Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

I realize that most people who want to see it already have, but I'll go ahead and give my two cents on the latest Potter flick, anyway. A few spoilerish things might find their way in there, so use caution.

Before the film even started, we had a couple of very interesting trailers: Lady in the Water and Superman Returns. (We also had King Kong, but I'd seen that one about twenty times already.) Both of them were teasers really, and gave away little about the films.

The teaser for Superman Returns gave us only a second or two of footage at a time, but also gave us voice over from Jor-El explaining why he was sending his son to Earth. Bryan Singer has a good track record, so I'm looking forward to this even if the big blue Boy Scout isn't my favorite.

Lady in the Water is the latest film from M. Night Shyamalan, who has made intriguing films, but never anything that has lived up to the enormous potential shown in The Sixth Sense. The teaser for his latest showed almost nothing, but was still (in my opinion at least) wonderfully put together. The trailer showed Paul Giamatti in a few everyday situations (working as a handyman at a hotel or apartment building, writing, watching TV) over music that set a mood that was magical and in direct opposition to the normalcy of the images. Just a few words on the screen, then a clip of Giamatti noticing something in the pool. Finally the title card, "Lady in the Water a Bedtime Story from M. Night Shyamalan" followed by an image of Giamatti as seen from underwater. I would hate to get my hopes up, because the trailers for all of Shyamalan's last three films have been better than the films themselves (which isn't to say I didn't like the movies), but this was a wonderful teaser. I know almost nothing about the movie, and I excited to see it. Oh well, on with the main attraction.

For the third time in four films, we have a new director. The Goblet of Fire was the first foray into the Potter universe for Mike Newell. I have to admit that I was a little worried when I heard that Newell was directing. After all, his last film was the retch-inducing Mona Lisa Smile, a film that I could never discuss without using the term "ham-fisted"...mostly because it was. While Newell brought his own style to the series, none of his directorial decisions changed the feel or intent of the story itself. My worries about the new director aside, the movie turned out pretty well with a few exceptions.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, this is a large book that has been turned into a movie between two and half and three hours long. Some things simply had to go. This did cause some problems, such as the inclusion of Rita Skeeter here and there without any real purpose. With her subplot removed as it was, she could have been left out of the film entirely. Also, the subject of how exactly Barty Crouch came to be free was never addressed which left a gaping hole in the plot. One thing that was shortened for time (and almost certainly money) was the Quidditch World Cup. It's a shame too, because even the short scene they included was awe-inspiring. However, I won't quibble over what got cut or shortened because there was just too much to include.

While the effects were impressive and it moved the plot along just like it should have, the best feature of the film was the way it so perfectly captured the painful awkwardness of being a teenager. Whether it's dealing with finding a date for the ball, finally realizing that your friend is, in fact a girl, or the torment handed out by the more fortunate but less scrupulous students, Newell captures this part better than either Columbus or Cuaron did in the previous films.

As with the previous films, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson stole the show. That isn't saying anything bad about Daniel Radcliffe in particular, but rather that the characters of Ron and Hermione have so much more to work with than the Radcliffe's eponymous one. The addition of Mad-Eye Moody also gave the film yet another excellent adult character to go along with the kids. Children's books and movies or not, I look forward to the next book and the next film.

So, where does it fall on the Potter scale? At this point, I still believe that Prisoner of Azkaban is the best film and that Chamber of Secrets would have to be last. I'm not sure where to place this one in relation to the original. It almost certainly was a better film than the Sorcerer's Stone (or Philosopher's Stone if you aren't from a place where they fear children would be bored by the word Philosopher), but that first film has a sense of wonder and newness that manage to lift it up despite some of its flaws. Perhaps with more time I'll figure out where it should rank, but for now I'll place Goblet of Fire right there with Sorcerer's Stone, making them a combined 2nd of the four films.

One last thing, I'm sure Voldemort was scary to some of the audience members younger than me, but I couldn't really think of anything other than how weird it was to see Ralph Fiennes without a nose.

Until later...