My much-belated Goblet of Fire review
So I know all of you have forgotten, but I planned to post a review of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Part of the problems I’ve had in posting it have had to do with the insane-business of work recently. And the other part was that Thanksgiving holiday getting in the way. And the last part has to do with apathy. I’d much rather be typing up a review of Rent right now, but just to get it out there, here goes:
The trouble with the Harry Potter series for me, is that each chapter is essentially a murder mystery. Which means they are exciting as they unravel in their details, but once you’ve found out how everything fits together, there’s really no desire to go back to the well; Since their primary enjoyment stems from that mystery, then once its over its over. Like all murder-mysteries, I have only gone to the well once with each Harry Potter movie, after having read the corresponding novels a week prior to each movie release.
Granted, the visuals, music, and acting are always solid enough to warrant return trips to Hogwart’s, but as of yet I’ve simply never had a desire to revisit the films. However, looking back over the series thus far, I can easily say that the first two were rather pedantic and overly-loyal to the books.
So it was that Alfonso Cuaron’s third entry was a blessed blast of fresh air, hot off his stunning movie, Y Tu Mama Tambien. In that film, screenwriter Stephen Kloves threw caution to the wind for the first time and not only condensed events, but actually rearranged them to fit a better narrative line. Wedding Cuaron’s visual-style to this made it easily the best of the series.
Now for The Goblet of Fire: Director Mike Newell has smartly approached this entry with a quick-pacing, which once again is scripted by Kloves. Had Chris Columbus directed the same script, it would’ve been thirty minutes longer. And for the first time, we have a British director, directing in a British-style. Successful from the acclaimed films Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) and Donnie Brasco (1997), Newell infuses a very English sensibility to the compositions, while cinematographer Roger Pratt of Chocolat (2000) and Troy (2004) suffuses the colour-palette and lighting with a real-world grounding. This more down-to-earth tone provides a more visceral connection to the audience, but does betray the wispy other-worldliness of the previous films, despite Stuart Craig’s continuing stint as the series’ Production Designer.
Mick Audsley’s [Interview with the Vampire (1994), High Fidelity (2000)] work as editor merely serves to keep up the breakneck-pace the story demands in order to fit 737 pages of prose into a two and a half-hour movie. In other words, he meets the demands, but doesn’t attempt anything out of the ordinary, which I suppose is fine for a film catered for a mass-audience. The difference between styles was even more apparent to me after following this film up with Guy Maddin’s Cowards Bend the Knee (2004), where the editing of John Gurdebeke is one of the most amazing examples I’ve ever seen of the invisible artistic contribution editing can make for a film. But then again, one is an art film, and the other is a mainstream blockbuster where experimentation can distract and turn-off filmgoers expecting to see a straightforward recreation of what they’ve read and loved.
Patrick Doyle has always been one of my favourite working film composers, for the work he’s done on Henry V (1989), Much Ado About Nothing (1993), and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994). Here he provides a decent score to the proceedings, but as it’s a non-stop flurry of visual action from start to finish in this one, most of the music is indebted to the sort of tense pacing that those scenes require, and in the slower character moments, John Williams’ lilting themes are sorely missed.
The acting, as always, is wonderful. I have heard a few complaints about Michael Gambon as Dumbledore in these last two installments, but I find him much preferable to Richard Harris. Harris indeed was more dead-on in the look of the character as described in the book, but Gambon is a more interesting actor in my opinion. He has always brought a double-edged sensibility to the roles he’s played, and I’ve enjoyed him in many films before he took over the grand wizard’s duties. If you want to see him really shine, watch the incredible film, The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover (1989). That is an astounding film that he dominates, and you will chortle that he plays such an important figure in a children’s film, even more so than Cuaron having been chosen as director of The Prisoner of Azkaban after having directed the racy Y Tu Mama Tambien.
In my opinion, The Goblet of Fire is the best book in the series that I’ve read thus far, and as such it was the most satisfying narrative for me onscreen. Mad Eye Moody was wonderfully improved in visual form from the book, and Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort far exceeded my expectations. He truly provided a strong presence, which in spite of his brief screen time perhaps indicates how much more strong it was. The several scenes of Sirius Black have been trimmed from the novel, with the exception of the fireplace scene. Though Gary Oldman actually voiced and was motion-captured for the brief scene, it very well could’ve been any other actor in his place since he was so obscured by the embers.
The special effects were much toned down from the way the book describes them. I was very afraid they would get translated in an-over-the-top style onscreen. The way the book describes the magical displays are often ridiculous (such as the Irish Quidditch team’s visual fireworks and Harry and Voldemort’s sparring match at the end). However they toned these down considerably to a more “realistic” level.
All in all I was pleased with the things deleted from the film, such as Hermione’s campaign to free the house elves, and the opening escape from the Dursleys, but the Veela women and the character Ludo Bagman were sorely missed. I also fear that the exclusion of the house elf Winky and perhaps some of the interaction with Dobby may cause serious narrative issues in further installments. Such is the price of Stephen Kloves not knowing what lies ahead at the end of the road. Because so much of the books are concerned with the internal thoughts and research of Harry, much of the external action that film exclusively demands may seem oddly disjointed or twee-ly coincidental to those unfamiliar with the literary blueprints. Indeed, I shudder to think what one completely unfamiliar with both the books and the preceding films may have thought at seeing this one, where it was all action and no exposition. But as this series really started to lurch into gear with installment three, for me it was a treat to simply leap into the external actions that inevitably begin to carry the entire epic series towards its pointed and hotly-debated end.
