Reviews

Zack Snyder already did this better in 2004 with his Dawn of the Dead remake.

The biggest problem with this film is a lack of original ideas. It brings up a couple of interesting things about a "zombie society" but does very little with those concepts. They're probably saving that stuff for other movies or TV shows. This type of franchise thinking is bad, though, when it limits the scope of your first entry. I'm also guessing they haven't thought it through too much.

Worst of all, this film rips off Aliens to an almost hilarious degree. From certain lines (a la "they're just dumb animals") to an escape scene that involves them having to flee an area before a nuke goes off and thinking their pilot has left them while the "queen" follows them... it's just endless. SO many characters are even lifted from the archetypes created by Aliens (which is a much better film, by the way). James Cameron could probably sue.

Last thing -- the film is too long. For 90 minutes, it's a fun Saturday afternoon matinee type of experience, but 2 and a half hours is just overkill. No pun intended.

If you're bored, watch it, sure, but don't expect anything special.

5.5/10, rounded up to 6 for IMDB.

All the reviews are right. The show (as a whole) was great. Seasons 1-4 were phenomenal. Season 5 was flawed, but redeemed itself in the end. Season 6 was great, and has one of the great reveals of the entire show with "The Door". The last two episodes are perhaps the best two, as well. Then there's Season 7. It has some silly stuff. It values spectacle over story. The "Beyond the Wall" episode is filled with lazy writing and plot holes. But it's still, as a whole, highly entertaining with some incredible moments and scenes. "The Spoils of War" is a fantastic episode, and the season ends on a high note.

Then we get to season 8. The first 2 episodes are fine. In fact, episode 2 has some fantastic writing. Episode 3 is when things start to go downhill, and the last three episodes are the single worst stretch of writing in an otherwise good show that I have ever seen. It's almost hard to comprehend how much this ball was fumbled. It's the equivalent of following up The Dark Knight with Batman & Robin.

I've seen some defenses of these final episodes, with fans saying that people would have been disappointed no matter what happened and that people just like to whine. While it's true that people online like to whine about things, I have two responses...

1) Breaking Bad season 5 says hello. The Lord of the Rings trilogy says hello. Even Avengers: Endgame says hello. There are plenty of shows and movies that had astounding hype and somehow lived up to or even exceeded that hype. Breaking Bad season 4 was so incredible that it seemed the show was destined to end on a bit of a down note. Instead, somehow, the show ended with a final season so strong that I don't think it's hyperbole to describe Breaking Bad as possibly the greatest storytelling achievement of the 21st century so far.

2) Yes, Season 8 was (unnecessarily) rushed. Yes, they ran out of books. But even with only 6 episodes, there is so much more they could have done with that real estate. Just as a fan, I can take those same 6 episodes and rework them into something much better. I can even use a lot of the same "moments", and in fact, everything up to S08E03 would be the same. Season 7, despite its flaws, would be the same, as would the first two episodes of Season 8. I think if the show had gone this route, while still a little rushed, most people would have been very satisfied... and Game of Thrones would have gone down as an all time great.

So how should it have ended?

Well, in The Long Night, I would have the Night King win. Those not fighting him are staying in the large main hall of Winterfell, rather than the crypts. They then have to escape *through* the crypts once it becomes clear that they're going to lose. To do this, they have to fight the undead, but they now have no choice. The last shots of Ep. 3 would be our main characters (including Bran) retreating as the Night King advances and takes over Winterfell. Theon still dies, staying behind to buy them a little bit of time.

Then in Ep. 4, they continue retreating as we watch the army of the dead conquer and take over villages on its way to King's Landing. The retreating forces arrive in King's Landing, with Jon and Daenerys on dragons, and they warn Cersei that they probably have two days before the Night King arrives. Discussing strategy and the catastrophic losses in Winterfell, Sam has an idea. They need to destroy the Weirwood trees to make the Night King vulnerable. It seems impossible, as there are too many trees spread out over Westeros, but Bran can help them. They don't actually have to destroy all of the trees, only one. The tree they need to destroy is the one where the old Three-Eyed Raven lived. They need to burn it with a special type of fire that only the Lord of Light can provide. However, by doing this, Bran will lose his "sight" and memory and possibly die. It's a risk worth taking. Bran begins to tell them major events so they can write them down (and thus not 'forget' everything), and Jon takes a few select characters (including Melisandre and Ser Davos) by dragon toward the tree. Bran shows them the way with ravens. Meanwhile, Daenerys stays behind to help protect King's Landing with Drogon. The people of King's Landing prepare for battle, as the Night King is basically building a massive ice bridge over the water directly to King's Landing. At the end of Ep. 4, he arrives.

