|
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Widescreen Edition) (Harry Potter 4)
Description
| Product Description |
|
When Harry Potter's name emerges from the Goblet of Fire, he becomes a competitor in a grueling battle for glory among three wizarding schools - the Triwizard Tournament. But since Harry never submitted his name for the Tournament, who did? Now Harry must confront a deadly dragon, fierce water demons and an enchanted maze only to find himself in the cruel grasp of He Who Must Not Be Named. In this fourth film adaptation of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, everything changes as Harry, Ron and Hermione leave childhood forever and take on challenges greater than anything they could have imagined. Editorial Descriptions are usually submitted by the manufacturers, publishers and authors. Contact us if you are one of them, and wish to change the above description. |
Reviews
Customer feedback
|
|
Voting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Guest
i'm a harry potter fan, obviously, but GoF (the book) only ranks 5th (out of 6 so far) on my scale; for various reasons. the movie only fares better becuz only 4 movies are out at this point...
let's start with the story compression: i know it had to be done, but c'mon, 2.5 hours? the LotR movies each averaged 3+ hours in their theater formats. they managed to convey the magic and substance of those books very admirably.. can you really say that the same couldn't have been done with this film? the first hp film was 2.5 hours and the book was only half as long... furthermore, the first 2 films were true to the books.. they were the books brought to life, which is what one WANTS TO SEE in this kind of fantasy story. the overall effect of cutting out so much of the story is to make it move too fast; face it, this film plays like a "highlights of year 4 at hogwarts" ..and let's not forget that substantial changes were also made. the final plot twist was completely nullified by including barty crouch jr in the mix at the beginning, it was extremely annoying. the extension of the first task served no purpose either, there was no point to it, just meaningless thrill seeking.. the removal of some subplots (house elves) and the partial inclusion of others (skeeter) doesn't make any sense at all; it's simply visuals without context: also annoying. this film could have been 3 hours long without any complains from anyone. it would have been much more fulfilling
the acting... for the most part, this was great, although the dialog between harry and "cho" seems very forced. the ron/hermione tension is very well done though. so much so that you have to wonder if they're completely acting. lol.. the barty crouch jr character was a good casting choice though. exactly what i expected. almost as creepy as cillian murphy in batman begins... mad eye moody was well cast as well.. i wasn't really a fan of fiennes as voldemort either, he just doesn't seem to fit the role, in my opion. but my biggest gripe here remains dumbledore. after sir harris, all other dumbledores seem like pale imposters. this one lacks the warmth and intelligence of sir harris. as another reviewer said "his man handling of harry is most un-dumbledore" .. JO, FIND A DIFFERENT DUMBLEDORE!
the visuals were outstanding. easily the high point of the film. i saw the film in regular theater and in imax, and the imax version was simply stunning. no complaints about the visuals here
overall, i think this film is weaker than Azkaban (which i gave 3.5 stars), despite the thrilling visuals. the story alterations come close to ruining it for me. the pacing is much too fast compared to the amount of information in the book. as i said above, it plays more like a "highlights of year 4 at hogwarts" than anything, not so much telling a story as showing the high points of that story. that might be ok for some, but not for me
|
Author: Guest
I liked the movie, but somehow I guess from all of the buildup to it I left the theater disappointed. It felt like we raced through it and that it was over too quick. Many things were left out of the movie that appeared in the book, but I'm not going to whine about that too much. I feel they should have stretched it to a three hour movie to add in more character developments of Rita Skeeter, Fluer, Crum, and Cedric. We don't get to know them and didn't feel the full impact of Cedric's death. Also Dumbledore is just weird now with all the bling he wears and his man-handling of Harry after his name is coughed out of the goblet was totally unDumbledore-like. That said, I loved the whole Yule-Ball scene especially Hermione's heartbreak. She is one to look out for in the future to be a great actress. All-in-all I'd give it three and a half stars, but maybe after seeing it again I will like it more. I can't wait for the special edition dvd!
This is coming from a big fan who is also a parent who has read all the books.
|
Author: Guest
All of the Harry Potter movies (as well as the books) are artless adolescent, "no-rules" fantasy composed of pubescent cultural drek of interest only to those newly familiarizing themselves with incipient secretions of estrogen and testosterone. Mature adults, stay away unless you consider gagging and retching forms of entertainment.
The most recent (...Goblet of Fire) is actually the worst - mostly for the length of time (2.5 hrs.) it takes to pass. Rawlings is no Tolkien, and director Newell provided no improvements. The special effects - especially flying - are too fast and furious to be appreciated as anything but blurs. If you must see this travesty, complete the experience with stale popcorn.
|
Author: Guest
I saw this movie in theaters when it came out. This movie was amazing the special effects were awsome like when harry went in the water and there were weired mermaids and when harry and tom went in the maze and that one girl got hurt and was pulled under the hedge by roots that was freaky. this is a good movie for the whole family get it now.
|
Author: Guest
I saw this movie as a class trip (about 85+ students).
Everyone loved it.
Our teachers made us each fill out review sheets that requested a ranking between 1-5 stars.
Everyone except for five people gave it five stars (no exageration).
To me, that's a good sample of the population of interest that this movie was made for.
Ps: the five students that rated the movie poorly are the student type that hates everything that anyone else likes. That being said, I think it'd be good to point out that even they rated the movie 3 stars... that says a lot also!
|
Send to Friend
Send to friend
|
|
