyable but it felt a big long. My favourite scene was Hermione appearing in her ball dress - after putting up with Ron's crap for so long it was fantastic to see her get one back. The whole adolesence/relationship thing was I thought in the end more enjoyable than the 'magic'. Both my kids loved it, and hey after all isn't that what it's all about. Although my son, (14) questioned why they left so much out. Personally I'm glad they left Dobby out and Hermione's obsession with the rights of house elves, but he liked those bits in the books. Different people like different things I guess. I recommend it. Expand
  62. 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
  63. Jerry
    Nov 27, 2005
    9
    It's a winner- don't believe any of the naysayers. I have seen (and read) them all & this is the best, so far. The only regative is the inability to tell the entire story- but almost 3 hours is a comprise. Read "Directors Cut. "
  64. TomG.
    Nov 27, 2005
    10
    Brilliant. George Lucas should hire JK Rowling to write his dialogue. If not for the LOTR trilogy this would be the greatest series of films since the original Star Wars.
  65. MarkB.
    Nov 28, 2005
    8
    The first two films in the series, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and...Chamber of Secrets, directed by Chris Columbus, resemble what Harry Potter movies would look like if Harry's school chum Ron Weasley had been a film director: like Ron, Columbus is generally quite competent at what he does, often a bit better when he applies himself, and generally he gets the job The first two films in the series, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and...Chamber of Secrets, directed by Chris Columbus, resemble what Harry Potter movies would look like if Harry's school chum Ron Weasley had been a film director: like Ron, Columbus is generally quite competent at what he does, often a bit better when he applies himself, and generally he gets the job done. Potter movie #3, ...Prisoner of Akzaban, done by Alfonso Cuaron, resembles the work of Hermoine Grainger: smarter and more talented than most other folks out there, but trying so hard to make an impression or put an individual stamp on the material, that the result was more than a little off-putting (as the film's slightly disappointing box office and middling Metacritic viewer score illustrates). Mike Newell, who helmed ...Goblet of Fire, does so like Harry himself in his 4th year at Hogwarts: definitely facing some daunting challenges, he does so successfully and with confidence. As several other posters noted, Newell's and writer Steve Kloves' hardest task was to whittle down a 700-plus page book into a two and 1/2 hour film, and there's no question that something gets lost in the translation: I really liked the book's funny but heartfelt subplot involving Hermoine's lonely battle for House Elf Liberation, which is nowhere to be found here, and certain minor but significant characters (like Miranda Richardson's delightfully tart tabloid reporter Rita Skeeter) get significantly shortchanged. (On the other hand, my favorite Potter supporting figure, the endearingly clumsy Neville Longbottom, gets HIS role increased!) A friend once observed that perhaps J.K. Rowling's books would be better translated as TV miniseries than movies, because it wouldn't matter how long they ran and nothing would have to be omitted. I can't argue too much with her, but given what it was required to do, ...Goblet of Fire streamlined and intensified Rowling's material admirably. It focuses on the four-contestant wizard's contest almost out of the starting gate (Rowling doesn't really start on it until after over 300 pages); it allows the film to snowball in intensity as it goes along, successfully raises the stakes on the life-or-death importance of Harry's battles with Lord Voldemort, and allows Newell to show off his special-effects / action movie skills (which have grown considerably since his one other contribution to the fantasy-horror genre, 1980's forgettable Charlton Heston Egyptian mummy opus The Awakening). That's why the Hogwarts' formal ball that occurs midway through the film works as well as it does: it serves as intermission, comic relief, character analysis, study of the Hogwarts' kids as adolescents...and a chance for Newell to temporarily return to the skillful light but perceptive romantic comedy vein he handled so well in Four Weddings and a Funeral, Enchanted April and Pushing Tin. Best of all is Daniel Radcliffe, who continues to grow wonderfully as an actor in the title role; he perfectly communicates Harry's growing emotional complexity, fear and pain, especially at the climax of the final challenge: no wonder Newell employs so many close-ups of him! The actor has grown from "nice kid, but any teenager with a British accent can do this role" to "nobody in the world besides this guy could play it"! Radcliffe could very possibly join Sean Connery in the select group of actors who could very conceivably enjoy a long career in both a series-defining movie role AND in a series of challenging film roles outside the series: I'm really looking forward not only to the final 3 Potter installments but also to what parts Radcliffe has the capability of pursuing outside of Hogwarts Academy! Expand
  66. 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
  67. halb
    Nov 28, 2005
    9
    The best Potter yet. I like the fact that I didn't read the book this time. Most nay-sayers are folks who seem cheated that the movie didn't cover every single subplot. Need to back up and look at the larger picture here: this is a great film -- dark, magical, humorous; even thrilling in places -- achieves a great balance between the smaller stories and subplots about personal The best Potter yet. I like the fact that I didn't read the book this time. Most nay-sayers are folks who seem cheated that the movie didn't cover every single subplot. Need to back up and look at the larger picture here: this is a great film -- dark, magical, humorous; even thrilling in places -- achieves a great balance between the smaller stories and subplots about personal relationships and budding sexuality, and the larger moral scope of Rowling's work. Highly recommended, but not for kids under 8 or 9. Expand
