Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Review: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

So when the book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire first came out, Neil and I both wondered how on earth they would make a movie out of it. Because the book is so damn long.

Last night we went to see it, and now we know how. They cut several of the threads that ran through the book entirely. It was a movie, not a book. There is no space for endless character development. The movie clocked in at just over 2 hours. It was paced well, with a tight plot, and excellent visual representation and effect. I thought Fleur Delacouer could have been way more beautiful but in real life women aren't veelas.

However, there was some flavor missing. The back story about Barty Crouch was gone, the twins didn't get any prize money, there were no house elves, Percy Weasley doesn't make an appearance. So in the movie mythology those cut threads become dead ends. There will be no conflict between Percy and his family in the next two movies. Where will the twins get the money for their joke shop? This is why you should always just read the book.

Overall I thought the film did a great job at being a film, it was funny and warm and scary and pretty damn well done for a film with underage actors struggling to emote. I would recommend it highly, as I enjoyed it highly. Just don't read the book first. Or when Cedric dies you will feel a little bit sad you missed the flavor and can't summon a tear for that one dimensional character.

M.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home