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. Mar 21, 2011
    9
    A near perfect adaptation of the book, and one of my top three Harry Potter movies so far. This movie really set a high point for the franchise back in 2005. And this will probably be the only time Robert Patterson is in a movie that wasn't terrible.
  2. Aug 9, 2011
    8
    This is an incredibly entertaining movie. It has intense action sequences, solid performances all around and maybe the most interesting new characters in the whole series, such as Professor Moody.
  3. Dec 17, 2011
    9
    Thrilling with some great performances, and dazzling visuals and Potters most complex story yet, and definitely the most entertaining of all of the Potters. I give this movie 92% of a good film.
  4. Sep 23, 2011
    8
    The movie's story is very linear. However, the Potter cast & crew makes the story very easy to follow. Overall a enjoyable summer blockbuster you can't miss.
  5. 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
  6. Mar 19, 2011
    10
    My personal favorite in the series and in my opinion the best in the series, it's funnier and has more action, and the story is the best yet, a must see and deserving of nothing less than a perfect 10 not because it's the best Harry Potter, but because it will suck you in, a must see for fans.
  7. Jul 17, 2011
    9
    This has to be the best Potter film in the series, aside 'Half Blood Prince'. It's not as dreadful as the first two movies, which kinda sucked, and it's not like the 'Prisoner of Azkaban' which is over forced. But you have to give props to the third one, cause it definitely gave the franchise a new spooky, interesting dimension which made the franchise more enjoyable by adding some depthThis has to be the best Potter film in the series, aside 'Half Blood Prince'. It's not as dreadful as the first two movies, which kinda sucked, and it's not like the 'Prisoner of Azkaban' which is over forced. But you have to give props to the third one, cause it definitely gave the franchise a new spooky, interesting dimension which made the franchise more enjoyable by adding some depth to it. In 'Goblet of Fire' there are some scenes that could have been done better, but overall the movie is quite fun, enjoyable and action peaked. Besides, I'm looking forward to 'Deathly Hollows Part II'. I think it will be the best one to date. Expand
  8. GE
    Aug 4, 2007
    3
    Watched it again on dvd the other day, and have to say it's pretty dreadful. It wasn't the special effects or how faithful it was or was not to the book, but the acting! Man, totally sucked. Newell obviously wanted to give his version some theatrical flair, and because of that everyone acts really over the top, turning every character into a caricature and no nuance whatsoever. Watched it again on dvd the other day, and have to say it's pretty dreadful. It wasn't the special effects or how faithful it was or was not to the book, but the acting! Man, totally sucked. Newell obviously wanted to give his version some theatrical flair, and because of that everyone acts really over the top, turning every character into a caricature and no nuance whatsoever. There were nice scenes and all, but on the whole the bad acting destroys it. Expand
  9. PhilipF.
    Dec 9, 2005
    3
    What a jumbled mess. Special effects ae used to replace the story line. There is little or no character development and little motivation for the conduct of the characters. Only the avid reader will understand who the characters are and their relationships. It is way too violent and scary for pre-teens. As Robert Evans has said, if it's not on the page, it's not on the screen. What a jumbled mess. Special effects ae used to replace the story line. There is little or no character development and little motivation for the conduct of the characters. Only the avid reader will understand who the characters are and their relationships. It is way too violent and scary for pre-teens. As Robert Evans has said, if it's not on the page, it's not on the screen. Avoid this one and rent it if you must. Expand
  10. SamX.
    Apr 1, 2006
    3
    Let me start off by saying that the film in no way follows the book, and that to me this isn't really a bad thing because I hated the book as well. But, instead of adhering to the overhyped book's many followers, the director has managed to cut out half the book and fill it in with fast paced action. The atmosphere the film has has been pilfered straight out of the LotR trilogy, Let me start off by saying that the film in no way follows the book, and that to me this isn't really a bad thing because I hated the book as well. But, instead of adhering to the overhyped book's many followers, the director has managed to cut out half the book and fill it in with fast paced action. The atmosphere the film has has been pilfered straight out of the LotR trilogy, and the musical score was absolutely horrible. For someone who hasn't read the books it would seem confusing and shallow because there doesn't seem to be much of a story, unless a reader fills you in on all the gaps in the plot (of the book) that the film misses out. Expand
  11. 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
  12. aldrob.
    Dec 2, 2005
    3
    The effects were really great. Outstanding but the structure of the story was somewhat lacking in substance. It all seemed rushed. This movie was based on a fantasy book but somehow it turned out into a drama story. I did not feel the magic at all. Furthermore, changing the personalities of characters is not a good way to make a movie. Too harry centered movie leaving out the supporting The effects were really great. Outstanding but the structure of the story was somewhat lacking in substance. It all seemed rushed. This movie was based on a fantasy book but somehow it turned out into a drama story. I did not feel the magic at all. Furthermore, changing the personalities of characters is not a good way to make a movie. Too harry centered movie leaving out the supporting cast to be undeveloped. Expand
  13. davidc.
    Dec 3, 2005
    0
    Hail to the thief There is not a skant of originality to be found in this waifer thin super british film(why in films are the british so toffy nosed, and exageratedly propper? we are not really like this). The last Harry Snotter film was much better.
