Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

[Lisa]

Saw it tonight.

Very intense movie. Loved it! Thought the effects were great. Definitely a must see in my eyes!

 

[Makalakumu]

I really like how they portrayed Voldemort. The actor that they picked was excellent. I can't wait to see more of him.

 

[Ping898]

My sister and I are taking my dad to it at Christmas, so I am waiting a few weeks to see HP 4, but am definetelly looking forward to it!!!!

 

[Lisa]

I really like how they portrayed Voldemort. The actor that they picked was excellent. I can't wait to see more of him.

So very true! He looked exactly as I thought he would. The Dragons were excellent too! I really don't have one bad thing to say about the movie.

 

[Hollywood1340]

Terrible, terrible, terrible. My only hope is someone who wants to make the movies RIGHT comes along one day and remakes them. I'm always stuck in watching the behind-the-scenes of LOTR, and I hear an actor say something along the lines of "Make sure you look at him when you say that, the fans will be expecting it" I saw none of that in this movie. It's not for us fans, the true fans, who looked forward to it, hoping that it would bring to life the book we love. It's for people who don't know any better about what a FAN based movie should be. A terrible dissapointment and a waste of my money. Two things:

1. I have no desire to see it again
2. I dont' really care about the next one.

Shouldn'tve read the book first I guess

 

[Lisa]

Terrible, terrible, terrible. My only hope is someone who wants to make the movies RIGHT comes along one day and remakes them. I'm always stuck in watching the behind-the-scenes of LOTR, and I hear an actor say something along the lines of "Make sure you look at him when you say that, the fans will be expecting it" I saw none of that in this movie. It's not for us fans, the true fans, who looked forward to it, hoping that it would bring to life the book we love. It's for people who don't know any better about what a FAN based movie should be. A terrible dissapointment and a waste of my money. Two things:

1. I have no desire to see it again
2. I dont' really care about the next one.

Shouldn'tve read the book first I guess

Interesting Hollywood. Thank you for sharing. I have to ask, how would you have liked it portrayed? What would you have liked to see done differently? Did the first three movies disappoint you as well and if they did, why did you see the fourth?

Lisa

 

[BrandiJo]

i thought it was a good movie, saw it friday and would see it again on vidio

 

[Navarre]

I haven't seen the movie yet so have no valid opinion. However, the only complaints I've seen on the entire internet have been from those who were disappointed in how the book was adapted to film.

I have read every book and loved them. I have seen every movie and loved it no less.

I think we simply have to accept that every single item in a book cannot be realistically included in the film. Goblet of Fire is one of the longest books in the series. It is full of character, intriguing moments, and subtle plot development.

Despite all of that, it is simply not reasonable to place all of that into a film unless you expect it to be 7 hours long. Many Tolkein fans were disappointed with The Lord of the Ring movies but I don't see how anyone could consider those films bad either.

I have read The X-Men for 30 years. I love (love) the title. The movies have glaring inaccuracies and oversights: Rogue isn't involved with Bobby Drake and they are screwing around with every bit of The Phoenix Saga, the pivotal plot of movies 2 and 3.

However, I also realize they can't take 30 years of character history and make it work in 2 hour films. So, I have to examine the movies on their own merit. In that regard, they stand up excellently. Same with Spider-Man.

So, I suppose if I compared the book directly to the movie I might end up disappointed too. Instead, I am going to appreciate the wonderful imagination that springs from every page of the books and equally appreciate the joy of being able to see that imagination come to life on the screen, altered though it must be.

 

[Ping898]

So, I suppose if I compared the book directly to the movie I might end up disappointed too. Instead, I am going to appreciate the wonderful imagination that springs from every page of the books and equally appreciate the joy of being able to see that imagination come to life on the screen, altered though it must be.

I think that is how movies are supposed to be enjoyed and that is the thing many die hard fans forget. I have to admit it has been a few years since I have read Potter and one of the reasons I didn't read them recently is to avoid the constant book to movie comparisons....

 

[Lisa]

So, I suppose if I compared the book directly to the movie I might end up disappointed too. Instead, I am going to appreciate the wonderful imagination that springs from every page of the books and equally appreciate the joy of being able to see that imagination come to life on the screen, altered though it must be.

My girlfriend, whom I went to the movie with last night (our kids are friends) asked if it bothered me seeing the movie and knowing the differences (she hasn't read the books). I told her that this book was so full of intricate details that I knew it was impossible to fit it all in. I enjoyed the movie because it did exactly what I wanted it to. It let me escape into a world of make believe and entertained me from begining to end.

 

[Ping898]

Conjuring up a franchise-best $101.4 million from Friday through Sunday, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ended Hollywood's long-running slump and recorded the fourth-best opening of all time, according to the ticket counters at Exhibitor Relations.

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/weekendboxofficea.html;_ylt=Ar0jpYRILWdrPy5.sZz_5Q5fVXcA

 

[Eternal Beginner]

I am someone who is usually critical of book to movie adaptations. I have to say that this is one of the better ones.

I find that the spirit and intent of the book was kept intact and really, that is the best that can be hoped for. You can't possibly include all the subplots, innuendo, shadings and subtleties of a lengthy novel in a short, visual medium. It is unrealistic to expect a duplication of a book...it is a totally different medium.