In Ep. 5, a massive battle takes place against the Night King at King's Landing (the city is aptly named). As this happens, the Weirwood tree is sought out by Jon and friends, while during the battle it's still almost impossible to get to the Night King. Eventually the Night King appears to be close to winning, approaching Bran (similar to the actual ending in Ep. 3). Meanwhile, we watch Jon and friends get to the tree and fight the undead to reach its roots. The Red Witch Melisandre helps them to do this, and without her and her connection to the Lord of Light they would not succeed. Suddenly, just as the Night King approaches Bran, his face goes blank. Jon and friends have done it, they've destroyed the tree. The Night King - so close to his moment of triumph - realizes what has happened, and he kills Bran in an act of vengeful fury. Arya now jumps at him from the shadows (in a scene similar to the actual show). He grabs her, but she stabs him using the same move from the actual show. Since he's now vulnerable, he dies. It's official. The Night King is dead. Winter is over.

It's a moment of genuine triumph. At the burning Weirwood tree, the Red Witch drops her necklace and dies, like she did at the end of Ep. 3 in the actual show (with Ser Davos still watching her in these final moments). It's almost hard to believe. The Long Night has ended. Except - in this moment of triumph, Cersei makes her move. She has her men turn their scorpions on Drogon, injuring him as Daenerys suddenly has to defend herself while many are still celebrating. It's chaos and confusion. In her rage at being attacked and betrayed right after their moment of victory, Daenerys and an injured Drogon attack King's Landing. Drogon is able to destroy the scorpions, though he is further injured in the process, and in the chaos and anger of the moment she keeps using him to burn the rest of the city. Her (justifiable) rage is out of control. The Night King wasn't able to destroy the city, but Daenerys can and she does. Ep. 5 ends with Drogon crashing down into the throne room, where Cersei has retreated. Cersei sits proudly and defiantly on the Iron Throne. "Dracarys!" Cersei is burned alive, and the throne melted down, in imagery similar to the actual destruction of the throne in Ep. 6. After this, Drogon now dies of his injuries, and ash rains down from the sky like it did in the vision from the end of Season 2.

Ep. 6 begins with Jon returning to King's Landing on Rhaegal. He is shocked to see that the city is now burning ruins. Daenerys has retreated, and Jon goes to find her. Once he does, she expresses anger and then regret over what happened, and worries that she is no better than her father. Jon has an opportunity to take over from here and defeat her, but he refuses. Rhaegal is also still loyal to Daenerys over him. Jon is horrified, but also understands the shocking treachery of Cersei's actions. He tells Daenerys that he cannot condemn her, and that she is still his queen. So what happens? Thanks to Tyrion - who is also horrified by the burning of King's Landing but also equally horrified by Cersei's deception - they ultimately decide to divide up power. Daenerys will take Rhaegal and rule over the South and the former slave cities. Sansa will rule the North, while Jon will become the new Mance Rayder and rule the Free Folk beyond (what used to be) the Wall. The fact that he and Sansa are on the same page will mean the North is pretty much united. Meanwhile, King's Landing will need a new 'king', even if this person will not actually rule all of the Seven Kingdoms. Sam might suggest democracy as he did in the actual finale, and be laughed off, but then the other lords decide Tyrion should be the new king. He accepts. It was clear that he couldn't really continue to advise Daenerys after her violent actions, and more importantly: he's back "home". This is where he belongs. (An alternate to this idea could be that Tyrion would be the Hand to the new king, someone who would basically be a figurehead.)

