1 DVD

DVD

0.0

Warner Home Video

3/7/2006

11/18/2005

4/11/2006

Mike Newell

012569593879

0012569593879

AC-3 / Closed-captioned / Color / Dolby / Dubbed / Subtitled / NTSC

Spanish (Dubbed) / English (Original Language) / English (Subtitled) / French (Subtitled) / Spanish (Subtitled)

157

PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)

$28.98

Amazon.com The latest entry in the Harry Potter saga could be retitled Fast Times at Hogwarts, where finding a date to the winter ball is nearly as terrifying as worrying about Lord Voldemort's return. Thus, the young wizards' entry into puberty (and discovery of the opposite sex) opens up a rich mining field to balance out the dark content in the fourth movie (and the stories are only going to get darker). Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral) handily takes the directing reins and eases his young cast through awkward growth spurts into true young actors. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe, more sure of himself) has his first girl crush on fellow student Cho Chang (Katie Leung), and has his first big fight with best bud Ron (Rupert Grint). Meanwhile, Ron's underlying romantic tension with Hermione (Emma Watson) comes to a head over the winter ball, and when she makes one of those girl-into-woman Cinderella entrances, the boys' reactions indicate they've all crossed a threshold.

But don't worry, there's plenty of wizardry and action in Goblet of Fire. When the deadly Triwizard Tournament is hosted by Hogwarts, Harry finds his name mysteriously submitted (and chosen) to compete against wizards from two neighboring academies, as well as another Hogwarts student. The competition scenes are magnificently shot, with much-improved CGI effects (particularly the underwater challenge). And the climactic confrontation with Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes, in a brilliant bit of casting) is the most thrilling yet. Goblet, the first installment to get a PG-13 rating, contains some violence as well as disturbing images for kids and some barely shrouded references at sexual awakening (Harry's bath scene in particular). The 2 1/2-hour film, lean considering it came from a 734-page book, trims out subplots about house-elves (they're not missed) and gives little screen time to the standard crew of the other Potter films, but adds in more of Britain's finest actors to the cast, such as Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody and Miranda Richardson as Rita Skeeter. Michael Gambon, in his second round as Professor Dumbledore, still hasn't brought audiences around to his interpretation of the role he took over after Richard Harris died, but it's a small smudge in an otherwise spotless adaptation. --Ellen A. Kim

Description When Harry Potter's name emerges from the Goblet of Fire, he becomes a competitor in a grueling battle for glory among three wizarding schools - the Triwizard Tournament. But since Harry never submitted his name for the Tournament, who did? Now Harry must confront a deadly dragon, fierce water demons and an enchanted maze only to find himself in the cruel grasp of He Who Must Not Be Named. In this fourth film adaptation of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, everything changes as Harry, Ron and Hermione leave childhood forever and take on challenges greater than anything they could have imagined.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=mediaman08-20%26link_code=xm2%26camp=2025%26creative=165953%26path=http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html%253fASIN=B000E6EK38%2526tag=mediaman08-20%2526lcode=xm2%2526cID=2025%2526ccmID=165953%2526location=/o/ASIN/B000E6EK38%25253FSubscriptionId=19N8ASR5JTVVE953BSR2

4.0

663

• Good Movie (5)
  The book is always better than the movie, but looking at them as stand alone, #3 was a great movie and this one is even better. great special effects, funny, and pretty suspenseful at a lot of times. (the twins dying to get away from the guys at the ball kills me.) The chopped story should bother any rational person who realizes that movies cannot follow books. Doesn't work. However, the style of the characters can be translated acceptably, and in occasional instances, done perfectly. (Gandalf in FOTR, Marv in Sin City). However, in the Potter movies, Dumbledore has become a big issue. I think that he is by far the most compelling and exciting character in the books, and the movies (probably more Gambon. Seems like a jerk in real life) are turning him into a very shallow, mundane teacher, instead of the unbelievably clever and powerful dude he is in the book. Also, call wardrobe for the next movie and get the guy some robes; and out of that dress! Does anyone who reads the books imagine A.D. having to hitch up his slip every time he wants to take a step? (Also, Long White Beard and Hair, not Harley Davidson's Granddad. Jeez)
  
  Definitly see this one regardless if this is your first look into the world, or if you're a big fan.
• Egads...They're Teenagers!!! (4)
  Is it me or is it kind of fascinating watching the characters grow older? (Who knew that Neville Longbottom would be sooo tall?!)
  
