Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Perhaps it's a problem that occurs more readily to those who have not read the books, but the event status of each new
entry in the Harry Potter franchise, despite the unquestionable attention they draw, seems to be rewarding the
viewer less and less. That's not to say Warner Bros. are skimping on the effort they put into each new entry, on the
contrary, the studio knows that this is their cash cow and they're looking after it each step of the way. The familiarity
now earned by the series is it's main strength and in a way, is also a problem.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is more of the same we've come to know from the series. Despite a new director,
it's recognisably the same universe that was established in the first three films, and that hasn't been tinkered with in
any way detrimental to the film, very refreshing, as watching a franchise fall apart is one of the most heartbreaking
things. But you can't always avoid the laziness of familiarity, for example and as we all know, the familiarity expected of
the viewer means that there's no Dursley's sequence at the beginning of the film, and the expectation that we've seen the
previous entries is justification for a number of cuts to the material. Those cuts may leave many fans of the books
questioning their overall satisfaction of the movie versions, even if they make little difference to a film-only onlooker
of the Potter universe.
It really wouldn't make much sense to give film number four a major overhaul even if it such a thing had the potential to
elevate the film above the likes of what we've already seen. The first three established that these films weren't going to
be anything other than high budget films that ultimately feel empty afterwards. They're spectacular and each of them come
with real high points and moments of class, but for the amount of influence on popular culture they're having, one wishes
the Potter films didn't seem so forced. Knowing what you're going to get out of a Potter film means that if you weren't
blow away by the first films, then there's little chance of it happening in later entries.
This is the first Potter to receive an M rating. It shows that the franchise is evolving in the eyes of censors, but does
Goblet use that allowance to reach out to an older audience? For the first time there's a palpable sense of death
in a Potter film, but remember death was also dished up in Bambi. There's no real sense of dread in Goblet.
As Harry undertakes a series of tasks in the tri-wizard tournament and faces off death, one would expect some sense of
anxiety for Harry's safety. But the movie is all about Harry, and Harry ultimately winning. Any sense of real peril is
negated by the hypocrisy of the material. On one hand the teachers of Hogwarts baby and seem to care for the safety of the
students, and even their parents entrust the education of their children to the school, and yet we're supposed to believe
that there's a real sense of danger for the students not only undertaking such lunacy as a tri-wizard tournament, but
simply by attending the wizard school.
It's that poorly handled confusion that's the main flaw in the Potter universe and leads to its unfortunate kiddy
feel. Increase the rating to R for the next film, it won't make a shred of difference to the way an audience receives it if
there's no real feeling of dread. It sadly can't be changed now for continuity's sake. By all means put Harry in danger,
but have it less to do with staff and parent sanctioned danger and more to do with events out of anyone's control. In
theory then, the film would pick itself up once the expected re-emergence of Lord Voldemort takes place. Joseph Fiennes
does a good job giving the ghastly looking evil guy of the series a menacing presence and it's the second best finale in
the series so far. It's Harry battling away against Voldemort, wizard against wizard, legend against legend.
This finale is easily the high point of Goblet, capping of a film that's far more coherent than the entry
before it. Goblet does for a moment fall into the danger zone of becoming too plot heavy too quickly, glossing over
the very important details of how and why, especially in that finale sequence of reveal and exposition, but thankfully the
slim sight of focus the film has doesn't become too blury. It's here that we finally see a decent level of magic in
Goblet. He's able to duel with Voldemort at will, but as the great Harry Potter he seems so unsure and barely even
flexes a magic muscle elsewhere in the entire story. Sure, invisibility cloaks, enchantments and all the other weird and
wonderful magic tidbits are welcome, nay, they are necessary, and it's Hermione who's the learned walking repository of
magic knowledge, but where's Harry's showing of magical mastery, his ability?
There's now so much going on the Potter films, so many characters, it's difficult to tell the story and have it feel
rounded. The choice of what to show and what not show is important however. At over 2 and a half hours, you'd think that
Goblet has enough time to show every all-important character nuance required to give our characters depth, but for
some reason so much feels missing. The Potter films have a captured audience who probably wouldn't feel slighted
if they were to sit through an extra 30 or 40 minutes of simple character moments and universe-establishing facts, items
and back story.
If the previous Harry Potter films have captured the essence of the books sufficiently, then Harry Potter and the
Goblet of Fire does the same, because it's really not that far removed from them despite the change in director. It
feels just like a revisit to the same world, which should be the only road open to it and now where it needs to be. One
wonders what the film could be if they were made as literal translations straight from the book. Possibly they'd be more
rounded, although it'd be a risk adapting 6 hours worth of film and having essentially the same product. The contrived
elements of the story obviously can't be changed or you'd have the Potter fans in uproar, but these watered down
versions need a little more padding, or at least smarter use of running time if they're to feel like complete films.
out of ten
Reviewed by Paul Boschen
Moviemarshal.com home