The episode could still end with the same image of Jon heading into the woods with the Free Folk, but it now has different context. Daenerys is neither a pure hero or villain, and she is actually humbled by her moment of rage; one that is more justified than in the actual show. Old grudges remain, but after all the death and destruction of the last few episodes, people want to move forward. The world is forever changed, and for the moment, the game of thrones is over. The Night King is defeated, power divided up, and a new era begun.

TL;DR version: No excuses, Game of Thrones blew it.

This is the only film I've ever seen 5 times in theaters. I saw Gladiator 4 times (once while traveling overseas). Everything else has been 3 or less. More than 15 years later and it's still one of my favorites.

The real reason this film works is because it's a character drama first and a thriller second. The supernatural aspects are just window dressing. Like The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, M. Night's best films work because you care about the characters and are drawn into their stories. He basically tricks audiences into eating their veggies; you're watching character dramas about human beings struggling with very real human issues. Usually those sorts of films don't exactly light up the box office. The genre supernatural stuff is just the cherry on top.

With that said, it amazes me that people still lambast this film for plot holes that *aren't* actually plot holes. This film is very well thought out, and all of the little details that are put into it do in fact add up to something. I'll have to venture into spoiler territory now...

***SPOILERS FOR THE SIXTH SENSE, UNBREAKABLE AND SIGNS***

M. Night films are know for their twists. Yes, he's almost ventured into parody territory over the years with these surprise endings, but when they work, they work exceptionally well. Signs I think has the most subtle twist, and in many ways it is his most powerful ending.

Essentially, M. Night uses genre tropes to draw you into a world, and then he flips those tropes around. So in The Sixth Sense, you think you're watching a movie about scary ghosts, and then at the end you realize you've been watching it mostly from the perspective of the ghost. In Unbreakable, you realize at the end that you've been watching a superhero origin story all along. Signs follows a similar pattern. You think it's a story about an alien invasion, but then at the end you realize you've actually been watching a movie about the apocalypse. And like Unbreakable, the film isn't really shy about letting you know what is really going on. Unbreakable has comicbooks as a major aspect of the storyline before the reveal, just as Signs has religion/faith/God as major story points before the reveal.

I'm not the only person who has figured this out, mind you. You can google "Signs demon theory" and plenty of other people point out the clues (er, signs?) throughout the film. Which brings me to my original point: water doesn't kill the aliens. There's no plot hole here. They aren't aliens. And it's not just water, it's holy water specifically that burns and kills the demon in the ending scene. Yes, you might think it's cheesy, but I think the movie earns it. You care about the characters. You care about their state of mind. The entire story builds up to this very specific moment.

And just in case you aren't sold or think I'm trying to write M. Night out of a hole, keep this in mind: Bo is referred to as "like an angel". The water that kills the demon is her water, it's not just any water. More importantly, the TV mentions that a primitive method has been discovered in "three Middle Eastern cities." Last I checked, the Middle East wasn't exactly know for an abundance of water. However, it is the birthplace of the three major Abrahamic religions, and the River Jordan is even considered holy. If it was just any old water that killed the "aliens" wouldn't a solution be found first in Seattle or Mawsynram or something?

The fact that they're demons is even more obvious when you think of the fact that they look demonic (with their cloven feet, etc.) and are running around naked. Even the crop signs themselves look like a pitchfork, which is admittedly maybe a bit too much on the nose. You also never see a spaceship once. This is purposeful from a writing and directing standpoint. Lights in the sky could reference portals or gateways. It has nothing to do with interstellar space travel, that's just something the characters and audience infer before they have all of the facts. The only time the word "alien" is actually mentioned is when they're wearing tinfoil hats. That joke isn't for nothing!

Keep in mind, M. Night was raised as a Hindu himself (but went to Catholic school) and Signs in many ways plays with tropes from both Christianity and Hinduism. Think of the asuras, powerful superhuman demigods in Hinduism who are often considered "enemies of the gods". Wasn't there even a line in Batman v Superman about demons coming from the sky? Signs is an apocalypse story in the same way that Unbreakable is a superhero origin story or Split is an Unbreakable spinoff/sequel. You don't realize it until the end when all the pieces of the puzzle come together.