Two thumbs up from me...and I don't usually have a lot of patience for movies in general.

 

[arnisador]

I thought it was very good--well done, moving, exciting. I was impressed. I don't usually like a 2.5 hour movie, but this kept me involved.

 

[shesulsa]

I never expect for any movie that came from a book to be like it's inspiration. It's too disappointing to do this.

I haven't yet seen the movie, but I know book four and book five are the best thus far out of the series. I can't wait until Wednesday.

 

[Hollywood1340]

Interesting Hollywood. Thank you for sharing. I have to ask, how would you have liked it portrayed? What would you have liked to see done differently? Did the first three movies disappoint you as well and if they did, why did you see the fourth?

Lisa

Lack of continuty within the series. Plot points hinted at in one, dropped completly in the next. Take Harrys wand, the scene with Mr. Ollivander in TSS tells us something is special about that wand. But although the effect is shown in GOF it is never fully explained. The connection between Harry and Voldy is right there for the taking from the first movie. It's a "Now remember we mentioned in in Sorcerers Stone so be sure to explain that! The fans will be looking for it!" It's as if each director wants to get their own bit of the pie and heck with the rest of the films. "Don't worry, we'll top the box office even if we cut this out. They'll never know the difference. Oh yeah, axe the house elves too, we need more oomph for the PG-13 rating. Get me wardrobe!" It's like watching your favorite television show that goes from series to single episodes mid season. The first movie was what I saw in my head when I read the book. It was amazing. Now all the little bits I want to see, or the funny parts that would translate so well to film are missing. And if not that, major plot points in general. Imagine the first and second movie if edited like this one comapared to the book. The series would never have gotten off the ground. "But the book is longer!" Then make a longer movie. Why was LOTR succesfull? Because the fans loved the movie because of the book, not the other way around.
I'm going to finish with a link to someone who says it MUCH better then I would. But here are my major rants.

-The World Cup. Where'd it go? The Wonskey Feint? The reason we CARE about Victor?
-Harry, Winky, Wand. Enough said.
-It's because she's part Veela you prat, not her prat!
-Dumbledore, read the books as acting reference!
-Hermione, WHY DID'NT YOU SAY THE LAST UNFORGIVABLE CURSE!!!
-Why? why? why? why!!!! The one answer missing from this movie.
-Skeeter is an animagus. No, she really is. See in the next book she'll be blackmailed and...oh never mind.
-Fleur was wearing her robes on the second task, not an S&M get up.
-Where is the Sphynx? And the spider?

I could go on. But this sums it up:
http://www.filmjerk.com/new/article1518.html

 

[Navarre]

Sorry you didn't like it, Hollywood. It's regrettable that you don't enjoy the movie adaptations of a book you obviously love.

 

[arnisador]

I too felt that the prior spell effect needed more of an explanation in the film. (I knew about it from the book.) But I found this a minor quibble.

I think that dropping the attempt to liberate the house elves was wise too. There was so much going on already.

 

[Navarre]

Thinking in advance about a movie I haven't seen, I had already thought it would be a smart idea to drop the house elf liberation. It isn't critical to the plot.

Sure, some things have bothered me in the past. Most notably in "The Prisoner of Azkaban" they didn't explain why the spell effect against the dementors at the lake (the patronum) looked like a stag.

They also didn't explain that the Marauder's Map was created by Lupin, Pettigrew, Black, and Harry's father and therefore never explained the "title" on the map.

This would only have taken less than a minute to explain and would have added a lot to the film. But then again, I'm not the director and I don't have to deal with the rigors of film making.

 

[shesulsa]

Thinking in advance about a movie I haven't seen, I had already thought it would be a smart idea to drop the house elf liberation. It isn't critical to the plot.

I think the whole S.P.E.W. thing in the books was to create a certain tension between Ron and Hermione, laying the groundwork for what we already know will happen - but the movie directors have created other opportunities to do that.

Sure, some things have bothered me in the past. Most notably in "The Prisoner of Azkaban" they didn't explain why the spell effect against the dementors at the lake (the patronum) looked like a stag.

They also didn't explain that the Marauder's Map was created by Lupin, Pettigrew, Black, and Harry's father and therefore never explained the "title" on the map.

This would only have taken less than a minute to explain and would have added a lot to the film. But then again, I'm not the director and I don't have to deal with the rigors of film making.

I agree. It's like in the movie "The World According to Garp" where Poo shoots Garp - nobody knew why she killed Garp, some didn't even know who she was. It wouldn't have taken long to explain it and it is an important part of the storyline.

 

[arnisador]

Sure, some things have bothered me in the past. Most notably in "The Prisoner of Azkaban" they didn't explain why the spell effect against the dementors at the lake (the patronum) looked like a stag.

They also didn't explain that the Marauder's Map was created by Lupin, Pettigrew, Black, and Harry's father and therefore never explained the "title" on the map.

Both of those omissions bothered me too--and yes, they would have been so easy to take care of! I didn't udnerstand why they didn't make those points clear.

As to Garp...I agree!