  14. Charlie
    Feb 6, 2006
    3
    Come on! This movie left so much of the book out that it was just unbearable to watch. I have gotten 10 times more out of the books and audio tapes that watching these absolutely terrible screen adaptations. This movie in particular did the book no justice what-so-ever. The first movie was very very close where much of the dialogue was taken directly from the text or used in a way where Come on! This movie left so much of the book out that it was just unbearable to watch. I have gotten 10 times more out of the books and audio tapes that watching these absolutely terrible screen adaptations. This movie in particular did the book no justice what-so-ever. The first movie was very very close where much of the dialogue was taken directly from the text or used in a way where you knew they were trying to consolidate the book, but not leave anything out. But this movie just cut HUGE parts of the book out and massacred the theme. This was nothing more than an action movie and was not even close to the book. Terrible. I gave it a 3 because the special effects were good. The next book is going to be much harder to make into a movie because there is almost no action until the end. This could be bad. Expand
  15. 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'.
  16. Jul 5, 2011
    8
    As Harry Potter and his friends begin their fourth year at hogswarts as well as meeting new friends from their respective schools, a Tri-Wizard tournament has just been taken place and only three students have been chosen. Now the fourth student to overcome that event, little does Harry Potter know that the servants of the Dark Lord are planning to reborn their master as he encounters allAs Harry Potter and his friends begin their fourth year at hogswarts as well as meeting new friends from their respective schools, a Tri-Wizard tournament has just been taken place and only three students have been chosen. Now the fourth student to overcome that event, little does Harry Potter know that the servants of the Dark Lord are planning to reborn their master as he encounters all three of these tasks. I was amazed and speechless (not to mention frightened) when I saw this dark and epic entry of the series and I was excited to see it taking the franchise into new heights. The actors did a lot of talent and charm of the now changed personalites of the characters, The action and CGI were pretty unique and very intense, The storyline from the fourth book stayed faithful and Ralph Fiennes deserved some credit (as well as the others) for his amazing performance as Lord Voldemort. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is the most darkest entry of the series that took the franchise into new heights in fantasy history and one of the best movies from the past five years. 8/10 Expand
  17. 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?
  18. Jul 12, 2012
    10
    Spectacular film. The kids are just as good of actors as the adults now. Oh, I love that trio so, so much! Goblet of Fire takes a more dangerous approach and has a very spectacular and interesting premise. Pure magic for the young & old.
  19. Dec 21, 2012
    9
    Goblet of Fire is in my opinion the best written out of all the Harry Potters besides maybe the last one. The adrenaline and excitement race in this one. Not to mention the best ending to any of the first 4 Harry Potters. All in All if your looking for excitement this film gives it to you.
  20. 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
  21. JenniferB.
    Jul 7, 2008
    10
    KP You need to get a life! are you normal, you should write a book. Harry Potter was great, yeh they left a lot out but how many children can keep up with jk rowlings twists and turns. Stop analyzing in depth and start enjoying whats on screen, trust me it help!
  22. AllistairE.
    Nov 18, 2005
    7
    Another long wait for a new Harry Potter movie and another long wait in line to see it. The first three films were overall faithful to the books, and had some of the best directing, casting, and art direction of the decade. The first had a wonderful joyous quality (my personal fav.), the 2nd had a great feeling of mystery, and 3rd (aesthetically the best) was awe-inspiringly beautiful and Another long wait for a new Harry Potter movie and another long wait in line to see it. The first three films were overall faithful to the books, and had some of the best directing, casting, and art direction of the decade. The first had a wonderful joyous quality (my personal fav.), the 2nd had a great feeling of mystery, and 3rd (aesthetically the best) was awe-inspiringly beautiful and gloomy. They stood just as great as the books (although in my opinion nothing beats your imagination, so the books will always win by default). Now, with Goblet of Fire I found myself constanlty asking why. Why did they take that part out? Why did they add in the extra action? Why didn't they emphasize on that scene? I think the movie was victim to a poor script and a bland director, but still survives on the great visual set up that past directors have built and the wonderful cast. I know that with a book so big, cutting out scenes and characters was a necessary evil. But why did they make Dumbledore seem viscious at times? Why did they leave out some very lovable and interesting characters? Why didn't they take some time to make sense of what was going on and why? It came clear to me half way through the movie that for once the book and movie are very different. The movie on it's own feet is perhaps the most fun of all the movies and will hopefully be a bridge to 3 much more susperior films. If you read the book the whole thing feels like a slide show (trust me, your friends will be constanlty asking "why did that happen....what was that part about?), but it's still a good time and fun to see things come to life on the big screen. Anyway, it has Jarvis Cocker and Johnny Greenwood, plus Emma Watson is a hottie. Worth your money and time. Expand
  23. StanW.
    Nov 20, 2005
    10
    This movie has it all, adventure, action, a little romance, comedy, just a complete movie. The 2.5 hours seem like 1.5 hours. All ages will enjoy this movie, there are many climax to the movie.
  24. JacobA-K
    Nov 20, 2005
    8
    It was good movie but they left out some important parts and changed others. by the way did anyone else realize that the death eaters looked a lot like the kkk?
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. HughH.
    Jan 6, 2006
    8
    The best Harry Potter movie to date.
