Goblet of Fire

[housemouse]

I finally saw it! Yesterday I went to the movies and saw Goblet of Fire! I agree with everything that has been said so far!!! I also must add that I officially have a crush on Robert Pattinson (Cedric Diggory), he is awfully cute and I thought he did a wonderful job.

I was on the edge of my seat as they entered the maze. Ralph Fiennes just blew me away. I actually saw someone get up and walk out as the scene began! I was appalled, someone leaving the theater as Voldemort is about to appear? How could they?

Like Inuvik, I loved the cinematography; the sweeping shots of Hogwarts and the countryside.

I would have liked to have seen more of Hagrid and of course more Sirius (ahhh Gary Oldman), but as mlm mentioned, they could only put in so much and I thought they did a great job of paring it down without losing the thread of the story.

I did get the distinct impression that unless one had read the books, or at least seen the other movies, they would have a hard time following this one. As a Harry Potter freak that is not an issue for me but, had I dragged my husband to it, I am not sure he would have enjoyed the movie.

[greenbeing]

I watched the Goblet of Fire last night. I've only seen it once, so I don't have a full spectrum of impressions.

The two creepiest things, in my opinion, are 1. when Argus Filch was dancing with his cat, who was suffering a bout of demonic posession at the time, if the red eyes attest, and 2. the fact that Voldemort didn't have a nose! Egad!

A very close third was the killing curse.

Overall, I did like it, they did a great job picking just the absolutely necessary bits to tell the tale of the Tournement. But, I felt like something was missing, when it was over. Nearly three hours and something's missing? Bah! Yet, I thought so... Perhaps the fact that Harry didn't seem to learn some deep life lesson, not really, and didn't grow as a character...

Dumbledore was very manic! He wasn't at all as reserved as he is in the books. (I know this is a newer Dumbledore, but wasn't this the same guy as in the third movie?) He told Harry things I'd never thought he would, and gave a blatant showing of being less than in control, worried, panicky. More like Doc Brown in Back to the Future, "Damn. Damn, damn. Damn, damn, damn." I kept expecting Dumbledore to say that, the way he was acting out his frustrations, instead of garnering his wits and controlling his impulses.

Love, love, loved the entrance of the girls from Madame Maxine's school! Tee hee!

It's been a few years since I read the fourth book, so I'll have to go back to compare characters and find out what the other subplots were. So right now, I'm not comparing to the book so much as to the previous three movies.

--GB

[shmeep]

I'm glad this has been brought up again because we bought the DVD on Friday and have been watching it in bits and pieces with meals ever since. We're on our second time 'round right now because we want to catch everything.

I just read through all the previous posts and I still think this was a great movie and embodied much of the book very well, but with some time to think about it--and after reading what greenbeing has said--I have a few other thoughts.

I agree that this Dumbledore is disappointing. Far too dramatic and without that famous twinkle in his eye he's supposed to have. For that matter, the last Dumbledore, while excellent, didn't quite have it either. Both are far too serious while the Dumbledore described vividly in the book is funny and twinkly and could come across as borderline mad at times (but not in a Doc Brown way--thanks for that comparison, greenbeing!). I picture his character as being far more like Ian McKellen's portrayal of Gandalf in Lord of the Rings. He had a beautiful mixture of strength and humor and wisdom and even pathos. The first Dumbledore was too serious and the second is too spazzy.

I found greenbeing's comment about Harry's lack of growth interesting. With the books fresh in my mind (always ), I didn't see that right off because I know what really happened. But the movie...wow! A lot got left out at the end that really shows what the experience of seeing Cedric die and seeing Voldemort come to life really did to him. He was a basket case by the end of the book and suddenly what he went through made everything else seem unimportant and he seemed years older.

I missed the beautiful moment of comfort when Mrs. Weasly hugged him in the infirmary. I missed Sirius being there in dog form and then changing into a human and being forced to shake hands with Snape because they were supposed to be on the same side now. I missed Cornelius Fudge's blunder at the end and how he had a dementor administer the "kiss" to Barty Crouch Jr. I missed the whole concept that the whole wizarding world was about to be splint in two between those who denied Voldemort was in power again and those who knew it was true (which is the set up for the entire fifth book). I missed the prize money being awarded to Harry and Harry giving it to the Weasley twins. That's a rather important plot point because it sets up everything the Weasley twins do in the next two books.

