| Print |

Tuesday, 22 November 2005 18:00

For the five people out there who do not know the plot, Harry Potter’s fourth year at Hogwarts is marred by the increasing agitation of the agents of his nemesis, Lord Voldemort, and by Harry’s unexpected participation in the harrowing Triwizard Tournament.

 

It is three steps forward and two steps back for the Harry Potter franchise as the fourth film hits theaters in time for the Thanksgiving holiday. The still-compelling story of “The Boy Who Lived” and his friends is driven by excellent performances by the young actors and their A-list supporting cast.

For the five people out there who do not know the plot, Harry Potter’s fourth year at Hogwarts is marred by the increasing agitation of the agents of his nemesis, Lord Voldemort, and by Harry’s unexpected participation in the harrowing Triwizard Tournament. The intrigues and feats of the tournament replace the inter-house competition of the first three films, as the young characters continue their emotional and physical transition into adolescence.

On the positive side, the film’s performances are universally excellent. The young principal and supporting actors continue to perfectly bring to life the characters from the novel. Joining the remarkable cast of British actors among the adults (Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, and others) are Brendon Gleason, Natasha Richardson, and Ralph Fiennes. Fiennes is particularly good as the dark Lord Voldemort. Despite a gloomy opening—and the increasing gloom of the later novels in the series—the film includes a great deal of humor, especially in tracing the foibles of the young characters as they navigate teenage romance and their first school dance. Finally, the remarkable fact is that, through three different directors and cinematographers, changes to the art direction and sets, and radical changes in tone, the films continue to be uniformly well made and enjoyable. No franchise has undergone such turnover without a spoiled director “taking the material in a new direction” (see Joel Schumacher and the demise of Batman, or any of five different points over the long, slow death of the James Bond franchise).

Unfortunately, director Mike Newell and screenwriter Steve Kloves made missteps in translating the 734-page novel for the screen. Instead of taking cues from the third film—the shortest and most inventive—Goblet returns to the feel of the first two films: overly long and straightforward. Dull action sequences take precedence over character-driven scenes and important plot points. At a rough rate of one minute of screen time for every page in the novel, unless the producers could create a 12-hour miniseries, they should have been more creative in their adaptation, more faithful to the spirit of the novel and the arc of the characters. Perhaps also in the fruitless drive to squeeze as many of those pages onto the screen, the film feels rushed. Goblet fails to adopt either the slow, confident pace of the first two films or the boisterous, frenetic pace of the third.

Still, there is much to recommend Goblet of Fire, even in the increasingly crowded field of holiday films. Diehard and casual fans alike should be pleased with this entry into the series and will be impatiently awaiting the next film, slated for the dim future in 2007.