  28. EricS.
    Mar 20, 2006
    2
    When I saw it for the first tme, I saw it with a friend who had never read any of the books. I spent half the time filling in the gaps in the plot that were left out. The other half I spent marveling at the large amount of cuts from the book. I gave it a 2 becasue if you have read the books like I have, there is no choice but to see them or there is a void left somewhere. All in all, a bad movie.
  29. ChuckieK.
    Apr 30, 2006
    2
    There were many things on the surface that would make the average movie goer rave about it. But being a Harry Potter reader, I just have to say that this movie disappointed me very much. It skipped many important details, as well as leaving out an entire "theme" of the story. The whole aura surrounding Voldemort is very confusing, and I want to laugh and cry from embarrassment for the There were many things on the surface that would make the average movie goer rave about it. But being a Harry Potter reader, I just have to say that this movie disappointed me very much. It skipped many important details, as well as leaving out an entire "theme" of the story. The whole aura surrounding Voldemort is very confusing, and I want to laugh and cry from embarrassment for the directors when the Barty Crouch scene ended so quickly when leaving out pretty much everything that explained why the events happened as well as foreshadowing for the next book. I seemed to be reading sparknotes of Harry Potter as the scenes in the movie had almost no connecting transitions. Get a new director! Expand
  30. 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
  31. SidF.
    Sep 4, 2006
    0
    This movie was like no other Harry potter! It sucked! It was crap! I hated it and I give it a 0
  32. 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
  33. AndyW.
    Nov 22, 2005
    10
    Four down. Three more to go. Best one ever made..according to my list it goes: 1)Goblet of Fire 2)Prisoner of Azkaban 3)Philosopher's Stone 4)Chamber of Secrets
  34. ChryssaRich
    Nov 20, 2005
    9
    It's a great way to escape for a couple of hours. Visually stimulating and fantastic with a few real-life aspects to keep it real.
  35. SeanR.
    Nov 23, 2005
    10
    Especially moving performance by the father of the boy who dies.
  36. KurtS.
    Nov 24, 2005
    3
    I went to this movie, expecting some sort of story line, but what I got was a jumbled collection of scenes with few connecting threads to a story (or logic). Sure, it looks pretty in parts, but those scenes are derivative of some prior movie. I suppose this excusable for a children's movie, but far too many adult film critics are raving about this one. What gives-- were they all paid I went to this movie, expecting some sort of story line, but what I got was a jumbled collection of scenes with few connecting threads to a story (or logic). Sure, it looks pretty in parts, but those scenes are derivative of some prior movie. I suppose this excusable for a children's movie, but far too many adult film critics are raving about this one. What gives-- were they all paid off? Wait for this one on DVD. Expand
  37. 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
  38. Bill
    Nov 20, 2005
    8
    A charmingly darkened coming-of-age as seen through a fantasy world lens. Haltingly adapted from Rowling's slightly-less-than-most-popular of the series, Goblet of Fire delivers a valiant effort at ramping up all the crucial variables in the Potter anthology: Maturity, Romance, Humor, Adolescence, Magical Eyecandy and the impending sense of a looming conflict. Things that A charmingly darkened coming-of-age as seen through a fantasy world lens. Haltingly adapted from Rowling's slightly-less-than-most-popular of the series, Goblet of Fire delivers a valiant effort at ramping up all the crucial variables in the Potter anthology: Maturity, Romance, Humor, Adolescence, Magical Eyecandy and the impending sense of a looming conflict. Things that could've been more polished: Voldemort's nose. Where'd it go? Why? This provoked a few unsolicited laughs in the theater I saw it in. And as with the second and third films, Rickman's glorious Snape is woefully underused... While such huge chunks of the book having to be excised (understandably) that there's an almost stuttering feel to the flow of things. Well, it was either that, or have Goblet of Fire I and II... With the actors being in their 30's by the time the movies were done. Nevertheless, from Moaning Myrtle's bathtime advances on a suddenly-babe-magnet Harry to Ron's botched interactions with Hermione, we're seeing this group grow up - shifting away from children's fare. Like anyone's first teen years, these are treacherous waters for the Potter films and for such a transitional piece, Goblet does pretty well. Expand
  39. AnnoyingredPie
    Nov 20, 2005
    3
    Terrible dialouge, abandoned most of the storyline in the book, (over half of it was cut out) and had more holes in the plot then swiss cheese. HUGE disappointment.
  40. nightclaw
    Dec 21, 2005
    10
    This is the cooles movie.
  41. StacyR
    Dec 20, 2005
    10
    Now this is why we go to the movies! A thriller, adventure, and comedy wrapped into a skillful package. Surprisingly plays well with all ages. Flawless effects and well-rounded performances make this one the surprise must-see of the year.
  42. BeakieS.
    Dec 23, 2005
    9
    Newel left out some scenes and Fred and George didnt tease Ron nearly as much as they did in the book.But over all it was Fairly good.
  43. RudyC.
    Dec 27, 2005
    10
    Spectacularly well adapted from the book ! The best one yet, far ahead ! I totally loved it ! The three main character's acting is excellent and the spirit of the book is well transcripted into the movie ! It's a must-see ! I hope you enjoyed it as I did !
  44. MicahE.
    Dec 30, 2005
    10
    Loved it.