I didn't, however, miss Voldemort's nose. I thought that was a pretty cool effect and it made him look less human and more snakelike. Cool!

And I kind of liked the moment of filch dancing with his cat. Her eyes are red in all the movies so that didn't really squick me out. I guess Filch was suddenly the comic relief in this movie.

Something that was disappointing was when Sirius appeared in the fireplace. The books make it clear that when a person uses floo powder to communicate in this way, their heads just pop up in the fireplace. They don't look like burning embers the way he did. That bugged. Also, why did Flitwick suddenly look so different in the third and fourth movies? Why do they turn in muggle notebooks to Snape--the kind you can buy at Rite Aid? Don't they use parchment? And, when someone gets a cut, why do they always have that tape holding it together when Madame Pomfrey can just mend it with her wand? And why do the kids dress like muggles so much more than they did in the first two movies? I know the director of the third movie wanted them to look more like kids, but he went too far with the muggle clothes. Where would the Weasleys get such garments? Why didn't Madeye Moody have a claw for that prosthetic foot, as described in the book? Why did Moody suddenly remove his leg in front of Harry at one point? It made no sense at all, but I guess they wanted the viewers to be reminded that the leg was fake but...if he had had the wooden claw of a foot described in the book, there wouldn't have been a problem.

That's all for now. Thanks for bringing this up again, greenbeing! I'd love to talk more if you have any other thoughts about this.

[maggiethecat]

I've always thought that Peter O'Toole would make the perfect Dumbledore -- he can do the twinkle, and heaven knows he can come across as a bit mad. Plus he does have such a rich voice.

[mlm828]

When I watched the movie in the theater, I, too, thought the character of Dumbledore was "off" in some way I couldn't really put my finger on. I remember thinking at the time that I wasn't sure whether it was the way Michael Gambon played the character, or the way the character was written and/or directed in this movie. I didn't feel that way about Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore in Prisoner of Azkaban. I just bought the DVD yesterday and haven't watched it yet. I'll chime in again if I have any further thoughts after watching it.

[greenbeing]

Drat, I wish I'd brought the book with me today. I could start to compare them.

admin said:

I agree that this Dumbledore is disappointing. Far too dramatic and without that famous twinkle in his eye he's supposed to have.... The first Dumbledore was too serious and the second is too spazzy.

Dumbledore was always supposed to be such a pillar of strength to Harry, but I didn't find him at all reassuring in this movie. Where was his brilliant wisdomosity? I agree with Shmeep that he was a bit of a spazz. The scene that really caught my attention was in his office when he flung himself down on the stairs and said something like, I don't believe this is happening. I don't remember Dumbledore ever letting anything get under his skin like that. And he didn't have his famous Dumbledore humor that Harry never quite knew how to take. He was much better in Prisoner of Azkaban, full of that do-it-don't-question-it brilliance.

I didn't, however, miss Voldemort's nose.... And I kind of liked the moment of filch dancing with his cat.... I guess Filch was suddenly the comic relief in this movie.

I thought both of these things were great, and wish the movie could have had more of these tiny little things. They were very creepy, but so true.

And I did notice that Filch all of the sudden wasn't quite Mr. Evil anymore. The run in at the banquet to tell Dumbledore the other schools were there? Yup, comic relief. It's kinda weird that one of the scariest guys in the books is suddenly the comic relief, because suddenly there's things that are much much scarier going on, relegating him to normality.

Something that was disappointing was when Sirius appeared in the fireplace. The books make it clear that when a person uses floo powder to communicate in this way, their heads just pop up in the fireplace. They don't look like burning embers the way he did. That bugged.

Yes! I was very disappointed in the fireplace scene, too. The way they did it, it looked like it would hurt...

Why do they turn in muggle notebooks to Snape--the kind you can buy at Rite Aid? Don't they use parchment?

You're right! I hadn't noticed that, entirely. I sort of noticed, but it didn't register.

Must go watch movie again, as I don't think I have anything new to add. I hadn't thought of the muggleization of the characters. I was too busy trying to remember all the little things that were missing, like wasn't this the book where Harry really started to get closer to the Weasley's? And I knew something important was supposed to happen with the twins, but didn't pan out.

