Movie Review: "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"
I went to see the latest Harry Potter movie last night. Yes, it was full of kids. No, I didn't mind! (Well, OK, I did mind a little when the young girls seated to either side of me in the row kept having to come and go to the bathroom.)
For all you movie fans, here are links to:
- The trailers
- The official movie website
- RottenTomatoes' reviews of the film (142 available the last time I checked)
This is arguably the best Harry Potter film yet, because it was conceived and presented as a film in its own right for the most part, not as a ploddingly slow and loyal-to-a-fault rendition of the book for the big screen. Kudos to the writers and directors for giving us a real film, well-paced and engaging. This movie has been called the "darkest" film so far, and there is merit to this, as the Hogwarts students (and the audience) come face to face with the harsh realities of evil and death. But this is balanced also by the surprising (and surprisingly intelligent) inclusion also of humor and a deft treatment of relationships -- at the age of 14, Harry, Hermione, Ron, and their classmates find that interpersonal relationships are more complicated than ever. Everyone who has ever been 14 and uncomfortable with the opposite sex will appreciate the exquisite torture of the Yule Ball! Or with Moaning Myrtle in the prefects' bubble bath!
I don't want to reveal too many spoilers, so I'll just say: a great many elements of the book were left out, but I think this was better for the movie overall. I have a few minor quibbles (for instance, I wanted a longer depiction of the Quidditch World Cup action), but these are exactly that -- minor. The core of the movie's action and characters was solid and sound; the special effects enhance rather than overwhelm. The many facets of the film, taken together, form a brilliant whole which engages the entire range of emotions across the entire range of scale, from the adolescently venial to the eternally significant. The final thought of choosing "between what is right and what is easy" echoes across human experience. It is, after all, the harder choice. Asking someone to choose between Right and Wrong is much easier than asking someone to choose between Right and Easy. This will cast a long shadow over the Potter adventures to come.
As for the cast, the young actors all perform admirably; we are treated to the return of the "usual suspects," and I'm delighted to report that Neville Longbottom, charmingly played by Matthew Lewis, finally gets more screen time and characterization. (And Neville, I suspect, has a much larger role to play in future.) We are also treated to good performances by newcomers to the story Cedric Diggory (Robert Pattinson), Fleur Delacour (Clémence Poésy -- who tries and almost succeeds to convince us that she is only 17), and Viktor Krum (Stanislav Ianevski).
My greatest complaint -- I can't help but air it -- is the depiction of Dumbledore. I realize that the late, great Richard Harris is irreplaceable in this role; he gave Dumbledore the air not only of great wisdom and compassion, but also of an almost ethereal goodness and near-omniscience. For his Dumbledore, a word or even a look was sufficient. Michael Gambon as Dumbledore here cannot reach Harris' previous heights; the worst moment was his weirdly and physically violent reaction to Harry's selection by the Goblet of Fire. This new Dumbledore does not inspire, does not guide, as the first one did.
"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" runs for 157 minutes and is rated PG-13 for violence and frightening images (ranging from fire-breathing dragons to the specter of Voldemort, played by -- believe it or not -- Ralph Fiennes). Potter fans will enjoy this film and probably rush home to re-read the book (I did!).