  45. BonbonA.
    Dec 4, 2005
    9
    I never really like the others 3 movies before, cause they are just horrible (the third wasn't bad, but it wasn't good enough). Goblet of Fire is completely different. Amazing, interesting, surprising, charming, and very facinating. Well, I must say that the book is better than the movie. But to tell the truth, this movie is good enough to be called an excellent movie ^__^
  46. DimitrisB.
    Jan 11, 2006
    8
    It is good film like other three.
  47. 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.
  48. ZippyZ.
    Jan 22, 2006
    1
    No relevance to the book at all. terrible Hollywood garbage.
  49. samirat.
    Jan 3, 2006
    9
    As the Harry potter movies go on, you can see the acters are more comfortable with their characters. In this movie you see how harry, although very powerful, has yet to fill his destiny. the special effects are great and the storyline is full of adventure and drama. In the movie harry is mysteriously entered into the triwizard tournament and by that is forced into the match and has many As the Harry potter movies go on, you can see the acters are more comfortable with their characters. In this movie you see how harry, although very powerful, has yet to fill his destiny. the special effects are great and the storyline is full of adventure and drama. In the movie harry is mysteriously entered into the triwizard tournament and by that is forced into the match and has many challenges to overcome. Near the end he gets an unexpected encounter with voldemort(who was way too cheerful for me. He was a cross between mr. edwards (little house on the praire) and the penguin. In my opinion this is the best of the harry potter movies. Expand
  50. MiladS.
    Jan 3, 2006
    10
    This movie was the best movie i had ever seen . You most be a Harry Potter reader to understand it !
  51. D
    Jan 4, 2006
    10
    Best Harry Potter Movie yet. Can't complain!
  52. sritikac.
    Jan 5, 2006
    10
    I am a great fan of Daniel. i loved this movie the best. I have seen all the movies a 100 times but i never get bored watching them.
  53. Kasun
    Jan 6, 2006
    10
    I don't know why this movie didn't get higher credits, it was phenomenal.
  54. AlexM.
    Mar 21, 2006
    10
    Best Harry Potter yet. So cool and everything. I read the books and all and im the only one who realizes why lot of people hate it. God people get it through your heads most movies that are created that have books wont be the same. Man you people can get so retarded sometimes.
  55. JeffP.
    Apr 4, 2006
    8
    I gave this film an 8, I have read all the books, my basic run down starts from 10, it lost one point for missing a few senses and lost another point for being a little hard to follow if you haven't read the books or seen the other three movies and thus know the characters. However we must all remember that when things change from book to movie that it's not going to be the I gave this film an 8, I have read all the books, my basic run down starts from 10, it lost one point for missing a few senses and lost another point for being a little hard to follow if you haven't read the books or seen the other three movies and thus know the characters. However we must all remember that when things change from book to movie that it's not going to be the same. The book was over 600 pages long, to fit everything the movie would have to be almost 4hours and 30 mins long. Some of us (me) wouldn't mind that but that hard to do with some people. All in all good movie likeable characters (even if one of them isn't explained entirely in their emotions to me (ron)), always room for improvement of course. Can't wait to see more. Expand
  56. Jasmine
    Jun 27, 2006
    10
    this movie is so great fantastic man! I like Hermione Granger, Cho Chang and Fleur Delacour they are so pretty especially when Fleur Delacour was in their Beauxbatons uniform and with the hat. The character that i hate is Viktor Krum, he always give himself that type of proud look and give other people that type of proud look, and he is like always thinking that he is the best in the this movie is so great fantastic man! I like Hermione Granger, Cho Chang and Fleur Delacour they are so pretty especially when Fleur Delacour was in their Beauxbatons uniform and with the hat. The character that i hate is Viktor Krum, he always give himself that type of proud look and give other people that type of proud look, and he is like always thinking that he is the best in the world wearing the sports shirt and going out for a exercise at the hogwards beach and attracting girls and he always walks with the chest high up nag as if like hr doesn't do that it will be very disgusting but anyway he is the character that i hate most in HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE. my favorite part was when Fred Weasley and George Weasley drink the aging potion and putting their name in the pot of goblet of fire and when something happen to them then they started fighting that part was so interesting and somehow funny. but although i have a lot of comments HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE this movie RAWKS man sooooooo fun, interesting and exciting. Expand
  57. MattC
    Sep 30, 2006
    10
    Any Harry Potter movie is gonna be good. The only people who might not like it are obsessive fans of the books.
  58. BamM.
    Nov 20, 2007
    10
    I don't think it was bad at all I mean some parts could have been better but for the most part I LOVED IT! I cont think the movie is getting the perks it deserves. If you think it was bad I don't think we were watching the same movie. Watch it again if you think its bad maybe you'll change your mind!!!!!
