Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Absolutely Fantastic

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

After the extraordinary Prisoner of Azkaban there is no doubt that it was hard to live up to its reputation, and The Goblet of Fire definitely did not manage to do that, as it is definitely the weakest of the bunch up to this point.The biggest problem with this entry when comparing it to its predecessor is its use of digital backdrops instead of natural ones. This is also a part where The Prisoner of Azkaban shines in so brightly, as it used a lot of gorgeous backdrops of natural surroundings and showed a lot of interconnectivity of its area's to create a truly immersive experience. In the Goblet of Fire, many of the outdoor shots are bleak, colorless & quite ugly, and after the incredible cinematography that Azkaban had, the Goblet of Fire just looks like its ugly auntie. Also, this is, like Reign of Fire (2002) once again an absolute insult to common mythology as it is common knowledge that Dragons have four legs, and not two like in this film. The correct term for this creature should be 'Wyvern' instead of Dragon, as they do walk on two legs like the ones in this movie do. The previous two movies were exceptional at introducing new characters, but in this film this is not so much the case, except for Brendan Gleeson ( Moody ) who was, ofcourse, brilliant as usual as this completely mad and insane yet mostly likeable character. However, the addition of two schools of who we have never heard of and its colorless characters such as Krum or Fleur Delacour definitely does not help give the film character. Ofcourse i do not need to explain to people who have seen Twilight what a terrible actor Robert Pattinson ( Cedric ) is, and it is no different in this film. Luckily, he was only used sparingly and his dialogue is quite limited.Another obvious problem is the lack of a John Williams score. The composer Patrick Doyle tries to give it his best but he is obviously no match for Williams, and the score for this film is not memorable in any way, which is in stark contrast to the extremely emotionally powerful scores the first three movies had. The result is the iconic feel of the series is kind of gone, and a great part of it is due to Williams's departure from the series.In the end the film really isn't about anything. It's about a tournament with three deadly objectives just for the sake of 'Tradition and honor'? It seems so out of place after what we have seen in the first three films, in which the narrative seemed logical and humane, but in the Goblet of Fire the narrative seems to be there for the sake of being a narrative, and not much else. There is also a gigantic ball scene with a lot of characters no one cares about and Ron who always seems pissed off at either Hermione of Harry for no obvious reason, which significantly lowers the audience's connections with its three main leads which has been established so wonderfully in its predecessors.Luckily there still is the final half hour, as the graveyard sequence and Voldemort's resurrection is quite fascinating to behold, although it still has its flaws. It is said many times that Voldemort was scarier when he was not fully seen, and there is truth to this, yet i still find it that this scene is the most memorable in the film due to the exceptional special effects clashing of the wands and the fantastic Ralph Fiennes ( Voldemort ) performance. However, it seems he was so obsessed with himself that he let a hollywood cliché get the better of him, preferring to talk Harry to death instead of actually trying to kill him, and this admittedly makes Voldemort less intimidating compared to how intimidating he was in its predecessors when not being seen. Cedric's death is supposed to be an emotional moment after this, but we do not really actually know Cedric's character or what good he has done except tip Harry off about the dive objective, and therefore an emotional connection with his character cannot really be formed which results in his death not affecting the audience that much.It is by no means a bad film overall, as its costume design, parts of indoor cinematography and acting by most of the established actors is still pretty good, but for a Harry Potter entry it is definitely a let down. Oh well, atleast the audience has the joy of seeing that annoying guy from Twilight get killed. That alone makes sure it still deserves some praise.

I thought the original novel to Goblet of Fire was a little underwhelming but it was still fun. That Quidditch match at the beginning of the novel seemed unnecessary and the film cut out the Dursley scenes completely. But here we get the comeback of a certain wizard and Harry's role in the battles to come. The special effects were well done and there was a lot cut out but it did its job. Some might like this better than the novel because it's more condensed. But you be the judge. As for me, I can't decide which is better; they're both good, the novel and the movie.

Directed By: Mike NewellStarring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert GrintOverall: This movie is good. It's not great but it's good. It's one of the worst Harry Potter franchise but they are all pretty good.Good:1. It's my personal favourite individual storyline of the series and sets things in motion for the next 4 entries to the franchise.2. Ralph Fiennes is marvelous and spectacular and phenomenal as Voldermort that, in perhaps 10 minutes screen time, he becomes one of the most memorable and interesting components of the series.3. Brendan Gleeson does an excellent job as Mad Eye Moody, who is also one of my favourite characters in the Wizarding World.4. As per usual, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane and Michael Gambon do great in each of their roles.5. A thankful improvement from 3, is the acting capability of the main trio. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are all much better in their roles this time around than in 'Prisoner of Azkaban'.6. Set, Costume and Creature design were all spectacular and really added to the wonder of this world.7. The grand reveal at the end was excellent.8. The action scenes are 10x better in this movie than in Prisoner of Azkaban with each trial having spectacular set pieces and just plain action in general.Bad:1. I really hated the cinematography in the movie and it just looked horrible.2. More peaceful and character driven scenes, such as the Yule ball, suffered due to the greater focus on action. For example, the sweets scene in PoA or the breakfast scene in CoS feel natural and character driven were these scenes feel like filler to bloat run time, even if they were in the books.3. I despise the opening to the movie with the Qudditch world cup and could be much better if it was better wrote and perhaps a tad bit longer, thus replacing some scenes later on.4. {SPOILERS}: The Death of Barty Crouch feels like it goes nowhere and makes you wonder how their wasn't more security and defence to stop this from happening.7/10

After the magnificent Prisoner of Azkaban, The Goblet of Fire is just a horrible downgrade. Yes, the book is long and there's no way every scene would be in it, but so much has been left behind. The beginning is butchered, so is the school year. Now it seems like nothing else happened except for the Triwizard Tournament. The main characters had like one class during the entire year. They should've made the movie longer. Three hours may be a long movie, but it's better to make it long than make it seem like all this happened in few months instead of one school year. Seasons barely changed!This film includes the one change everyone hates: Dumbledore was supposed to calmly ask Harry if he put his name in the goblet of fire, but for some reason Michael Gambon's Dumbledore is furious 24/7 and even violent. It makes no sense. Of course Dumbledore is quite a reckless headmaster, but with Richard Harris he seemed gentle, just the right way. If Michael Gambon can't pull of that kind of gentleness, they should've cast someone else. Everyone loved Harris, he was the perfect Dumbledore. After he died, did the people in charge of casting just think, "Ah, f@#k it, let's choose someone completely different". One thing I like is how dark the ending is. It's a good prelude to how dark the last movies are going to be. Of course now it seems like the movies are starting to be too scary for kids. It's hard for me to watch few scenes because of how gruesome they are, so how do they except children to watch them? All the charm Prisoner of Azkaban is gone. If one Harry Potter movie clearly needs a remake, it's this one.