Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire

Vampyr · 11-20-2005, 10:38 AM

This movie was better than the first two, but worse than the third one.

The storyline was just full of holes. I mean, if you hadn't read the books, you would have been completely lost.

The movie sort of had ADD. It jumped from one part of the story to the next, with very little to no transition. And they skipped the World Cup. That's just stupid.

Special Effects were incredible though.

ZebraRampage · 11-20-2005, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyr

This movie was better than the first two, but worse than the third one.

The storyline was just full of holes. I mean, if you hadn't read the books, you would have been completely lost.

The movie sort of had ADD. It jumped from one part of the story to the next, with very little to no transition. And they skipped the World Cup. That's just stupid.

Special Effects were incredible though.

I agree with you Vampyr. It was pretty good, but there were a lot of story holes. I wish they would have made it longer. The one part that was amazing though was the scence with the dragon.

jeepnut · 11-20-2005, 12:59 PM

I thought it was pretty good. Way better than the third movie, but not as good as the first two.

*Possible Spoilers although minimal*

I hate the change that was made to the way Hogwarts looks from the second to the third movie and they kept it here. You notice the difference when you watch the first two movies and then watch the third. The biggest evidence of this is where the womping willow is located in the second and then where it is moved to in the third. I don't like the way Hagwarts looks as it is in the third, but at least give us some continuity between movies and stop moving things around.

The owlery. From the books, it is without a doubt clear that it is connected to the rest of Hogwarts and in the fourth movie, it's not. What's up with that? Never in the books has a student had to go outside to go to the owlery. Why in the world would you change it for the movie?

Also, the dress robes were unimanginative, except Ron's and to a lesser degree, Harry's. The girls for the most part were pitiful. I could go to a department store in the mall and buy many of those off the rack right now if I wanted to. They are supposed to look like robes. That's why they are called dress robes. Let's show a little imagination here people.

*End Spoilers*

Except for those complaints, movie was great. Most of those are just visual interpretations of the universe and don't really affect the story so they are easily overlooked.

Ginkasa · 11-20-2005, 01:00 PM

Yeah, what really annoyed me was how theyt just leaped from scene to scene. It almost seemed, especially at the beginning, they just had a list of stuff that they had to show and got them out of the way. I could just hear some guy checking off a list and muttering, "Okay, the portkey is established, now for Krum's introduction. After that, prepare for the Death Eater attack!"

/me shrugs and walks away

DarrenMcLeod · 11-20-2005, 02:49 PM

Yeah, exactly. There was no pacing whatsoever,and there was no character development.

SPOILER

if you're going to kill off a character, and want a big reaction, maybe let us get to know him first. There was a lot more emphasis on him in the book.

END SPOILER

So, yeah. While a lot was good, a lot would've been done better by a better director... Cuaron, for example.

Dyne · 11-20-2005, 04:20 PM

Well as a reader for none of the books, I thought it wasn't that bad. I think this thread just has a case of the "the book was better" complex. There's nothing wrong with that, though.

I think the people who liked it AND read the book had forgotten most of the book in the first place.

The pace didn't really commit any crimes. And Cedric had enough screen time - he was shown to harry as both the Cho-stealer and the competitor. The quasi-climax of Harry saving him and getting the goblet was pretty much enough to pass.

DarrenMcLeod · 11-20-2005, 09:18 PM

Well I read the book a long time ago, and forgot most of it (hadn't read it since the week it came out, I think), but it still was just a bit of a disappointment as a movie, because of the weak scenes, weak acting, and weak dialogue in certain parts.

MuGen · 11-20-2005, 10:13 PM

I really don't know where you get weak acting.

Quote:

Too many really awkward moments with poor acting and wooden dialogue, and many scenes that tried hard to be dramatic without actually having substance.

I'm trying to understand what you mean by 'dramatc without actually having substance.'

The only scene I could think of that would bring up that question is

********SPOILER****************

is when Hermione is at the dance, and cries when Ron gives her the cold shoulder.

Far be it for me to understand that she is a 15 year old girl who was just told that her date is just using her and doesn't really like her by a jealous friend.

Dramatic yes, not enough substance? Maybe not for you but for a 15 year old girl, that can have as much substance as a full cup of milk.

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

As an individual I thought the acting was good. Not the best, but good.
But I have to agree w/ Dyne. If you think this movie had poor dialogue and awkward moments, it's only because you imagined them being portrayed differently from the book, and the dialogue didn't follow the book to the tee.

This is the kind of critique movies from Comics get, and movies from games get....

The more I take the time to understand the more I come to the conclusion that people are more likely to compare the movie to the book rather then critique the movie as a movie.