  59. DonnaH
    Jan 8, 2007
    9
    Although I loved PoA, and would be thrilled to see Cuaron come back and direct another HP movie, GoF is the one I enjoy the most. There are just so many things to love: Daniel Radcliffe's growth as an actor, Maggie Smith's pitch-perfect delivery in every scene she's in, Brendan Gleeson's delightfully eccentric Moody, David Tennant's wonderfully insane Barty Although I loved PoA, and would be thrilled to see Cuaron come back and direct another HP movie, GoF is the one I enjoy the most. There are just so many things to love: Daniel Radcliffe's growth as an actor, Maggie Smith's pitch-perfect delivery in every scene she's in, Brendan Gleeson's delightfully eccentric Moody, David Tennant's wonderfully insane Barty Crouch, Jr., Alan Rickman proving that he's one of the only actors capable of acting out elipses, the most realistic dragon I have ever seen on film, Dumbledore showing his very human vulnerability, everything about the Yule Ball, Ralph Fiennes' perfect blend of ruthlessness and madness as Voldemort. And, of course, there is Jarvis Cocker. Granted, there's only about 3 seconds of Jarvis...but that's what DVD extras are for, right? Expand
  60. JenK.
    Feb 28, 2007
    1
    It want that good and was as close to the book and the graphics stunk. It was more drama and not enough info that should've been on there. They took half the book out and added what they wanted. The best movie to me was the third. Keep them coming but try not to make them so corny. Stick to the book some more. I mean the maze was poor and it would've been cool if they kept some It want that good and was as close to the book and the graphics stunk. It was more drama and not enough info that should've been on there. They took half the book out and added what they wanted. The best movie to me was the third. Keep them coming but try not to make them so corny. Stick to the book some more. I mean the maze was poor and it would've been cool if they kept some parts in it. Although movies cost money the book I would rate like a 9. Oh well. Collapse
  61. 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
  62. AdnanA.
    Jul 19, 2008
    9
    When I watched this movie for the first time I was like... what the hell. They've ruined it! But when I watched it again and again the more I started to love it. Even though this movie also like the third one differs from the book but I liked whatever they did. The only thing I didn't like was the third task which is totally different from the books. Has no creatures or any When I watched this movie for the first time I was like... what the hell. They've ruined it! But when I watched it again and again the more I started to love it. Even though this movie also like the third one differs from the book but I liked whatever they did. The only thing I didn't like was the third task which is totally different from the books. Has no creatures or any excitement, but then the graveyard scene after that totally makes it up for the third task and all the credit goes to Ralph Fieness as our dear Voldemort. Story... What can I say!!?? It's Harry Potter, of course it's gonna rock. Acting... The trio remains marvelous, no doubt about that, but the rising stars are Ralph as Voldemort, Brendon as Moody and Miranda as Rita. They take the movie to a whole new level. Other adult actors are already perfect so i'm not praising them here. Michael Gambon sucked again!! In face he sucked more than he did in the previous one. That scene in which he runs towards Harry asking if he had put his name in the goblet is evidence enough for his suckage. Richard Harris we miss you!!! May he rest in peace. Direction... I found Mike Newell better than Alfonso Cuaron. Handling such a big novel is not easy but he has done an excellent job. But of course the main credit will go the Steve Kloves who is the screen writer. Even though i'd still say Warner bros should have never changed Chris in the first place. Since Chris is gone Harry Potter has lost smoothness. See lord of the rings, all the three movies feel ONE! This is not the case with HP. Visuals... The dragon was superb. The second task was superb. Voldemort's makeup was superb. In short the visuals were superb!!! Expand
  63. 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.
  64. JeffM.
    Nov 18, 2005
    9
    GoF was my favorite of the books, and here we have my favorite of the movies so far. The structure and pace is deeply flawed, at times jarringly so, but this doesn't take away from the most solid performances, finest FX work, and greatest story in the series. There's a lot missing, but there's plenty to enjoy.
  65. JadaG.
    Nov 18, 2005
    10
    They did leave many items out of the movie, but the heart of the book as well as the most important scenes were done extremely well. I believe this film has best script out of the four. Also, Mike Newell took the best "suggestions" from the first two directors and expanded on his own. Magic of Ministry's court chamber is exactly as the book describes. Absolutely Perfect.
  66. ScottK.
    Nov 18, 2005
    10
    It is entertaining, the best one yet. That is what movies are supposed to be, entertaining. Therefore, I dont get too caught up in the props, overall story line, etc. It had me on the edge of my seat.
  67. JulieK.
    Nov 18, 2005
    10
    I loved it!! Fab Fab!!! Excellent adaptation of the Goblet of Fire. Mike Newell definitely brings more personality and conflict within the characters. Loved watching the boarding school antics. A definite movie to watch on the big screen don't wait for the DVD. Dragon sequences are the best action yet in the Harry Potter Series. I do have to say that there are remanents of the last I loved it!! Fab Fab!!! Excellent adaptation of the Goblet of Fire. Mike Newell definitely brings more personality and conflict within the characters. Loved watching the boarding school antics. A definite movie to watch on the big screen don't wait for the DVD. Dragon sequences are the best action yet in the Harry Potter Series. I do have to say that there are remanents of the last film in this film. The set design and the dark undertone still linger. Expand
  68. TakN.
    Nov 19, 2005
    10
    Kk ok they left out alot of things. but he captured the book so well and how do u seriously expect them to fit a 700 page book into a 2 1/2 hour movie without changing some thigns? get over it, they did an amazing job. the actors are getting better and better. and the story line was great. its just that ,they had to fit in all the important little clues in order for the plot to work. soKk ok they left out alot of things. but he captured the book so well and how do u seriously expect them to fit a 700 page book into a 2 1/2 hour movie without changing some thigns? get over it, they did an amazing job. the actors are getting better and better. and the story line was great. its just that ,they had to fit in all the important little clues in order for the plot to work. so they had to take out some big things that werent as importatnt to the unfolding of the plot. amazing movie. amazing Expand
  69. G.M.D.K.
    Nov 19, 2005
    10
    Amazing,Beautifully acted powerhouse thriller. This film has everything!it has action, horror, romance, humor,drama, fantasy, adventure, plot, acting, direction, music.... the list could go on and on... But Goblet of Fire might as well be the greatest film I've seen in some long time.Absolutely Amazing!
