11.18.05
It’s Official: Goblet IS Awesome!
I have seen Goblet of Fire. I saw the 11:50 am showing. Of course, I arrived at the theater at 10:15 (how obsessed am I?). Let me just assure people that I am going to review the movie, but I won’t spoil it, I promise.
First, a warning. If you’re one of those people, the ones that call themselves “purists”, and you scream bloody murder if a single detail is changed or omitted when a book is made into a film, you probably won’t like this film.
However, if you’re a bit more realistic, and realize that something on a page doesn’t always make a good transition to a screen, and if you are a fan of movies, you will love this film.
This is, hands down, the best Potter film to date. Up until now, most have considered PoA the best film; this one leaves it in the dust. It’s all there. Action, drama, and art.
The film is artfully done, the sets and cinematography are beautiful, carefully set up, but not as self-aware as PoA, which is a good thing. At times PoA could be a bit contrived.
The 147 minute running time goes by like a breeze. I felt that I had been in the theater for an hour instead of nearly 2 1/2. The film moves quickly, especially in the beginning. But this is only to it’s credit. The action is non-stop. You simply can’t catch your breath. The Triwizard tasks were magnificent. If J.K. Rowling has one fault, it’s that she doesn’t write action particularly well. No hint of that here.
And the acting? Incredible. Only one slightly false note jangles in the performance of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. His Dumbledore is a bit rough, a little off the character we know from the books. But one cannot help but feel that the fault lays not with Gambon (despite his um, eccentric interview from Empire last week), but with the decision of the writers and director to show us the weaker, more frightened side of Dumbledore that we don’t glimpse until Half-Blood Prince.
There was one person, however, who made this film with their performance, and it may come as a shock to you.
Daniel Radcliffe. He absolutely blew my socks off. His acting has improved so much I couldn’t believe it. Before this film, I probably would have said that Rupert Grint or even Emma Watson was the most natural performer of the three. But after this, I can say that if people give him a chance, especially the chance to expand and perform in other roles besides Potter, Radcliffe will be really something to watch in the coming years. He should really be proud. This was a difficult performance to give, and the risk for an unexperienced actor to make it a cheesy cringe fest was great, but he rose to the occasion splendidly. Well done.
So there you have it. Don’t listen to me, though. Go and see it yourself. In the words of Hagrid (from the film), “You’ll be glad you came”.
-->
Michael said,
November 21, 2005 at 6:45 pm
I will have to go see it. I am surprised that you said Harry’s acting was great. I always thought Emma’s acting was the best of the three kids. You may be the only person I have seen who said Ron was better than Harry (frankly I am not a huge fan of Rupert), but that is cool.
I didn’t like film 1 and 2 and although I like the composition and feel of 3, they left out some crucial story points (like the Marauder background and the relationship between the 4) in favor of things that weren’t important (NO MORE STAIRCASES). I have heard 4 concentrates more on a coherent story and eschews the fluff; cutting the SPEW scenes and some other fluff. I will be curious to see it.
RavenclawWit said,
November 21, 2005 at 8:27 pm
Well actually, before this film, I wouldn’t have said that Dan Radcliffe’s acting was great, but he’s really improved a ton. I actually would have said before this film that Rupert Grint was the best of the three, Emma second, Dan last. But in this film I wasn’t so impressed with Emma. She seemed a little too hysterical at times. Rupert was good, but he didn’t have that many lines. Dan really carried the film this time around and it was a difficult performance, but he did really well.
Michael said,
November 28, 2005 at 7:35 pm
I can’t believe you thought Rupert was the best. I can’t stand him. He just REALLY annoys the hell out of me on Screen… I guess we just disagree but I always picked him as the big casting mistake of the series (Ironically, my other big miscast was Richard Harris… a wonderful actor but was way to OBI wan for Dumbledore. Not his look, just the way he played the character. I like the other guy better.) Of the Kids I picked them as Hermione, Malfoy (plays the snotty kid really well), Harry and Ron a distant last.
Just out of curiosity, what about Ron do you like?
