Lets see...is this another case of deluded book purism? because film 3 was less "faithful" than the first two its "bad"? Never mind the fact that it captured the feel of the Potter books far better than its predecessors, is wonderfilly entertaining and atmospheric and is one of the best fantasy films going..

Haven't read the books - this time the movies' badness stands on it's own...

GOBLET OF FIRE NEEDS AN EXTENDED EDITION DVD!

That is why this did not even really come close to Prisoner of Azkaban, which I loved.

Biggest problem I had with this movie, and it was a big problem, was the editing. It felt hurried as hell. It felt like scenes were cut off before they were even finished so they could go into another scene to move the story along. Just felt rushed. Very messy.

It was dissapointing because Goblet of Fire is my favorite Harry Potter book, so my expectations were quite high (especially after how good Prisoner of Azkaban was).

After all that (though it wasnt much), the ending was quite powerful and there were a lot of humorous moments.

My rating: ***

I was thinking for weeks now about it and it's sinking and sinking... It's about a A- now and I'm pretty sure it stays there. It just felt too rushed.

An complete disappointment. Not magical, not fun, and it makes little sense if you haven't read the book. This was hard to screw up, but bravo to all who did.

The first three are still excellent fantasy pictures. Keep Mike Newell far away from any future installments.

I agree with Yoshue for the most part.

It was a good movie, but it lacked the sense of wonder or magic the first three had. They should do a bit more "soul searching" with the next book so they can come up with something a bit more fulfilling.

B

The fourth was way way way superior to the first two.I know you can argue over the third vs. the fourth, but, really, if you try to say that the crapfest of the first film was better you are way off.

After my msot recent viewing last month my opinion of this fantasic film does not change, the movie was better than the book.

If anyone is interested to re-judge, it is getting a big night before the Super Bowl.

and one thing that HP1 still has is the best HP Box Office.

*************************************************

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
08:00 PM ET -ABC-
It's the book (and the movie) that started the phenomenon: 2001's "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is a lonely British orphan who is banished to living under the stairs at his aunt and uncle's house. Over the years, he's noticed he has strange, magical powers -- but he's not sure why. That is, until a letter comes from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Leaving his dreary "muggle" existence behind, Harry travels to Hogwarts, where he makes new friends and begins to piece together the mystery of his parents' death.

Yes, it does. However, for GoF being the FOURTH movie in a franchise and to still manage to have a box-office only second to the first movie... that's a real feat right there.

Joy

Loved it. Although the style isn't as amazing for me as Prisoner. I still thought this was a great entry in a great series of films. Its the first one I felt only barely improved on the predescessor.

Strong A

Watched the DVD

Potter 4 100% OWNS 2005

Watched it finally on DVD, I agree, this is probably the least magical of all of the films and the 2nd stylistically, though the very brittish style I think is hurting some of the fans. It is rushed at times, but it is very good. But like I've said, they really crammed a little too much into this one, and should have did a final editing job.

Like earlier stated, its the first one that doesnt improve on the one prior, but it is still ahead of the first and probably the same as the 2nd.

A

Easily the best Potter film. It only suffers from needing about a few more minutes of exposition here and there, mainly after the world cup part and before the arrival of the other schools, but other than that it was one of the best movies of the year. Great cinematography, the best I've seen in a fantasy film, and that Emma Watson is developing into a better actress than I expected. As Andaroo said the art direction was also very well done.

Take. That. Back.

Cant, the movie was better

Not by a longshot, it wasn't.

Agree.

The movie was good enough, but in no way did it even come close to the brilliant plotting of the book. Furthermore, none of the scenes in the movie can come close to capturing what your imagination can do when you read the book. The scene with Voldemort, in the movie, seemed tame in comparison to the dark atmosphere that Rowling created in the novel, from the sudden death of Cedric to Voldemort's taunting to the Priori Incantatem. It's much more powerful to read it and form it in your mind than be shown it.

I still haven't read a single Harry Potter book yet and I don't plan on doing so in the near future. That saying, the movies are very enjoyable and this is a very worthy entry in the series. I think I'd rank it first or second at this point, only behind Chamber of Secrets.

Also, suprisingly the music by Patrick Doyle is very beautiful. Since Williams stepped down, the music in the Potter films intermixed with Williams' original themes have almost acted as a filler. In this film, Doyle's music compliments the original themes very nicely.

A

The scene Voldemort takes on an almost campy feel, Fiennes was the right choice but the scene was bad.