  70. RadfordD.
    Nov 19, 2005
    10
    Its the best one yet, although much was missed. Where was Ludo Bagman?
  71. MaggieP.
    Nov 19, 2005
    10
    Sure, they had to leave out some of the details of the book, but as a film, "Goblet of Fire" was stunning. I feel they really captured Rowlings atmosphere of magic. What an adventure this film is!
  72. Emily
    Nov 19, 2005
    10
    Yeah a lot was missing from this movie but the book was over seven hundred pages long! There was no way they could put it all in the movie. But this movie was the best of the series by far. It was visually amazing, as other people said, and I thought they did a really good job of condensing the plot into two and a half hours. My three complaints were: no veelas, Flor wasn't mystical Yeah a lot was missing from this movie but the book was over seven hundred pages long! There was no way they could put it all in the movie. But this movie was the best of the series by far. It was visually amazing, as other people said, and I thought they did a really good job of condensing the plot into two and a half hours. My three complaints were: no veelas, Flor wasn't mystical enough, and the ending was a little different. Overall, though, it was amazing!!!! Expand
  73. Steph
    Nov 21, 2005
    8
    the film was really good and far better than i expected! it is well worth going to see!
  74. JeffF.
    Nov 21, 2005
    10
    I had a great time watching this film. I'm always concerned that book-to-film adaptations will lose a lot of the finer points of the book, but that's not the case here. The writing team very nicely trimmed the fat of the book and even enhanced it as they realized there are six distinct acts of narrative, and the rest is non-essential. The only noteworthy plot "changes" are that I had a great time watching this film. I'm always concerned that book-to-film adaptations will lose a lot of the finer points of the book, but that's not the case here. The writing team very nicely trimmed the fat of the book and even enhanced it as they realized there are six distinct acts of narrative, and the rest is non-essential. The only noteworthy plot "changes" are that Barty Crouch Jr appears in the first scene, and the third task is modified a bit (no cloud, skrewt, or sphinx). No house elves either, so anything that Dobby or Winky did was assigned to someone else. They also chopped a ton off the introduction (gimme more Mr. Weasley!) A couple other quick complaints: Hermione is definitely getting around (Ron, Harry, and Krum all seem to be getting some) and Dumbledore has an explosive temper I don't recall reading about (Richard Harris is still missed). The leadup to and the Yule Ball scene were hilarious - boys and girls are so dumb at age 14. The new cast additions are all great: Mad-Eye Moody is magnificent, Rita Skeeter is correctly abominable (but underused) and you can't help but have a huge crush on Cho Chang. The tournament tasks are appropriately breathtaking and the final showdown is equally creepy and exhilarating (what a surprise, Ralph Fiennes is great). I'm thrilled they got this one right; good luck making a movie of the 5th book. Expand
  75. CaptainSadness
    Nov 21, 2005
    10
    At first I thought the movie was going to be lame. It started of with weak diolouge and then after 20 minutes in...I realized I was actually leaning forward in my seat with anticipation. This movie is awesome! I have to say the the Death Eaters, and the plot around them was awesome! The Dark Lord's raising a duel with Harry in the graveyard was stunning! This movie certainly had a At first I thought the movie was going to be lame. It started of with weak diolouge and then after 20 minutes in...I realized I was actually leaning forward in my seat with anticipation. This movie is awesome! I have to say the the Death Eaters, and the plot around them was awesome! The Dark Lord's raising a duel with Harry in the graveyard was stunning! This movie certainly had a creep factor at parts...which is great for the HP frachise! Expand
  76. TravisEmergency
    Nov 20, 2005
    10
    It was amazing. Definetly the best in the series, with excellent acting all around. Tons of action, and the cinematography was great.
  77. Matt
    Nov 21, 2005
    10
    My wife and are both in our thirties, don't read the books, but never miss watching these in the IMAX when they come out. The Dragon scene...with a 6 story screen, was intense to say the least. We are very discerning film watchers, and we both couldn't say enough about how good this movie was. We feel that Daniel, Rupert, and Emma are really maturing as actors, and I felt that My wife and are both in our thirties, don't read the books, but never miss watching these in the IMAX when they come out. The Dragon scene...with a 6 story screen, was intense to say the least. We are very discerning film watchers, and we both couldn't say enough about how good this movie was. We feel that Daniel, Rupert, and Emma are really maturing as actors, and I felt that the pacing, cinematography and writing were all first rate. I laughed out load many times, a testement to the affection one has for these characters we are watching grow up before our eyes. Kudos to everyone involved in this latest installment...not to demean the other movies by any stretch of the imagination. Expand
  78. JulieM.
    Nov 21, 2005
    9
    While some parts of the book were left out, what was in the movie was fantastic. Great action, great effects - can't wait until the next.