I did like how Neville finally came into his own a bit. Who'd've thought he was a Casanova? And Moaning Myrtle's crush on Harry was great. That was an awesome bathroom.

The bit with Snape previously being a death eater, that was glossed over. Harry never did question it in the movie, did he?

One thing they didn't gloss over was the tension between Hermione and Ron--glad they left that in.

I don't remember much about Alastaire Moody in the book, so I can't comment on his character's translation right now. The only thing I remember from when I read it, was being rather disappointed that we didn't get to meet the real man, because the fake one was so... odd. And scary. And if a fake Moody is scary, I can only imagine he'd be 1/10 as scary as the real one.

--GB

[greenbeing]

I figured it out! The ending was pretty much missing. That whole overall feeling, the aura of the book, it was gone. That fear of Voldemort, the safety of being with the Weasleys, the great comfort of having Sirius worry about him, like family...

So I just finished the book last night. And I was completely in love with Dumbledore this time. I was keeping an eye out specifically, which helped me catch all his one-liners. He's hilarious! And completely nutty. Which is exactly what Fred and George say about him: He's brilliant and all, but isn't he completely crazy, or something to that extent. He didn't start getting all serious and worried until after Harry returned with the Tri-Wizard cup and Cedric's body. Until then, he was his normal, laid-back, enigmatic fella. I really really liked him. Too funny, with his out of place jokes, and his little side comments. I would truly be in awe of this man, and a little like Harry, unsure how to take him, if he was serious or joking, but I wish he were real so I could meet him.

And Shmeep, you were right! Moody's leg was supposed to be wooden, with a claw (so what was up with the modern, space-aged thing he was wearing? 'twould have been better to be wood to contrast the magical hand Wormtail gets at the end), and his eye was one that would pop right in his socket, not with that strap holding it on.

Now that I've read the book, I'll have to rewatch the movie, because I've forgotten a lot of how they did it. But it felt, while I was reading, the first part they did quite well, everything in place, but they almost skewed to completely separate stories after the Yule Ball because the focus was different. I'm trying to figure out how I would have done it differently... It's not working so well. I just feel like the end of the book, which is so poignant and so powerfully affective to Harry's future character, was completely glossed over. Though it was nice to see more of Neville in the movie, they changed most of that from the book, and perhaps a lot of the Yule Ball stuff wasn't as necessary--could have cut a minute or two of that to make room for a bit more with Sirius at the end, and the whole hospital scene at the end. Even the Pensieve was quite glossed over, but I guess that bit's more important in the future books.

I think the biiiig thing I would have changed from the movie would be to use more of Dumbledore's original lines from the book. Make him this quirky, eccentric character so that when he does get all scary and heebie-jeebie-causing over Lord Voldemort at the end, it would be more powerful of a change. The book made a point of saying how Dumbledore had never seemed that scary, and it was no wonder he's the only wizard V fears. D just isn't that manic, worried dude like he was in this movie, so I think they shouldn't have messed with his character.

Perhaps the epic first two tasks could have been cut down a smidgen to make the third a bit longer. Because that's the most important one.

I did miss their classes, though. I wish even the book had gone a bit more into Moody's classes and such. But the movie almost felt like they weren't in school anymore, as they were never in class with the teachers, except twice I think.

Oops, that was longer and more drawn out than I'd planned! Apologies!

--GB

[shmeep]

0Greenbeing, your analysis was so fun for me to read! Thanks and karma for all the deep thinking. It's so fun to get into this sort of discussion about something as fun as Harry Potter.

greenbeing said:

I figured it out! The ending was pretty much missing. That whole overall feeling, the aura of the book, it was gone. That fear of Voldemort, the safety of being with the Weasleys, the great comfort of having Sirius worry about him, like family...