  Anyhow, the film, I thought overall it was a very good film. Other's have pointed out that it does not follow form to the book, however, as one who has never read one of the books, the film alone is very entertaining. Something had to be left out or this film would have probably passed the four hour mark.
  
  As usual, great visual effects. I loved the entry of the two rival schools. Sorry, I now know that they aren't private schools for boys or girls, but it was very entertaining the way it was presented...and isn't that the final point?
  
  It was also interesting how the characters have grown up and are recognizing their hormones. OMG I felt really, REALLY, uncomfortable when Harry and Ron were sitting with their "dates" at the ball.
  
  So would I recommend this film?...sure...I'd even buy it...
• An awesome book becomes an awful movie (1)
  A rabid Harry Potter fan, I've never liked the film adaptations of the books (with the possible exception of PoA) as they've never really been true to the storyline of the novels or to the characters. Yes I understand that quite a few things must be cut out, but it was never done neatly, and the story never really held together.
  
  The Goblet of Fire film adaptation follows in that tradition. The movie felt like scenes and snapshots randomly thrown together, there was no real sense of continuity - this may have been partly due to the fact that each scene lasted about 5 seconds. You get this impression that the storyline is being squeezed in, that they were just rushing through scenes as if they wanted to get through them quickly without taking up too much reel space or something.
  
  The Quidditch World Cup?! They totally skipped it. One moment you have the audience waiting in anticipation as the announcer (no Ludo Bagman) speaks, then the players fly in...and then cut to Harry, Hermione and the Weasleys celebrating Ireland's victory back in their tent (just one tent in the movie). That was so unbelievably disappointing, even though I didn't like the way they filmed the Quidditch matches in previous films (all that fouling seemed condoned).
  
  The arrival of the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students is weirdly dramatic - it seems all the Beauxbatons students are girls (WRONG, try again - Rowling specifically mentions male Beauxbatons students in the books) and all the Durmstrang students boys (oops wrong again - a Durmstrang girl is in fact mentioned in the books). Then it seems that all of the Beauxbatons girls are as beautiful and fairy-like as veela, and the Durmstrang boys put on this odd martial arts display.
  
  Then the Goblet of Fire scene, when the champions are announced...WHAT was Michael Gambon thinking? First of all, I've always disliked that ponytail beard of his, and I never liked his portrayal of Dumbledore too much. In this film there's this astonishing scene in which Dumbledore shakes Harry and shouts at him, demanding if he put his name in the Goblet. Does this ring true to Dumbledore's character to anyone? I was appalled; Dumbledore doesn't lose his temper when he's about to be murdered for God's sake, and they want him to start screaming when Harry breaks school rules? Later at the Leaving Feast, Dumbledore says a little speech in Cedric's honor, completely lacking in force or emotion of any kind, as if he's merely reciting his lines and then adding some gestures as an afterthought. There's none of Rowling's powerful language and drama and suspense in this film. None of it.
  
  The Goblet of Fire plotline was massacred. I know the storyline is extremely complex, but it IS manageable! Didn't Peter Jackson prove that when he adapted the LOTR trilogy so brilliantly? He did miss out some sections, but he pulled the story together so perfectly that in the end he really did justice to the novels. There was no backstory whatsoever about the two Crouch men, no explanation of motives, and when Neville starts shaking in DADA class it makes you think they'll explain why, because otherwise his behaviour would be baffling to the audience (those who haven't read the books). No, there's no explanation. In the trial scene in the Pensieve (two scenes condensed to one, but that's perfectly understandable), there's only one reference to Frank and Alice Longbottom, and you won't catch it unless you know the story already.
  
  Voldemort...I felt embarrassed. He is the most unimpressive fantasy villain ever depicted on screen (I haven't seen the Narnia movie so that isn't included in the comparison). Ralph Fiennes is a great actor, but he was completely out of his element in this role. Voldemort, like Dumbledore, lacked any real stage presence or force of character, and Fiennes employed dramatic poses and gestures that looked completely idiotic. When Voldemort started melodramatically leaping about the graveyard and yelling, I started laughing. The direction was the biggest problem I think - I've seen Fiennes in other movies, and he's talented. Admittedly Voldemort is a tough character for anyone to portray, but then so is Saruman, and Christopher Lee nailed him in that performance. Both Lee and director Jackson were LOTR fans, so I assume they took a lot of trouble understanding the characters. In any case, Voldemort was even more disappointing than Dumbledore. Moody was also carelessly portrayed, and they hardly took the trouble to make his eye look like a real one, instead strapping some pirate-style thing over his forehead to attach to his eye.
  