So TL;DR version: Signs is a great character drama about the apocalypse (remember: apocalypse means revelation). A family struggles with grief and has to fend off demons during humanity's darkest hour. There aren't any gaping plot holes, either. Water doesn't kill aliens, but rather holy water kills demons. This film is *so much* better than dreck like Left Behind, too. If you watched Signs years ago and hated it, give it another try!

So you know where I stand, I loved Pirates 1. It was "fun", it was epic, it was clever and funny. It might have had some pacing problems, but it's still the epitome of what an action/adventure should be - and it's still fun to watch 8 years later.

Meanwhile, I thought Pirates 2 was epic. I actually think it's quite a bit underrated, and though it has about 20 minutes where it loses focus, otherwise it keeps taking you somewhere new. The cannibal island wasn't at all a waste either, it re-united all the characters and was a fun sequence. I thought it rivaled the first, and overall wasn't quite as clever as #1 but it was even bigger in scope. To me Pirates 2 is what a summer blockbuster should be.

Pirates 3, however, I thought was terrible, and almost unwatchable, though it had moments of brilliance, namely the "at world's end" scenes. I've only seen it twice, and will likely never watch it again in my life.

So here we are at Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. I wasn't expecting brilliance, but I was hoping for a fun summer pirates adventure. Something along the lines of the first, maybe not quite as clever, but still good fun.

Instead I got a laborious, muddy film with little joy or cleverness. It was a chore to sit through, much as I felt about At World's End, but unlike that film this one doesn't even have the occasional moments of brilliance (like the "world's end" scenes in 3 which were very zany and unique; here, you never really see any stranger tides).

What's worst is there's some cool ideas here. The ships in the bottles, Blackbeard, Barbossa working for the king, the whole idea of a "race" for the fountain of youth, hell, the FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH. So many cool things and none of them go anywhere. There are no real characters or character arcs. Nothing happens with anyone, nobody "changes" or goes on a journey of any sort of their own.

I know character development might not have been the strong suit of the earlier films, but usually there were the basics, especially in the first: you knew what people wanted, and why, and understood why they were doing what they were doing to get it. And the character's had their own personalities, and were unique from one another.

But most of all this film just wasn't fun. There were very few clever or quotable lines. It was the smallest in scale of all 4 films, and the set pieces besides the mermaid attack were all underwhelming and occasionally even boring. The mermaid attack was cool, but there was some shoddy CGI and they never really went anywhere with it. You never really get the sense that it's a "race" for the fountain of youth, and the script could have done a lot more with its premise.

For starters, I'd say lose Barbossa, have Cruz be with the Spanish, but still the daughter of Blackbeard, and have it be a 3-way race between her, Jack and Blackbeard. Make the fountain of youth sequence more than a poor rip-off of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Do something new, perhaps give Jack a more serious dilemma to face in the 2nd act that makes him more than just a clown. This film has no pulse.

And I don't understand how anyone could dislike Dead Man's Chest and like this. On Stranger Tides was talkie, and all the double-triple cross stuff mainly didn't come in until #3. Dead Man's Chest was an easier to follow plot than this, and the characters had more complexity and clarity than here. The production design was also a marvel. On Stranger Tides, meanwhile, rarely feels like you're in the Caribbean, and the sets stick out like a sore thumb from the location stuff.

3/10... it'd be lower, except I know movies like Batman & Robin exist, so I have to adjust accordingly.

**Some spoilers ahead**

This film seems to be getting a very divided reaction. Some call it "torture porn" (an overused term, but do remember that porn doesn't necessarily have to relate to sex or sexual acts... a movie of people solely getting their heads chopped off would be pornographic, just it would be of violence instead of sex.) Others call it a deep masterpiece of blah blah blah. In reality, for me the film doesn't really hit either extreme. It's got some story problems and arguable "plot holes," the direction is at times uneven, and it tries to break clichés while falling into others. It's also just a bit too dullingly depressing which hurts the re-watchability factor for me.