Exactly! You put my vague impressions into words. In the book, everything takes a turn for the sinister the moment Cedric dies and then the horror of Fudge not believing him and administering "The Kiss" to Barty Jr...and the moment when Sirius transforms in front of Snape and Dumbledore tells them to shake hands because they're on the same side now...and the grief and guilt Harry feels over what happened to Cedric...Dumbledore's assertion that The Ministry of Magic had parted ways from those who believed Harry. This is all so important! I understand condensing because of time constraints, but it wouldn't have taken much for this part of the story to have come to life on the screen. They could have had five minutes less of the dragon (that part dragged a bit) and added it to the end.

greenbeing said:

So I just finished the book last night. And I was completely in love with Dumbledore this time. I was keeping an eye out specifically, which helped me catch all his one-liners. He's hilarious! And completely nutty. Which is exactly what Fred and George say about him: He's brilliant and all, but isn't he completely crazy, or something to that extent. He didn't start getting all serious and worried until after Harry returned with the Tri-Wizard cup and Cedric's body. Until then, he was his normal, laid-back, enigmatic fella. I really really liked him. Too funny, with his out of place jokes, and his little side comments. I would truly be in awe of this man, and a little like Harry, unsure how to take him, if he was serious or joking, but I wish he were real so I could meet him.

Excellent description of our Dumbledore! How easy it is to forget all this when we watch any of the movies. That's a real shame. They never were able to properly capture his character.

greenbeing said:

And Shmeep, you were right! Moody's leg was supposed to be wooden, with a claw (so what was up with the modern, space-aged thing he was wearing? 'twould have been better to be wood to contrast the magical hand Wormtail gets at the end), and his eye was one that would pop right in his socket, not with that strap holding it on.

Amen!

greenbeing said:

But it felt, while I was reading, the first part they did quite well, everything in place,

Now this is interesting. Perfect example of how the movie was able to take a huge chunk of story and condense it into a few very short scenes and yet still keep the spirit of the book alive. When you think about it, a lot of the beginning was completely gone. No Dursleys, no Weasleys breaking in to the Dursley's fireplace, no prank candy for Dudley, no Weasley home life with Bill, Charlie, and Percy, no Winky, no Veelas, no Ludo Bagman, no muggles being tortured. Really, a ton of stuff was omitted, but I didn't even miss it at the time because I was caught up in what they did capture. The excitement of the event, what a wonder boy Cedric was, how they all supported the Irish team but how Ron was enthralled by Krum...this all happened so quickly but the way they did it made it fit so well with the book that I was able to excuse what had to be left out. They could have done something similar with the ending in order to give us a feel of how truly horrific everything was, even after Harry was safe. I missed the Phoenix tears healing him and Mrs. Weasley giving him a hug that almost made him cry.

greenbeing said:

Though it was nice to see more of Neville in the movie, they changed most of that from the book, and perhaps a lot of the Yule Ball stuff wasn't as necessary--could have cut a minute or two of that to make room for a bit more with Sirius at the end, and the whole hospital scene at the end. Even the Pensieve was quite glossed over, but I guess that bit's more important in the future books.

Yeah, the Yule Ball went on a bit, but it was cute. I didn't think it was that different from the book, there were just a few additions. A touch here and there. That part didn't bug me. Hagrid's hand slipping down and his date putting it back up to her waist. Fun stuff like that.

But was Hermione just a bit too hysterical during this movie? Seemed many of her lines were delivered in an emotional frenzy. True, Hermione can be emotional, but she is also very logical and often calm. I wasn't a big fan of her portrayal in this movie. Probably her weakest performance out of the four movies. Ron, however, continues to improve. He was adorable in the first, horrible in the second, and then quite fun to watch in the third and fourth.

greenbeing said:

I think the biiiig thing I would have changed from the movie would be to use more of Dumbledore's original lines from the book. Make him this quirky, eccentric character so that when he does get all scary and heebie-jeebie-causing over Lord Voldemort at the end, it would be more powerful of a change. The book made a point of saying how Dumbledore had never seemed that scary, and it was no wonder he's the only wizard V fears. D just isn't that manic, worried dude like he was in this movie, so I think they shouldn't have messed with his character.

Again, you summed it up perfectly. I wish somebody who really "gets" Dumbledore had been working on all the movies. That is my single biggest gripe about them.

greenbeing said:

Oops, that was longer and more drawn out than I'd planned! Apologies!

No apologies necessary! Trust me. Only Harry Potter fans will be paying much attention to these posts and they will appreciate the thought you have put into it. I know I do.

[anna]

This doesn't really have much to do with Harry Potter, but two HP actors were in The History Boys, which I saw in NY last weekend. They were both excellent. I suppose that, eventually, every British actor will have been in a Harry Potter movie, if they all haven't been already.

Madame Maxime (Frances de la Tour)



Uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths, who won the Tony for his role in The History Boys)