Review of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) by Jeremiahm. — 04 Apr 2006

Chris Columbus staged his "Potter" as a kind of droll pageant, like a "Harry Potter's Greatest Hits" that inexplicably insisted on remixing every song, draining away their grungy vitality and blissful wit by burying them under a pyre of studio redubs, children's choirs, and "Home Alone"-level John Williams.

Alfonso Cuaron reconceived of the series as a canny mix of the eccentric, the frightening, and the beautiful. His film is the one J.K Rowling had embedded in her story all along. Mike Newell, with "Goblet of Fire," comes to the preceding with a patience long-eroded by television, or "Mona Lisa Smile," or the sugar he might have compulsively consumed to "brainmeld" with the world's kids.

His movie simultaneously feels repellently unmagical and drunk on the idea of magic. [***SPOILERS***] When Harry says, "I love magic," he's stepping far outside the confines of Rowlings verisimilitudinous world to be cute.

And that's precisely where this film fails. Rowling crafts a world where magic is the order of the day, every day.At times, it's so familiar as to seem frustrating, or absurd. This movie loves magic and has the special effects to prove it in court, if need be.

But where's the life behind it all? Not in Hogwarts' paintings, or in its musty halls: Newell has done the greatest disservice of all by imagining Hogwarts as a boarding school- Rowling's starting point- and then stopping.

Instances of the novel or beautiful occur at precisely spaced intervals- namely, when the kids' patience might start to wear thin. Speaking of patience, Newell has none to speak of. He has conceived of "Goblet of Fire" as a three-act drama.

Everything prior to and including the first challenge is Act One; suddenly, as if someone forgot to mention it, the Yule Ball and, shockingly immediately thereafter, the second challenge are upon us in Act Two; Act three has no structure to speak of but contains the good, Hammer-horror stuff from the book, slapped onto an unbelievably brief third trial.

Are we to believe that after the dragon, that's all the tournament would have for Harry? Doesn't old Voldy (Ralph Fiennes, for Chrissake) need to slow down a little so that all those long awaited curses can be uttered? Doesn't Harry's adrenaline flow compensate for his youth by allowing him to experience the most climactic moment of his life thus far without feeling that it's all far too ephemeral? The whole affair seems ingloriously rushed, and Newell has so pounded our brains with vain special effects that when the really beautiful image of the wand-beams meeting comes about it feels like so much more of the same.

Yes, Potter stories require the sum of effects present here. But no other Potter film has so shamelessly rubbed them in our faces. It felt like "Revenge of the Sith" all over again. Newell, to be fair, does much better with the humans in the film; this Potter, even more than Cuaron's, seems populated by breathing individuals.

Apparently, directing Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts puts one at ease with the lesser celebrities of Potter's world, because Mike here has done an excellent job capturing the mannerisms, rough speech, and conflicted emotions of adolescence; he seems more at ease when relaxing with his cast than when sitting beside the editor or parsing through thousands of effects shots.

The episodic nature must be due in part to Kloves, but I liked his work on the last one (and "Wonder Boys") so much I'm hesitant to blame him. To close, Rowling's "Goblet" was the least magical of the series so far; Newell's is on par with Columbus's for that title among the films.

It doesn't fix any of the book's problems, but creates new ones; thankfully, it's all very well acted (kudos to Michael Gambon & Brendan Gleason). The film simultaneously is tiring and needs to be longer (to compensate for the rushed feel), and needs desperately for Rowling's whimsy to save it from its dour self.