The trouble with the Harry Potter series for me, is that each chapter is essentially a murder mystery. Which means they are exciting as they unravel in their details, but once you’ve found out how everything fits together, there’s really no desire to go back to the well; Since their primary enjoyment stems from that mystery, then once its over its over. Like all murder-mysteries, I have only gone to the well once with each Harry Potter movie, after having read the corresponding novels a week prior to each movie release.
Granted, the visuals, music, and acting are always solid enough to warrant return trips to Hogwart’s, but as of yet I’ve simply never had a desire to revisit the films. However, looking back over the series thus far, I can easily say that the first two were rather pedantic and overly-loyal to the books.
So it was that Alfonso Cuaron’s third entry was a blessed blast of fresh air, hot off his stunning movie, Y Tu Mama Tambien. In that film, screenwriter Stephen Kloves threw caution to the wind for the first time and not only condensed events, but actually rearranged them to fit a better narrative line. Wedding Cuaron’s visual-style to this made it easily the best of the series.
Now for The Goblet of Fire: Director Mike Newell has smartly approached this entry with a quick-pacing, which once again is scripted by Kloves. Had Chris Columbus directed the same script, it would’ve been thirty minutes longer. And for the first time, we have a British director, directing in a British-style. Successful from the acclaimed films Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) and Donnie Brasco (1997), Newell infuses a very English sensibility to the compositions, while cinematographer Roger Pratt of Chocolat (2000) and Troy (2004) suffuses the colour-palette and lighting with a real-world grounding. This more down-to-earth tone provides a more visceral connection to the audience, but does betray the wispy other-worldliness of the previous films, despite Stuart Craig’s continuing stint as the series’ Production Designer.
Mick Audsley’s [Interview with the Vampire (1994), High Fidelity (2000)] work as editor merely serves to keep up the breakneck-pace the story demands in order to fit 737 pages of prose into a two and a half-hour movie. In other words, he meets the demands, but doesn’t attempt anything out of the ordinary, which I suppose is fine for a film catered for a mass-audience. The difference between styles was even more apparent to me after following this film up with Guy Maddin’s Cowards Bend the Knee (2004), where the editing of John Gurdebeke is one of the most amazing examples I’ve ever seen of the invisible artistic contribution editing can make for a film. But then again, one is an art film, and the other is a mainstream blockbuster where experimentation can distract and turn-off filmgoers expecting to see a straightforward recreation of what they’ve read and loved.
Patrick Doyle has always been one of my favourite working film composers, for the work he’s done on Henry V (1989), Much Ado About Nothing (1993), and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994). Here he provides a decent score to the proceedings, but as it’s a non-stop flurry of visual action from start to finish in this one, most of the music is indebted to the sort of tense pacing that those scenes require, and in the slower character moments, John Williams’ lilting themes are sorely missed.
The acting, as always, is wonderful. I have heard a few complaints about Michael Gambon as Dumbledore in these last two installments, but I find him much preferable to Richard Harris. Harris indeed was more dead-on in the look of the character as described in the book, but Gambon is a more interesting actor in my opinion. He has always brought a double-edged sensibility to the roles he’s played, and I’ve enjoyed him in many films before he took over the grand wizard’s duties. If you want to see him really shine, watch the incredible film, The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover (1989). That is an astounding film that he dominates, and you will chortle that he plays such an important figure in a children’s film, even more so than Cuaron having been chosen as director of The Prisoner of Azkaban after having directed the racy Y Tu Mama Tambien.
In my opinion, The Goblet of Fire is the best book in the series that I’ve read thus far, and as such it was the most satisfying narrative for me onscreen. Mad Eye Moody was wonderfully improved in visual form from the book, and Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort far exceeded my expectations. He truly provided a strong presence, which in spite of his brief screen time perhaps indicates how much more strong it was. The several scenes of Sirius Black have been trimmed from the novel, with the exception of the fireplace scene. Though Gary Oldman actually voiced and was motion-captured for the brief scene, it very well could’ve been any other actor in his place since he was so obscured by the embers.
The special effects were much toned down from the way the book describes them. I was very afraid they would get translated in an-over-the-top style onscreen. The way the book describes the magical displays are often ridiculous (such as the Irish Quidditch team’s visual fireworks and Harry and Voldemort’s sparring match at the end). However they toned these down considerably to a more “realistic” level.
All in all I was pleased with the things deleted from the film, such as Hermione’s campaign to free the house elves, and the opening escape from the Dursleys, but the Veela women and the character Ludo Bagman were sorely missed. I also fear that the exclusion of the house elf Winky and perhaps some of the interaction with Dobby may cause serious narrative issues in further installments. Such is the price of Stephen Kloves not knowing what lies ahead at the end of the road. Because so much of the books are concerned with the internal thoughts and research of Harry, much of the external action that film exclusively demands may seem oddly disjointed or twee-ly coincidental to those unfamiliar with the literary blueprints. Indeed, I shudder to think what one completely unfamiliar with both the books and the preceding films may have thought at seeing this one, where it was all action and no exposition. But as this series really started to lurch into gear with installment three, for me it was a treat to simply leap into the external actions that inevitably begin to carry the entire epic series towards its pointed and hotly-debated end.