One of the bigger problems I had was that the film tries to explain why the victims always have to be young women (and by young women I mean young *pretty* women), but it's not a very good explanation and modern day horror films of women being beat up by strong burly men are getting a little tiresome. Hostel, though that movie sucked beyond all belief, at least was equal opportunity in its victims. Not that political correctness matters to a film like this, but when it uses such a tired cliché like that, it, for me, takes me out of the film just a bit. It's like, oh look, I can imagine the casting session for this.

However, with all this said, I think this film is still in a lot of ways a good example of a modern day "Psycho," in the sense that it does a pretty good job of horrifying and shocking - which is a much harder feat today than it was in 1960.

Now here's where some of the real spoilers come in.

To me, the reason this movie works on a basic "horror" level (i.e. trying to horrify its audience through an idea rather than just pure blood and guts) is because we see someone go through intense suffering just because of someone's personal ideology - a person who, of course, is at a safe distance from the suffering (i.e. not torturing themselves physically and mentally but rather another person for an answer they seek.) It's a play on an audience's fears dealing with abusive religious or cult leaders. Look at what corrupt religious leaders have done in the past, i.e. burning people alive to send them to Jesus, crucifying "heathens" to save them, etc. etc.

Or look at something like Jonestown, with groups of people dying for a "cause." Or look at the suicide bombers in the Middle-east, convinced by people standing safe and sound that they need to kill themselves to become martyrs for their cause (if bin Laden really believed in that cause why hasn't he blown himself up for martyrdom? Exactly... it's an abuse.) I see this film as one about the fear of horrible things being done for reasons that are based on faith alone - specifically religious or cult-based faith.

Faith, when abused, does awful things to people. And humans sometimes justify horrible things being done to others because it satisfies their belief system...

Now, why some fans of this film seem so adamant about defending the fake, evil actions of a fictional character is beyond me. A bunch of good points have been made from various sources that pretty much put big holes into Mademoiselle's idea of expecting "martyrdom" (i.e. witnessing the afterlife because of immense suffering) to actually reveal anything of use. God help us if anyone here thinks that what the cult does in this movie actually would be a good thing to do in real life. Of course, there's a lot of bad people out there and I'm sure they use the internet just like everyone else.

So, yes, to me in a lot of ways this seemed like a 21st century "Psycho" in the way it built up tension, took false turns to make us think it was about one thing and not another, and ultimately ended with the face of one, tortured individual. Reaction is even similar, Psycho in its day was called both "sensational" and "deep" by different people. It was hated and loved. Not that I'm saying this film is on the level of Psycho, but it hits the same kinda nerve that Psycho did back then.

Also, even though I'm so tired of terrible horror remakes and I'm sure this has a crappy one already in the works, if you were to give it to a good director like a Scorsese (he has done horror, look at Cape Fear, also a remake) you probably could have a future horror classic like Psycho. The parts that work, work very well, especially the set-up and the last 10 or 15 minutes.

But at other times, this film does wallow a bit too much in the hate, and like many films - i.e. The Passion - when you have some realistic violence, it needs to all be realistic, or else it borders on becoming gratuitous and, yes, pornographic. As an example, look at the massacre on the house in the first act - people don't get blown back from shotgun blasts. I know Death Becomes Her did it to a great effect in 1992, but unless the bullets have something to grip onto they'll just tear through you. You can't have silly violence like that and then have a woman skinned alive to chilling accuracy without a little bit of the ol' WTF. Imagine watching Kill Bill's House of Blue Leaves scene followed by Saving Private Ryan's D-Day.

So, I guess I'd give this a 5/10. As a horror film it does just that, it horrifies - and on a psychological level too - and that's worth something. But in my estimation it also has a lot of problems that keep it from being a true classic.

SOME SPOILERS AHEAD

I know lots of people have talked about season 4, which to me is the best thing I've ever seen on television and proves how brilliant the wire is. and that's an overused word but it's true. brilliant writing, dialogue, incredible in it's realism - in the way it showers the power structure, and how EVERYONE is part of it no matter how high or low, everyone can make mistakes or do good, how even when trying your best you can disappoint or fall into the cliché.