  79. Erin
    Nov 21, 2005
    7
    I loved the book so much, it was by far my favorite, so it was a little disappointing to see many of the sub-plots on the cutting room floor. The climax, the maze and battle, left a little to be desired.
  80. JoeB.
    Nov 20, 2005
    8
    As one who has not seen the other three HP movies, I can't rate it in comparison, but I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Although I have read through book four, it has been a while, and did not remember every important aspect of the plotline. Nevertheless, I was quite satisfied with this adaptation of the novel. The guy that played Moody was superb, and Maggie Smith was hilarious as always.
  81. Pinkerton
    Nov 20, 2005
    10
    Excellent. Intense from start to finish, does away with some of the more annoying, pre-teen plot points and plows headlong into a more adult storyline. The best film yet, better than Curon's which had a great look, but strange pacing. Newell seems to keep a lot of Curon's art direction, though he seems more comfortable with the boarding school setting (he himself went to one). Excellent. Intense from start to finish, does away with some of the more annoying, pre-teen plot points and plows headlong into a more adult storyline. The best film yet, better than Curon's which had a great look, but strange pacing. Newell seems to keep a lot of Curon's art direction, though he seems more comfortable with the boarding school setting (he himself went to one). The pacing is great and the acting is vastly improved. Ralph Finnes as Voldemort is truly breathtaking, he is genuinely frightening, do not take young children to this one. Expand
  82. DaveF.
    Nov 20, 2005
    10
    It may be smack in the middle of the Potter trilogy, but Rowling's strongest book was done full justice with this, easily the best Potter film. Just about perfect in its balance, with every scene achieving its goal; the comedy is laugh-aloud, the horror is can't-bear-to-look, and the action is dazzling. Goblet of Fire boasts the first convincing big-screen dragon, while cutesy It may be smack in the middle of the Potter trilogy, but Rowling's strongest book was done full justice with this, easily the best Potter film. Just about perfect in its balance, with every scene achieving its goal; the comedy is laugh-aloud, the horror is can't-bear-to-look, and the action is dazzling. Goblet of Fire boasts the first convincing big-screen dragon, while cutesy house elves...are nowhere to be seen, thank you Mr. Newell! Did Moaning Myrtle remind anyone else just a bit of gollum? Expand
  83. TomT.
    Nov 20, 2005
    8
    Considering a majority of the book was kept out, this film was fantastic. It flowd well, was fast-paced, yet didn't feel rushed or leave one confused as its predecessor is. Voldemort's performance was delicious: who would have thought a young, agile, passionate creature would emerge from that...thing? No complaints here from someone who has disliked all movies preceding...
  84. EmmaT.
    Nov 20, 2005
    10
    I think this was the best on yet! i mean they could have added a little more of the book in it, but the 4th was a very long novel. this movie also is darker and their portrayal of lord voldemort was great. if you just skip the rest of the movie and watched the deatheater scene it would still be worth the price of admission.
  85. Emma
    Nov 23, 2005
    10
    This movie was sooo good!! The grapics were terrific i actually remember being in the movie theater and thinking "oh good he is only at the 2nd trial there is still a lot to go!" When I got out of the movie theater it took me a while to get used to being in the real word and not in teh magic world.i actually got to fealing that i was right next to harry the whole way! and as for those This movie was sooo good!! The grapics were terrific i actually remember being in the movie theater and thinking "oh good he is only at the 2nd trial there is still a lot to go!" When I got out of the movie theater it took me a while to get used to being in the real word and not in teh magic world.i actually got to fealing that i was right next to harry the whole way! and as for those people that are as clueless in saying that they where very dissapoined that they left stuff out of the movie that was in the book. I say they had to, the movie was already 2hours and somthing long. But i remember being thrilled of how much the movie reminded me of how good the book was. have fun seeing the best of the harry potter series. (i would give it a hundred if i could!). Expand
  86. Carp
    Nov 24, 2005
    3
    This is better than the last 3 movies, of course that isn't saying much at all. The movie leaves out far too many key details and has a constant feeling of rush, like trying to see all of a zoo in the last hour before it closes, the overall experience sucks, badly.
  87. BryanN.
    Nov 25, 2005
    9
    Basically, for the Harry Potter series, the success of a film is greatly based on the ability of the director making a synopsys of it. I am personaly pleased with the fourth instalment. Director Chris Collumbus managed to stuff all the action in it while trying to make sense for all of it. However, he left out some unnessesary plots which caused unsatisfaction to certain people. As Basically, for the Harry Potter series, the success of a film is greatly based on the ability of the director making a synopsys of it. I am personaly pleased with the fourth instalment. Director Chris Collumbus managed to stuff all the action in it while trying to make sense for all of it. However, he left out some unnessesary plots which caused unsatisfaction to certain people. As mentioned earlier, i loved HPGOF. It was fascinating and the computer graphichs were simply brilliant. I was simply awed by how the tiles flew from the castle roof when the dragon kind of clinged on it. There are also a lot of breath-taking action and wonderfull scenery. An adventure leads to another, it's as simple as that. I really enjoyed the movie very much, maybe it's due to months of anticipated wait. The celebrities however, play an important role in the popularity of the movie. There are, naturally, humurous parts of the film as a tradition, some from Rowling, but some implemented from Chris himself. It was really funny. My only complaint is, the lenght of the movie was too short. For a book that's that thick, it seems rather impossible for the director to minimized it to it's current state but he managed. Unfortunately, this resulted in difficulty in understanding the Movie. i doubt anyone would truly realize what is happening if he or she has yet to read the book. In my opinoin, the show should at least be 3 hours long, but 5 as a better option. He could have divided the movie into two episodes. By then people would not complain : Why no SPEW? Why no Winky, And Why No Sphinx? As a conclution, Chris has managed to pack J.K.Rowlings Fascinating world into an action packed film. This is the defining film for the whole series, a must watch for fans. It is definitely worth your bucks. Expand