  68. JasonB.
    Nov 30, 2005
    9
    This is the best of the bunch! The Harry Potter films are growing up with the characters and becoming even more enjoyable to experience. This film is a great summary of the book while keeping to a reasonable time frame. For those who do not read the books, this is a fun and entertaining movie. For the die hard book fans, no movie is good enough. For me, a fan (a realistic fan) I know that This is the best of the bunch! The Harry Potter films are growing up with the characters and becoming even more enjoyable to experience. This film is a great summary of the book while keeping to a reasonable time frame. For those who do not read the books, this is a fun and entertaining movie. For the die hard book fans, no movie is good enough. For me, a fan (a realistic fan) I know that they could not have made a better movie. Expand
  69. JeffG.
    Dec 12, 2005
    10
    I just love harry potter and this movie is bound to be the best one that ever came out!! its even better then the book.
  70. AnnaR.
    Dec 13, 2005
    10
    Amazing! I admire the Harry Potter films I must say, but this one is just incredible. Thriller, Comedy. Just so much fun. HIGHLY RECOMENDED!
  71. J.N.
    Dec 17, 2005
    10
    A movie that, in the tradition of Prisoner of Azkaban, exceeds expectations. I rated Azkaban a 10, and if I could I'd rate this one an 11. Another director, another take on Harry Potter...neither the light and fluffy of Columbus nor the dark humor of Cuaron, but Newell has a bit of a balance. He changes the mood of the movie so fast at times from funny and light to dark and scary A movie that, in the tradition of Prisoner of Azkaban, exceeds expectations. I rated Azkaban a 10, and if I could I'd rate this one an 11. Another director, another take on Harry Potter...neither the light and fluffy of Columbus nor the dark humor of Cuaron, but Newell has a bit of a balance. He changes the mood of the movie so fast at times from funny and light to dark and scary that it takes a moment to adjust. But from the brilliant acting (especially Rupert Grint) to the writing, this movie takes your breath away. Expand
  72. AndyC.
    Dec 18, 2005
    10
    A fantastic movie! But why have the directors decided that Harry Potter can't be 3 hours long? Fans would love to see more of the books in the movies. The actors are continuing to grow into their roles and it is so nice to see actors develop before your eyes. I rank this one up there with Chamber of Secrets.
  73. BrittanyL.
    Dec 19, 2005
    10
    This movies was the best out of the series and it kept me watching.
  74. 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
  75. Gonzo
    Dec 21, 2005
    10
    Spectacular!Its the best blockbuster of the year!I watched King Kong and Narnia,but none of them compare to the fuel and beauty that Goblet of Fire carries.Its a film that has everything: Horror,Comedy,Romance,Drama,Action,Suspense.The maze was amazing,and the effects are brilliant.Thank you Mike Newell,for bringing a film with flying colors and triumphant action.
  76. Anton
    Dec 23, 2005
    1
    This is the American Pie in the Rowling's decorations.
  77. 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.
  78. BabuR
    Dec 26, 2005
    10
    The Best one in the Potter Series, Nice screenplay, action and cooler than ever.
  79. MaganY.
    Dec 27, 2005
    10
    I'm overwhelmed, I can't believe the god-like effort the crew put into this film, It's incredible, This is by far the best Potter film yet.
  80. danielle
    Dec 29, 2005
    9
    The best harry potter yet! the actors are playing their part to the par and theyre becoming great actors!
  81. ConnorS.
    Dec 31, 2005
    10
    This was by far was the best harry potter movie, and definetly matched the greatness of the book. it did not follow the book completely, but it was the longest one until the fifth. even though i wished they added some things it was definetly worth seeing twice, and would not mind seeing it a third time, but i dont want to spoil it so bad that i dont want to buy it on dvd.
