Reviews

Mike Newell should replace Voldemort as the Dark Lord.

What's up with the 'Goblet'? In the tradition of Thanksgiving, Warner Bros. has served up a huge turkey for audiences to feast.

The screenplay is AWFUL! But don't blame Kloves, who has heretofore delivered consistently good adaptations of the Potter books. What's different? Director Mike Newell.

I think the term "ham-fisted" would be adequate in describing the translation of "Goblet of Fire" from book to movie. How many plot threads and important pieces of information were left out? What was up with the sudden 15-minute "Dawson's Creek" episode aka the Yule Ball? Where did all the slapsitck Mr. Filch and Snape stuff come from? And come on... that stupid licking tick with Barty Crouch? It had all the subtlety of a bull in a china shop. The target audience is beyond the "Teletubbies" and "Dragon Tales" stage. Additionally, there are a lot of unexplained story lines- the complete destruction of 1,000's of tents at the Quiddich Cup, Ron's anger at Harry, Harry's sulkiness at the Ball, Neville's response to the cruciatus curse, Hermione's interest in Krum, Priori Incantatem...the list is too long to continue- questions dealt with succinctly in the book- in the movie, left to the audience to decipher.

People are saying this is darker and grittier- but I didn't see that. Who else was disturbed by the upbeat and cheery ending? Harry saw an innocent person die... I get the feeling that Newell, like Ron Weasley "missed the point entirely". The goriest and most disturbing parts in the graveyard are glossed over and trivialized. So why the PG-13 rating? Partial stained-glass-mermaid nudity?

Newell also failed to pull great or even acceptable performances from most of the cast- and it's not as if he doesn't have talent to work with. You can't blame the actors- all of whom have turned in good performances previously- again, it's up to Newell to pull the great from the bad- I was often reminded of SNL's "Master Thespian" in scenes involving high drama. Oh yeah, I also hated seeing Michael Gambon's violent turn as Dumbledore- dude, you suck!!!

Speaking of sucking- what happened to the music- If John Williams is engaged on another flick, get him back- or at least call him so he can hum a few tunes on the phone! Patrick Doyle's quasi British brass band music was weak and pathetic compared to Williams' knack for melodies and motivic development.

The film also appears to have a lower budget than the previous HP movies. From the lame mer-people and the obviously fake doll-like floating Cho, Ron, and friends to the lack of moving subjects in the paintings, lack of exterior shots.. and didn't everything seem like it was on a small set- the common room, owlery, great hall, etc? Suddenly all more claustrophobic... And who could forget the deflating graveyard scenery? I've seen better mock-ups on old episodes of "Wagontrain". I guess they couldn't afford Winky or Dobby- maybe they should have saved a little money from the god-awful Yule Ball and dragon scenes.

I guess it's Dumbledore who sums it up best- in times when you have to choose between what's right and what's easy- remember what happened to a book that was good, and whole, and interesting- that strayed into the hands of a hack director and a studio that turned movies like "Batman" into "Batman & Robin"... Remember the REAL Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire.

okay, so it's not on the same level as 'Gangs of New York", but i still love this movie. it's better than 90 % of most recent 'romantic comedies' and has more substance. compare this movie to 'maid in manhattan' or 'just married' or 'road trip'. 'far and away' IS far and away a better movie, and dare i say it? it's almost cinema! anyway, attention to detail, and pretty darn good writing and direction make it a good pick if you're at blockbuster and can't find something descent. Definately check it out for the romantic and comedic version of 'Gangs of New York'!

Crowe tells a great story. i didn't really get this movie the first time i saw it (my younger years). i just saw it recently and it really is a great flick. it's about life as much as it is about love. plus it's funny as hell- and i forgot it was the first time i saw renee zellweger and bonnie hunt on the big screen. one of my favorite 'chick flix'.

ever since the sci-fi revival started, i've been wondering if they would ever try another crack at the amazing stories series. i don't know if anyone has seen the new twilight zone series or any of these other 'hack' type shows... but when i think about the best shows since the original twilight zone and outer limits (which are THE BEST) this series is the best thing to happen since those shows went off the air. writing, acting, production value (for its day) are all way above the mark of anything to happen since. the only other show that i remember being EXCELLENT is the short lived jim henson show- and i can't even remember its name. this show along with northen exposure, star trek tng, and a very, very select few make up the creme of the crop of shows since the 80's. oh yeah, of course the x-files had some 'amazing stories-esque' episodes, but 'amazing' was and is the only true modern fantasy series of greatness!!!!!!!! yay!

the movie was awesome. aronofsky explores the effects of addiction in an uncaring world. i do not believe this is a movie about drugs per se. the drug use, although central to the movie's theme, is only a vehicle for the message about addiction. i think everyone can identify with this movie because we're a nation of addicts. caffeine, nicotine, food, love, money, sex... addiction is not limited to illegal drugs. the movie is just sort of a hypothetical exercise and takes the one theme all the way down to rock bottom. on a side note, i think all that split screen stuff is just a way to show how each character is isolated from each other by addiction- after all, isn't that what addiction does? and how can i forget... ELLEN BURSTYN ROCKED! definitely robbed.