|
|
-=-=-=-SUMMARY: The movie leaves a lot to be desired. It nails its dark ending, but the rest of the film is disjointed and without substance. Why? It puts a little of everything in, rather than a lot of a few things. "Star" characters Krum, Fleur, Cedric, and Cho get the shaft in a big way -- but at least it looks pretty?-=-=-=-
I'm so sick of PR. "Goblet of Fire" comes out, and doesn't live up to the PR machine. This film was showcased as the TriWizard Tournament with some Yule Ball flavor. Instead, the film is schizophrenic and doesn't address either plot satisfactorily.
That doesn't make the film unenjoyable. It is well produced, with a high-and-shiny gloss that makes it picture-perfect. The locales are gorgeous. The cast is gorgeous. Ralph Finnes and the graveyard scene ending is done without flaw. But the whole picture is hollow. In short, it could have been so much better.
Take, for example, the TriWizard Tournament. Four contestants, three new schools, two new love interests -- and we learn nothing about them. Nothing. Fleur has a total of 2 lines. At least Clemency Posey tries to give the character a bit of dignity with some naturally added and improvised French to contrast with all of the sexism the gal faces. Viktor Krum is just for looks, as he literally has 2 lines. TWO. And the one he says to Hermione is barely audible. Cho Chang - with Katie Leung being subject to much controversy - gets three lines. Three. THREE! Cedric comes off as the most substantial character, which isn't saying much.
I don't blame this on director Newell, but rather the Potter source material as a whole. For one, fan boys and fan girls - hellbent on everything being lifted directly from Rowling's "divine word" - are crippling a potentially successful film franchise. None of these have been so glaring as "Goblet of Fire." Secondly, the film is handicapped by the ongoing script that is the Harry Potter novel series. "Lord of the Rings" it ain't. Whereas Peter Jackson, Phillipa, and Fran could take the trilogy and work around the major subplots, the HP crew cannot. No one knows what subplots JK will use, abuse, neglect, discard, or revive. What character will be essential? Which one is not? Since the screenwriters don't know, then it makes sense to leave in a little bit of everything, which takes away from the "whole lot of some things" essential to making "The Goblet of Fire" a stand-alone story.
It should have stripped to the basics: - TriWizard Tournament - Yule Ball, with some Cho/Harry, Ron/Hermione, Hermione/Krum characterization, with a bit of Patil twin thrown in.
And, in the end, the return of Voldemort. Instead, the movie attempts to juggle its insane cast: Snape, Malfoy, Lucius Malfoy, Hagrid, Ginny, Dean, Seamus, Fred&George, Dumbledore, Moody, McGonagall, Flitwick, Neville, Rita, and so on and so forth that it cannot adequately address its new characters. And since so many of these new characters have never before appeared in a Potter film adaptation, they never receive sufficient exposition or introduction.
The Patil sisters are never expressly named; Parvati is only named outside of a scene. Never appeared in a movie. Cho Chang is never even given a named introduction. Never been in a movie. Cedric Diggory is never given sufficient introduction. Fleur and Krum have no lines, so it is moot. Madame Maxime gets a few awkward scenes with Hagrid. Karkaroff has a pointless subplot that goes nowhere.
Thus, the movies are becoming increasingly convoluted -- and for those who haven't read the books, it becomes difficult to decipher. Wait until Movie 5 tries to add in "Luna Lovegood." It'll be a field day for sure. The real problem is that Harry Potter isn't completed. We're leading to a Hermione/Ron romance, but we don't know if they will get together. This need to leave in a little of everything kills the films and, in turn, the films put a clamp on the direction of the stories. The insane market-hype that is "Harry Potter" is neither giving the film nor print franchises the creative space to grow.
The acting is still the same for the children - over-emotional. Mad Eye Moody adds character, charm, and much needed pizazz into an otherwise "color by numbers" tale. Hermione (who I adored in the 3rd film) and Dumbledore were very off - Dumbledore seeming irritable and aloof throughout, and Hermione overly shrill. Emma: chill with the eyebrows. Dan Radcliffe looks like a Harry Potter, but still struggles with the key scenes. Ron is Ron, though he isn't too likable in this film with his unnecessary melodrama. The timing is off -- the "guest" schools visit for an entire academic year, with one of the three challenges occurring in fall, a Winter Ball on Christmas Eve, and two challenges in the Spring. All of this time flies by with no character interaction, growth, or even any "Nancy Drewing" on the part of our protagonists.
C'est la vie, in the end it's all moot for the Potter fan. The film looks beautiful, but leaves a lot to be desired. The hardcore Potter fans (like my boyfriend and sister) don't seem to care. Even I, a non-hardcore fan, feel like there needs to be some sense of artistic freedom in these film adaptations.
Break-Down Pros: Gorgeous Cinematography, Special Effects Best of the Series, Costumes, Sets, and Characters look phenomenal, The showdown with Voldemort at the end is near perfect.
Cons: Still too many unnecessary subplots and characters, Not enough focus on our "new" characters, choppy scenes, over-acting from Emma Watson and Dan Radcliffe.
OVERALL: 6/10. You'll see it regardless. It's an entertaining time, but leaves a lot to be desired.
score 6/10
Havoc1 18 November 2005
Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1219168/ |
|
29-11-2019 08:05:24