  82. CaseyG.
    Dec 30, 2005
    9
    Sticks to the book and very good acting. This is the best one so far. Very good directing and costumes.
  83. 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
  84. 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.
  85. JasonQ.
    Dec 7, 2005
    10
    This is a great movie!!!!:)
  86. MarkL
    Dec 8, 2005
    8
    This is by favourite Pooter book (so far) but I had bad feelings about the film. Just how do you cram a 600+ page book into a reasonable film length? And when the film started, I though I saw this unfolding, the first half hour is madly rushed and misses out on so much of the book. But after Harry gets picked for the tournement it gets a lot better. The ball, which I didnt take to in the This is by favourite Pooter book (so far) but I had bad feelings about the film. Just how do you cram a 600+ page book into a reasonable film length? And when the film started, I though I saw this unfolding, the first half hour is madly rushed and misses out on so much of the book. But after Harry gets picked for the tournement it gets a lot better. The ball, which I didnt take to in the book, works perfectly on screen and its great fun seeing Harry and Ron trying to score. The finale is transerred perfectly to screen and doesn't lose any of the awe. So this is a very good film and adaptation of the book. I think Azkaban worked slightly better just because of the sheer length of material this had to cram in, but 4*s overall. One thing though- isn't the whole tournement a bit of an eloborate way just to get Harry to touch a port key? Expand
  87. MichelleG.
    Dec 8, 2005
    9
    The Best Harry Potter film yet Dainel Radcliff is Waaaaay cuter WITH glasses The best part had to be the Ball If only Hary took Ginny.
  88. stephano.
    Dec 9, 2005
    10
    An absolute brilliant film!! Beautty, action, dragons, mermaids and best of all a harttutching movie that inspires people not to do bad but to appreciate the meaning of live and the wonders of GOD! (what i am a big fan!?)
  89. RachelH.
    Dec 9, 2005
    9
    The best Harry Potter movie yet! The more you see it, the more you like it. Though it's not as faithful to the book, I thought a couple changes were for the better. The characters are growing up, and the movies are getting darker and more interesting. The best movie this year!
  90. ClaudiaL.
    Jan 11, 2006
    10
    Is the best movie.
  91. ClaudiaL.
    Jan 13, 2006
    10
    Is the best movie.
  92. 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.
  93. SinaJ.
    Jan 14, 2006
    10
    This is best Harry potter movie yet, great effects, great story, a bit less PG-ish than the others and I believe that its ok if they didn't include everything in the books. Emma Watson looked so pretty in this one.
  94. RaulS.
    Jan 21, 2006
    10
    I saw this movie five times in the same day starting at midnight
  95. SteveL.
    Jan 27, 2006
    8
    Very good movie. I've never read any of the books so I am judging it on its own merits. Parts in the middle were a bt slow (e.g. anything involving dancing), but the action scenes delivered.
  96. EstebanF.
    Feb 24, 2006
    7
    No, I didn't go out with the feeling of "What the heck was that!?". The movie is pretty good, the effects were unbelievable, but the movie was obnoxiously cutted. Yeah, obnoxious is the only not-curse-word that I can use to describe the cuts. The book was amazingly better. In fact, it was one of the better ones, tied with the phoenix order (that's the directly translated name, I No, I didn't go out with the feeling of "What the heck was that!?". The movie is pretty good, the effects were unbelievable, but the movie was obnoxiously cutted. Yeah, obnoxious is the only not-curse-word that I can use to describe the cuts. The book was amazingly better. In fact, it was one of the better ones, tied with the phoenix order (that's the directly translated name, I don't know the exact English name), and only being outstanding by the 1st book. I'm totally sure that this movie had the better effects, but talking about plots, it was the worst one. I felt a bit disillusioned after that, specially of the not-so-scary Voldemort. This absolutely destroys my expectations. Anyways, a good movie. Expand
  97. FraserW.
    Mar 12, 2006
    9
    Everything about this movie was perfect I think the next one wont do anything but rise and i might give it a 10.
  98. DerekH.
    Mar 24, 2006
    7
    Very entertaining. Many people seem to be claiming that those who haven't read the books surely couldn't follow this plot. Not so. I vaguely remember seeing the first two films, skipped the third (I'll get around to it), and have never touched the books, but Goblet of Fire made plenty of sense to me.
  99. 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
  100. 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.
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.