HARRY
POTTER
AND The most
ambitious of the Harry
Potter films to date, GOBLET OF FIRE is also the most scattershot and
episodic entry in the series, owing to the ever-increasing difficulty
of condensing J.K. Rowling's epic-length novels into film-length
adaptations. Those who've read the book are likely to be
disappointed by the film's omission of several key scenes and memorable
events, whereas those unfamiliar with the book may be put off by the
rapid-fire sequence of events. Yet despite its flaws, the
film
works for both casual and serious fans, owing to its breathtaking
action sequences, its deeper delving in to the characters, and the
ever-more-horrifying depths of the dark forces. When Albus
Dumbledore states "We must all face the choice between what is right
and what is easy," we know that Harry's challenges have grown far
beyond three-headed dogs and giant spiders.
The element that holds the film together is
its study of awkward adolescence, which is both playful and poignant,
and which parallels the film's main backdrop of the Tri-Wizard
Tournament. Nearly all obstacles the characters encounter are rites of
passage of some sort, with Harry having a much easier time summoning
the courage to defeat the vast evil forces of nature than to ask a girl
to the Yule Ball. (It's Neville Longbottom who, irony of ironies,
emerges as the most successful ladies' man.) When the
eponymous
goblet spits out Harry's name unexpectedly, it's the catalyst for both
the main setpiece (the tournament) and for Harry being ostracized by
his peers. It's a painful reminder for the grownups in the audience
that adolescence is a time when we have no control over the
circumstances that lead to social persecution.
As with all the Potter films,
it's the human
element that's the most essential ingredient. The eye-popping CGI
effects are still there in abundance, but, aside from the brilliantly
rendered Hungarian Horntail dragaon, the most memorable effects for me
were brief or understated moments (the shot of the massive Quiddich
stadium, the miniature hand-held dragons, and the gorgeous shot of the
flying horses and coach from Beauxbaton's Academy). It's no surprise
that director Mike Newell was best known for such small-scale
comedy-dramas as FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL, leading me to think that
directors who don't give a damn about CGI effects might be the best
ones to helm films loaded with them.
THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN still
gets my vote for
the strongest entry in the Potter film series, but GOBLET is not far
behind. It may be something of a Cliff's Notes version of Rowling's
novel, but in no way do we feel cheated because of
it.
- JL
Perplexing as it can be at times, THE GOBLET OF FIRE is an exciting entry into the series with a few memorable comic moments, some spectacularly eye-popping effects, and even another visit from Lord Vol... er... well, You-Know-Who, played all too briefly by Ralph Fiennes. The three main stars have weathered their journey into young adulthood well. Daniel Radcliffe is growing into an appealing leading man while Emma Watson is blossoming into quite the bonnie young witch. And Rupert Grint... well, I guess some things never change. Radcliffe gives the sturdiest performance of the three, one as good as any of his three previous turns as boy-wizard Harry. He's particularly fine at showing Harry's awkwardness around girls, especially the young beauty he fancies, Cho Chang, played by winsome newcomer Katie Leung.
Because
of the solitary
nature of Harry's tournament challenges, Grint and Watson's characters
lack much
of their usual purpose and, with so much individual Ron and Hermione
stuff lost in translation from book to screen, the actors sometimes
flounder about without direction
or motivation. Ron's sudden
resentment
toward Harry is played out without the backstory given in the book,
so the the script
initially makes him
ultra-sensitive and standoffish toward Harry for no good
reason.
Without an important event at the Quidditch World Cup (the entire match
itself is left out), you would expect Ron to be the one person besides
Hermione to be at his friend's side when everybody else abandons
him. Grint
still gets some opportunities to flex his comic muscles, getting laughs
with lines as simple as
"Yes", "No" and "Where?", and his convoluted, clumsy makeup scene with
Harry, capped by Hermione's frustrated one-word utterance of "Boys!",
is one of the funniest and warmest scenes of the series.
However, because Grint is so damn funny, the makers of the films are
beginning to rely too much on his clowning abilities, and ignoring the
character's heroic, albeit bumbling, qualities. Grint is one
of
the best things about the series, but I would hate to see him turned
into nothing else but comic relief.