And then where you see how some characters have grown over the time. it makes me wish season 5 was more than 10 eppies, cause i don't see anyway to see a fitting end to Marlo in such a short time, especially with all the other stuff set-up and the new journalism story coming up.

The idea of honor and trust - Marlo's crew basically has created a mini-holocaust, anybody who so much is seen looking at a cop wrong is taken out because they could be a threat to Marlo's power. no code of honor, no rules. and the way people are killed, they are brought to vacant houses and killed there. the cops don't find them, no traces. till the end when Freamon figures it out, and they begin finding bodies all over town, some recently dead, some skeletons.

There's a great scene when Marlo asks the drug guy from season 2, how can you trust your guys? and he says... I look into their soul and I know. it's really all about how we interact, how we care for each or don't, either for personal reasons or because of the way the world tells us to care. from kids on the corners saying "screw you" to a woman in an office saying "please keep your voice down," people let themselves get sucked into the system. and yet others try to re-invent it, like Carcetti the mayer finding that whatever he does he's gonna anger someone or screw someone over, or Marlo who has redefined the streets.

How can anyone have honor when they can't even know a single other person on the planet - know them beyond the clutter of society, of business, of life as it is given or must be taken. when we fail to recognize the humanity in each other, we lose it in ourselves.

Note: I talk about scenes in the film so there are MILD spoilers.

Yes, Lawrence of Arabia is remembered for desert vistas and sweeping battle scenes. The cinematography is unforgettable, the scale vast. In many ways, it defines "epic," but at the center of Lawrence of Arabia there is a real historical person who was also a hero worthy of classical Greek tragedies: a man whose virtues are his downfall. A lot of people seem to miss this, and often I think fans of the movie even miss quite why there is nothing else out there like it. Every aspect of the film, from the narrative structure to the staging of shots, revolves around exploring not just what T.E. Lawrence did but why he did it, and what it cost him.

The desert is a recurring image, but it's not simply a stunning landscape. Shots linger on vast emptiness, and suggest a blank canvas on which Lawrence can paint whatever he wishes. Profoundly alienated from his family and home culture, Lawrence pulls on the robes and persona of the man he might have been, if he'd been born an Arab. The deeper his insecurities reach, the farther his ambitions must go. He conquers the desert, and the desert conquers him, demanding payment for every personal triumph.

The desert and the visuals of Lawrence of Arabia work in relation to the narrative, characters and themes in a way that would be impossible without 70mm film, without the long, lingering shots that make the desert itself a character. The desert shifts and changes, shimmers and conceals, as mysterious and indefinable as Lawrence himself. Peter O'Toole's performance is mirage-like, with emotions flickering and disappearing. Just as some shots linger on a vast and empty desert, others linger on his face, frozen in a moment of internal conflict.

Director David Lean cuts together close-ups and wide-angle shots to reflect the dual nature of his film as vast epic and intimate portrait, as when Lawrence journeys through the furnace heat of the desert to rescue a lost man. Consider the sequence. A speck in the distance; Lawrence's eyes, lit up in relief and vindication; the man, who has expected to die, almost literally rising from the dead; they move toward each other, two specks becoming one; and finally: the impersonal specks become human beings again.

Robert Bolt's screenplay is elegantly structured to show that the desert exacts a personal price for every public triumph, and that Lawrence's inner and outer identity are constantly in conflict. Lawrence captures a Turkish seaport by crossing the Nefud desert, but this success has required him to execute the very man whose life he just saved from the desert. Returning to Cairo to announce his military triumph, he helplessly watches a young friend drown in quicksand. Grieving and stunned, Lawrence approaches the Suez Canal and is seen by a British motorcyclist. To this man, Lawrence is a speck on the horizon, and when he calls, "Who are you?" we know this is the very question Lawrence is asking himself. The more Lawrence accomplishes, the more of a stranger he becomes to himself -- an unknown speck in the desert within.

Eventually Lawrence must come in from the desert, and rejoin his own race-and-class divided culture. This time, Bolt hides the theme of identity in a way that can only be noticed when the film is seen more than once. At the end of the war, and the movie, a British officer shouts racist insults and slaps Lawrence down to the ground because he is dressed in Arab garb. A few days later, when Lawrence is wearing a British uniform, this same officer is proud to shake Lawrence's hand.