  88. PatrickD.
    Nov 26, 2005
    9
    I thought Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was the best of the series. I was probably wrong. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was a VERY good movie and VERY well done. The movie centers on Harry as he takes his fourth year into Hogwarts. This year, Voldemort's (sorry, "He Who Must Not Be Named") power is steadily growing, thanks to his servants, the Death Eaters. Early in I thought Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was the best of the series. I was probably wrong. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was a VERY good movie and VERY well done. The movie centers on Harry as he takes his fourth year into Hogwarts. This year, Voldemort's (sorry, "He Who Must Not Be Named") power is steadily growing, thanks to his servants, the Death Eaters. Early in the film, Harry and his pals are gathering at the Quittich World Cup. Quickly into the film, the characters are attacked-not by dementors this time- but by Death Eaters, Lord Voledemort's servants. (This part was very exciting.) The film moves fairly quickly, with more mystery than even the Prisoner of Azkaban had. Harry Potter is entered into the Tri-Wizard Tournament. How? We have yet to find out. Unfortunately for Harry, he has no choice except to accept what is in front of him. What also sucks for Harry is that people have died in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. Yes, it's that dangerous. One thing new with Harry is that he is at the stage in life where he is changing. Hormones. More romance takes place, than it did in the others. For example, Harry seems to have a bit of feeling for Cho Chung. Ron gets jealous of his friends, because he can't get a date for himself. Hermione seems to have taken a liking to one of the other competitors. I remember Ron commenting "Bloody hell" when checking out the bodies of the French team. The movie generally is exciting and face-paced, but even if it has a length of 157 minutes, it still moves too fast for its own good. For example, they never tell us what a port-key is. (The audience has to figure it out for themselves.) The character, Cedric Diggory is hardly introduced to us. There seems to be no beginning the scene where the Death Eaters attack. It just happens out of nowhere. The movie never tells us why Ron gets mad at Harry. (It is because he is jealous, as previously stated.) Even if they took out parts of the book to make the movie shorter, they seem to have taken out necessary parts along with them. I did like the movie, but Expand
  89. 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.
  90. RobertI.
    Nov 28, 2005
    10
    By far the best HP Movie yet. Excellent performances, great adaptation from the book.
  91. Mark
    Nov 30, 2005
    9
    It would be hard to top the Prisoner of Azkaban and this movie does not - its good, but not better. I miss the lyrical character driven nature of Prisoner.
  92. MelodyE.
    Dec 18, 2005
    10
    Great movie, it is my favourite one of all the Harry Potter movies, now that's saying something because anyone who knows me knows that I'm a huge Harry Potter fan, but also very, very judgemental on movies, tv, anything really; this movie got little to no mocking from me.
  93. TedH
    Dec 19, 2005
    10
    The perfect holiday movie. The film is jampacked with everything that countless other comedies, dramas, and adventure pictures wish they could become. If you have the chance, see it with friends on an IMAX screen, which brings the scope of the presentation to a level not seen this year!
  94. ScottC
    Dec 21, 2005
    10
    Quite a good film. My family was highly entertained throughout.
  95. einavg.
    Dec 30, 2005
    10
    Dude The best movie ever!!!!!!!!!!!!
  96. RitB.
    Dec 31, 2005
    10
    Wizards exist and this movie proves it --- because it was made by technical wizards. This is movie making and story telling at its best. I hope Rowling lives and writes for a thousand years.
  97. TriciaP.
    Dec 3, 2005
    8
    Perhaps even an 8.5...not as good as the third film but still very good, and entertaining. I've read the books and was glad because much was left out of this movie, by necessity; however, the film was much more of a thriller than its predecessors, and could easily be enjoyed without having read the books. Even knowing the plot and ending, I hated to leave the theater for even a moment.
  98. NikolaS.
    Dec 30, 2005
    10
    Amazing! Can't say it's the best one yet, 'cause it's so different! However, it was time to move on to the full frontal... PG13!
  99. LeahK.
    Dec 4, 2005
    10
    This was the GREATEST ONE!!! & RUPERT GRINT IS VERY HOTT!
  100. Claire
    Dec 4, 2005
    7
    Not a bad movie compared to the other Harry Potter films but they added and took off quite a bit off the original book. I suppose it's difficult to make a movie out of such a long book. . . anyway, the Voldermort scene was probably the best part but Cedric and Krum look about 30 years old.
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.