RavenclawWit said,
November 28, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Yeah, I just guess we disagree. I think Rupert was and is the most natural performer of the three. Now, here’s the caveat on that. The writers for the film really dumb down and completely relegate Ron’s character, especially since the third movie, so a lot of the stuff that some people find annoying about Rupert (being wimpy, scared facial expression, etc) are actually the writers’ doings. But Rupert as an actor I think is pretty good. He’s got excellent comic timing, even when he was really little he had it! To me that’s pretty amazing. And especially in the first two movies, he always seemed spot on as Ron. Also, if you see him in interviews and stuff, he’s really quite shy and reserved, not like Ron at all, so it’s pretty cool that he can play a character that’s so different from himself.
I liked Richard Harris, but he was a little too relaxed at times. Gambon has the energy, but he overdoes it, especially in GoF. (Have you seen it yet, btw?) I think if we had a guy who looked like Harris, and had Harris’ serenity but Gambon’s energy, we’d have the perfect Dumbledore, but alas.
Tom Felton is really good as Draco. He seems to get less lines in every film, but I’m hoping he’ll still be around for HBP, since his role in that is really meaty. Emma Watson. I loved, loved, loved her performance in every movie except this one. She had some great moments in this film, but some were really off in my opinion, like in the classroom scene when she shrieked for Moody to stop torturing the spider because it was upsetting Neville. It seemed really overdone and forced. The scene where she was fighting with Ron at the Ball also felt sour at times (although the crying at the end of it was pretty convincing). I think she did a good job overall, but not her best performance. Her best performance was probably PoA.
But the winner for acting in this film, among the kids at least, definitely goes to Dan Radcliffe, in my opinion. He had to carry much of the film himself, as most of the scenes were just him. And he pulled off the more emotional stuff splendidly. A real improvement over PoA’s infamous “He was their friend” fiasco. I’ve always thought Dan was pretty good, but before this film I definitely would have put him behind Rupert and Emma as an actor, but he easily outshined them both in this film.
Thomas said,
December 19, 2005 at 6:14 am
I think the movie was great. There was some problems with the acting. Emma Watson, who did an excellent job in the last three movies, really disappointed me here, she overreacted in almost every scene she was in. Better luck next time!
Rupert Grint was the same. I disliked his character when he argued with Harry but he did OK as the jealous Ron.
Daniel Radcliffe was definitely the standout of the movie. Until PoA, I thought that the only reason he got the role was because of his looks, his acting skills were miserable (has anyone cringed during the crying scene in PoA?) but I totally respect this actor now. He improved HUGELY in GoF and got his acting together in this film. His crying scene when he brought Cedric’s body was very convincing (loads better than Emma’s by the way) and I really felt sorry for him when he was being bullied by the other students.
Blogging Harry Potter » Goblet DVD said,
March 11, 2006 at 7:09 pm
[…] I won’t review the film itself. To see what I think of the film, see here. What I want to do is review the special features. So, if you don’t want to know what is on the Special Features disc, don’t read ahead because there will be spoilers. You’ve been warned. […]
Newscat said,
March 21, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought for the first time that Emma Watson was literally *shrieking* all of her lines. I’ve never liked Rupert Grint’s mugging and I couldn’t believe how ugly the two boys who played the twins were looking.
I will totally give it up for Daniel though. I felt since he’s been in the most scenes and probably gets the most attention, he’s had more reason to work on his acting than the other two. Or maybe he’s just naturally more talented, it’s hard to tell.
Stylistically I don’t blame Michael Gambon for his portrayal of Dumbledore but Mike Newell (and Steven Kloves). That “angry” Dumbledore just felt completely out of character. The other choice I really disliked was that Newell had Ron get the upper hand of their Yule Ball argument when it was very clear from J.K. Rowlings it was Hermoine who left Ron blinking back surprise. I don’t understand the stylistic choice to have Hermoine running away in tears when it’s clear Ron was jealous. I’m not so sure Ron’s jealousy this was all that apparent. Seemed more like he just enjoyed tormenting her.