Now that Emma Watson is playing a sophisticated young adult version of Hermione, her more Margaret Dumontish tendencies ("WHUUTTT?!?!") are no longer as endearing as they were when Miss Granger was a prissy little 11-year-old fussbudget. Some fans charge her with overacting in GOBLET, and although I agree she has a tendency to overplay her hand, it often works in some of her best moments here - impulsively bear-hugging Harry before his first challenge, or blasting Ron for not asking her to the Yule Ball in time. But she does seem to be pressing too hard in this film, caught somewhere between the over-enunciating "know-it-all" child of the first two films and the more mature figure of feminine influence over the boys she is supposed to become. One hopes she learns to reconnect to her inner Hermione in the upcoming films, because, as she showed in AZKABAN, Watson can be as fun to watch as her cohorts when she is asked to do more than than spout exposition and cluck her tongue impatiently at her companions' boyish antics.
Kudos once again to
Matthew
Lewis as Neville Longbottom, the Trio's own personal Zeppo, who
remains the Potter Stock Company's most
underrated player. As mentioned above, it is Neville who
triumphs
at
the school dance while the other three fail miserably. The
seconds-long
scene of him dancing by himself in the Gryffindor common roon,
looking forward to doing something he actually may be good at for
once, captures the effervescent, unpredictable nature of
adolescence better than any of the Ron-Harry
or Hermione-Ron skirmishes the film is built on.
The adult
cast features one
excellent addition in
Brendan Gleeson, who plays the half-crazed, blustering Mad-Eye Moody,
this year's Defense Against the Dark Arts
Teacher. As seen in my favorite sequence of the film (the
Unforgivable Curses lesson), when Gleeson
is on screen, a very good
film becomes a great one. Robbie Coltrane and Maggie Smith
make
the most of their limited appearances by scoring some of the film's
best laughs, and
Miranda Richardson as tabloid reporter Rita Skeeter channels the late
Madelyn Kahn in the way Emma Thompson channeled Andrea Martin in
AZKABAN. Unfortunately, Alan Rickman as Professor Snape is
barely
in the film, and Gary Oldman shows up in a way that makes you wonder
why he even
bothered.
Now in his second
Potter film, Michael Gambon is still a thorn in the sides of many
fans. I am
firmly and unapologetically pro-Gambon and with each
viewing of
AZKABAN and GOBLET, I've found more to enjoy in his lively, slightly
nutty take on
Dumbledore (rewatch the Time Turner scene in AZKABAN and tell me the
new Dumbledore isn't just a little bonkers). He brings a
charged energy to the role that I suspect will become more
important as the series comes to a head over the next few years,
assuming he's is still playing the part. Just watch the way
he
runs to hit his mark in the scene in which the Beauxbaton beauties
and Durmstrang boys are welcomed to Hogwarts, or the look he
gives Madame
Maxine when he kisses her hand - it clearly says "Whattaya
say,
you and me,
babe, later, in the Chamber of Secrets?" If Gambon's slightly
off-kilter wizard is not exactly the
Dumbledore of the books, well, the literary Scarecrow, Tin Man and
Cowardly Lion weren't singing and dancing vaudevillians
either. Despite my Ron quibbles above, I
am
not a fan who needs the movies to be exactly like the books, and
Michael Gambon as Dumbledore is just ducky with me.
Overall, GOBLET OF
FIRE is not a
film for Potter novices. The film makes little
attempt to make J. K. Rowling's fourth tale easily accessible to
newcomers - by
now, you either know what's going on or you don't. GOBLET
also assumes that you love Harry and friends so much
you will be happy to follow them for two and a half
hours without much of a plot. Along the way, GOBLET OF FIRE
throws so many new characters at you, presented in such sketchy ways,
it clearly
presupposes you have read the book. Strange things occur
without
explanation and important factoids are mentioned nearly in passing - if
you miss them, you're lost. Although director Mike Newell and
screenwriter Steven
Kloves should be commended for whittling down Rowling's enjoyably
sprawling mess of a novel into
a workable two and a half hour movie, THE GOBLET
OF FIRE is still a film that would benefit from onscreen
pop-up notes. On the surface, GOBLET OF
FIRE is as entertaining and memorable as any of the other Potter movies
with some
characters and scenes that rank among the best of the series.
But
it is clearly a transitional film, not nearly as
well-paced as THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN, and, even more than the first
two films of
the series, it feels even longer than its near-three hour running
time.
On the plus side,
four films into a
series, we still have not reached the THUNDERBALL phase where we've
seen it all before and actors are beginning to simply go through
the
motions. There may be some bumps along the road, but the
Harry
Potter
series is still on track and remains fresh and vibrant, and,
barring any major booby-headed decisions by those in charge, it has a
good chance of staying that way.
½
-
JB
Harry Potter The Stuff You Gotta Watch Home Page
ADD ANOTHER QUOTE AND MAKE IT A GALLON
"But first, which of you can tell me how many Unforgivable Curses there are?"