  The only time I felt anything at all was when Harry returned with Cedric's body and Amos Diggory said "My son!" - I admit I did get a bit teary-eyed then. Cedric Diggory, Cho Chang and Viktor Krum were good, Fleur a bit too dull; I had imagined a sparkling young person with icy indifference to people around her, but never dull or boring, or lacking in vitality.
  
  On a related note, Hermione is becoming way too pretty. Hollywood is such a sell-out; they're so obsessed with having everyone look good in movies they disregard the fact that, in this film at least, some characters aren't supposed to look like movie stars. Hermione was great in the first two movies, but she's becoming more and more lacquered and doll-like. They've made her hair fall in these beautiful ringlets rather than made it look unkempt and bushy - which is how it's supposed to look. I honestly wasn't so shocked when i saw her at the Yule Ball, because she looks like that in all of the shots in the movie. It's the same with Harry - the first thing I ever noticed abt him in the first movie was that his hair was all neatly combed. And Ron's character was once again sidelined - he's never given the same prominence and respect that the novels give him.
  
  All in all, a predictable massacre of the Harry Potter world. Hollywood evidently has the money to create the perfect sets, but the producers, writers and directors involved in these movies so far clearly don't have the vision. Maybe if they had commissioned J K Rowling to write the screenplay it would have been a few million times better. Unfortunately for all of us, they just didn't.
• I agree. Lighten up. (5)
  I think this movie was awesome. I'm a big fan of the books of course, but I understand that the movie can't be exactly like the book. In my opinion, this movie succeeded where the first two failed- the first two were slow moving, and generally not very exciting. Why? They were made in terms of a novel, not a screenplay adapted from a novel by a person who knows how to make movies. I had a great deal of fun seeing this movie, however I know that if I want original Harry Potter goodness, the books are always there on my shelf for my enjoyment. It's not like the director of this film personally burned all copies of "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" after making this film. Not satisfied with the movie? Read the book again, silly!
• an "E" for exceeds expectations (4)
  I've graded this as if this were the O.W.L. exam.
  
  Although my heart would really love to see a direct adaptation of the books played out by these wonderful, immensely talented actors; I realize that it would have had to be approximately 8 hours long to do so. That being said, I fully expected some large cuts from the storyline to be made. There were. I do not feel that they detracted from the storyline. There are some things I wish had been explained, as in the background story of the 4 marauders (this was left out also in movie 3)
  
  This being my favorite of the novels so far, I was highly anxious to see the treatment of the story, and the acting behind it. The only character who I was disappointed by was Hermione. She has always been bossy and overbearing, highly intelligent and "a fierce, fierce friend" to Harry and Ron. Although Emma Watson did an excellent job portraying the screenplay as written, I believe the director has turned her into a silly, shallow girl who just cries all the time. She has really lost her integrity in this one.
  
  Dumbledore (Gambon) is really growing on me. I am beginning to really understand his take on the character. I have heard people criticizing how rough he was with Harry when he was asking whether Harry had put his name into the goblet, but I liked it. No, I didn't like the imagry of an old, strong man being violent towards a young boy, but I did like how uspet he was. One thing about the way that Richard Harris played Dumbledore is that he was too "gentle" with him when Harry risked his life. I think what Michael Gambon is trying to portray is a man who has put in countless hours and endless effort trying to do everything he can to keep Harry safe from harm. He is a substitute parent for Harry, and loves him like a son. When it looks like Harry has done something infintely stupid to risk his life, Dumbledore is obviously very upset. As any parent would be, if their child did the same thing.
  
  Ray Finnes (sp?) did a fantastic job of portraying Voldemort. His quicksilver mood changes from almost funny to horrifyingy angry just make him all the more dangerous, as there is no way to predict how he will react to something. He is truly believable as the most evil wizard ever.
  
  I just can't wait for the order of the phoenix.