Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Warner Bros. 2005, and I won't list the actors' nmes here because you don't really need them - these kids have become their characters and whatever movies they might make in their adult years, they are alreayd and always will be simply, Harry Ron and Hermoine. I won't go into the melancholia of "being tagged" as a teenage star, because quite simply that doesn't interest me - what interests me is the story and the movie as art.

And while usually I have been trying to separate movies from books, I have to say that it's difficult to do with these series of movies: the first two films were carbon-copies of the books and that rather set the tone for all that follows (this being a SERIES after all), and while the third one strayed a little from the plot and introduced a darker tone than the first two, it still held the same basic plot. Mostly what is missing from the 3rd and 4th movies are the character development that is evident in the book series. However, the books have grown, as Rowling wrote each one, she increased each tome by about 150-200 pages.

In fact, when I read the Goblet of Fire (at, what wazzit? a whopping 800 some odd pages? or was that Order of the Phoenix? - whatever . . .) I thought that this would almost have to be two movies, it's so freakin' long. Or at least a four hour movie, and even in these days of monster blockbusters that last longer than your average German opera, that's still would be a whopping story.

However, this movie distills the book down into 2 and a half hours, which is relatively long enough to tell the story - and even though I tried to separate it from the book, I realized that I had a deeper appreciation for the movie than those who had never read the book. Namely the kids, my wife, and several people at work who also saw it (each of those related that their kids filled them in on the gaps in the story, because of their knowledge of the written tale).

Which must be listed as a shortfall of the film: a work of art is supposed to relate a tale without needing supporting outside knowledge, or at least give a person a sense of understanding what it is trying to say. Otherwise it cannot be considered a "freestanding" objet d'art (if you will allow me to slide in some bad French, there!)

I had even had the inkling of it throughout the movie, especially during the contests - which I had so sincerely enjoyed in the book: these contests, with the 14 year old Harry, being much younger than the other contestants, showed true and earnest heroism for the first time in his life. It really showed a maturation point on the character (this is what I brought to the movie), yet the film just seemed to "gloss" over that. However, I haven't yet decided if that's an unfair expectation from the movie or what.

Lastly, I can understand the strange ending - the meeting with Voldemort seemed forced, as though it was a dramatic shift from the rest of the film. It almost mad eyou feel as though you'd gone out for popcorn and walked into the wrong theatre, that's how utterly discordant it seemed. More than likely not enough devices were used to properly prepare the audience for the eventual encounter.

And then, of course, there's the public yammering about how these kids are now 17 and playing 14 year olds and how they look too old now and all that . . . well, that can't really be helped now, can it? No. You can't stunt growth (at least I don't think we can yet!) and I certainly don't want them to rush the movie to make them before these kids have full beards, because I'd rather have a halfway decent product instead of something hackneyed and harried. So, this is where the "willing suspension of disbelief" comes in, and the enjoyment of the movie is untouched by this "maturity of the actors compared to the characters" point.

For me, simply stated: I liked the movie. I understand how other people might not like the movie.

However, I loved the book and think that everyone who reads the book will be well-pleased.

TTFN

VG