Still later -- but seen at the opening of the film, at Lawrence's funeral -- this very British officer professes his great respect for Lawrence and berates a reporter, who really did spend time with Lawrence, for daring to be cynical about him. And the theme of identity comes full circle. Much as Lawrence fought for ideals his own people did not understand and against personal conflicts few would see, Lawrence of Arabia remains a film of many secrets, offering something new to discover on each viewing. It is the dual nature of Lawrence of Arabia, as an epic and as a personal exploration of the mind, that lifts it to a level of poetry made from images and dreams.

Ironic that the film is like its hero: often celebrated but rarely understood.

Beware Potter fans for I am about to speak utter blasphemy: I was bitterly disappointed with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Okay, so I'll be fair, it is not that bad of a film. However, after already three films in this franchise some things begin to get too annoying to ignore.

For example, why is it that in every Potter film all the most important story points happen in a dingy room with Harry talking to some evil character we thought was on his side but was really evil all along, or vice-versa? And why is this always interrupted at just the right moment by the forces of the good guys? Also infuriating is that a lot of the minor characters are one-dimensional cardboard cutouts that take away from the impression that the Harry Potter universe is a fully magical world with living, breathing inhabitants.

For example, there is the Daily Prophet writer Rita Skeeter who is pretty much the same exact annoying character as Gilderoy Lockhart from the second film. She is a sensationalist liar full of her own arrogance.

Most of the villains of Harry Potter are just as shallow, too, fitting the old stereotype of evil being ugly and good being attractive.

Also, it has been said before but I will repeat it again: a film must stand on its own.

This particularly crippled Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban with the scene in the Shrieking Shack, as a lot of plot points were brushed over and everything became very unclear. Here the problem lies more in many of the little details that are vague or never explained.

For an epic film some of the spectacle is ignored, too.

Near the beginning there is a huge Quidditch match where one of the main characters, Viktor Krum, is introduced. However, as soon as the match is about to begin we are suddenly whisked away in time to the partying afterwards.

Would it have killed anyone to show a little bit of the match so we could at least get a feel for how great a Quidditch seeker Viktor Krum is while also getting a little bit of nifty action? The biggest disappointment, though, is a case where entirely too much is shown. Now, I am treading into minor spoiler territory here so read carefully.

After three movies, Voldemort is finally revealed.

Here we are supposed to discover the essence of wickedness but instead we find an Oscar nominated actor in some very silly make-up. As good as Ralph Fiennes is, here he looks like an aquatic fish-man.

Worse, though, is the fact that this evil villain is nothing new. He spouts nonsensically that Harry Potter will die, that he will get his power back, that his henchman are not loyal enough, that he will finish the job he began, that blah blah blah.

We've heard it all before. Why are you boring me when you should be threatening me? Not everything is a missed opportunity, though.

The very beginning is wonderfully creepy and Voldemort really seems threatening and mysterious (the two things he loses in his climatic appearance.) Also, the introduction of the death eaters is downright awesome and the images etched in the sky with smoke are suitably sinister and foreboding.

Overall the visual style that new director Mike Newell gives this fourth outing is beautiful and memorable, and this is probably the most spectacular Potter yet.

The main fault of Newell is that his pacing is somewhat clunky, as some scenes drag on too long while others are cut woefully short.

Thankfully the romance between Harry and friends is not nearly as sappy or overdone as feared, though some of it comes off as a little rushed and the Goth-rock band playing at the Yule Ball seemed hilariously out of place.

In the end, if you are a Potter fan you have probably already seen this blockbuster film and thoroughly enjoyed it.

However, for the rest of us there might be the discovery that beneath all the pretty colors and classic themes of good and evil lays an unoriginal story cobbled together by elements of other fables in search of that extra something that could be called magic.

Critic's Conclusion: Already an epic hit, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is a rousing action adventure full of both spectacle and many holes. Ultimately hollow at the center despite visual beauty, the pacing is sometimes maddening and by the end it is hard not to be disappointed, at least if you're not infatuated with Harry Potter.