I don't know, I think a movie can certainly equal the book by captures it tone (The Godfather, Munich, the 5 hour Pride and Prejudice). The problem is when pepole adapt things like Hp they think they need to put everything in, and what happens is you gte a series of scenes that feel like they are missing something.

For example, in this film Rita Skeeter shold have gone, her character was just so blah, they had no time. The adaptations of the book seem so hell bent on including everything in the book, they fail to capture the spirit of the book. Three got it almost right, it just needed 2 minutes at the end to actually explain what happened, instead of assuming you'd read the book.

well i bought the DVD, and it was way better on the second viewing.

A/A- Best Potter yet!

I agree that Azkaban almost got the mood right, they just needed a bit of explanation to tie everything together. To me, that's easily the best Potter film so far. The filmakers need to stop trying to do everything that's in the books and just focus on making a well-made film, with a main plot and maybe a few, minor subplots. You're right, Skeeter was ultimately pointless in the movie, especially because they didn't even show that she was an Animagus (or did they? I can't remember - haven't seen this in a while). They should have done less teenage angst/romance and concentrated more on the main story with Moody and Voldemort.

The first four are clearly the easiest books to adapt to film; they each have one central mystery/plotline and a few subplots. The fifth one should be okay, the main story is Umbridge's reign of terror. The sixth one will be very difficult, as I felt there was no central story tying everything together. In fact, after reading it, I had the distinct sense that Rowling is just writing now to finish the series and then retire with her riches. The sixth was clearly the weakest book, plot-wise.

I think that the third movie came closest to capturing the book's magic, but the fourth was a better movie simply because the book's plotline in the fourth is more interesting.

Overall, none of the movies matched the quality of the Harry Potter books so far.

Moreover, I think that the 6th will be actually the easiest to adapt BECAUSE it has not too many important details and the adaptation can thus be more free. Now the fifth will be very hard to adapt, IMO. There is so much crammed into that book.

I just watched it again, for the first time since I saw it in theatres, and it holds up very well. I'm able to forgive liberties with the plot because I realize that this is a movie, and if I wanted the entire plot, I could just read the book again. What makes movies successful adaptations of books is if they capture the mood and the themes of them, not the story word for word necessarily. Too many people (in this thread, especially) disliked the film simply because it left too much out. If they put everything in, the film would be 5 hours long and would have cost $500 million. So I'm able to put up with stuff cut out.

That being said, this is a fantastic film. The story is very well done for a Potter film, they're able to cut most of the useless stuff and combine some redundancies to make a great plot. I didn't feel like anything was really missing. The Quidditch World Cup would have been nice to see, but I understand why they cut it - for time and money issues - and it didn't have any effect on the story (still, they didn't have any qualms about extending the dragon scene ). The pacing at the beginning is a bit off - more of an introduction would have been welcome - and the ended seems rushed, but the entire middle, from when they get to Hogwarts to the graveyard scene, is done very well. The performances are great, I didn't notice a single weak actor of the lot. Gleeson in particular stands out, he really nailed Moody. Fiennes tends to chew scenery a bit, but I suppose that's capturing Voldemort well. All of the returnees do well in very small parts. I would have liked to see more of Malfoy Sr. and Sirius in particular, but oh well. The kids are very good, it's great to see them mature from the painful first film. The teen angst stuff is a bit unwelcome, but I guess it reflects the environment.

Technically, this film is sound. Cinematography, editing, production design, music, all are top-notch. It's too bad John Williams wasn't able to return to score this film, his music for Azkaban was one of the best and most original I've ever heard. The conductor this time around seems to be just going through the motions, he doesn't add much that Williams hasn't already done. Still, Williams' score is so fantastic that it doesn't matter. The editing could have been a bit smoother at times, but for the most part, it's very well done. Cinematography and production design are excellent, as with all the films. I prefered Azkaban's dark, gothic tones more, but Goblet still manages to be dark in its own way. The visual effects are fantastic, as expected. The dragon is superbly done. The entire chase scene with it is very thrilling, and one of the best in the film. The "magic in the background" isn't used as excellently as in the third film, but it still pops up every now and then. And the ending is very emotional and touching.

Overall, this is the second best Potter film and third best of the year, after Batman Begins and Revenge of the Sith, so far. I liked Azkaban more because I like the book better - much more mysterious and intriguing plot - and I thought Cuaron brought a gothic feel to the series that was both unique and needed. But this is still a great film. It's amazing how much better the last two films are over the first two. Columbus really doesn't know how to make an original film. All in all, an excellently made film and very good adaptation of the source material.

The best film of 2005':biggrin:', I'd put it in my top ten movies ever

A+