at last, the long wait is over. harry potter and the goblet of fire is now in theatres and the devoted fan that i am, i did catch the midnight screening of the film with a huge grin plastered on my face the whole time.
GoF centers on harry's fourth year in hogwarts and his participation in the triwizard tournament, albeit unwillingly. and in between the tasks he needs to do, harry begins to face the struggles of a normal fourteen year old boy like mending friendships and asking a date to the school dance.
the film succeeds in transporting its viewers to the magical world of harry potter (a parallel universe to avid readers like me) – from the opulent staging of the quidditch world cup (minus the actual game) to the execution of the triwizard tournament challenges. it brings to life legendary beasts and mythical creatures that we can only imagine in books. and true to the central theme of the books which is the constant fight between the good and the bad, the film gives us a glimpse of the darkness that seethes within harry's world.
but for all its cinematic grandeur and technological innovations, and the media hype that surrounded its release, the film is not even half as good as its printed counterpart. the movie fails to show the nuances and subtleties that make up the story as told in the book. the screenplay does not include some subplots which will bear significance in the latter part of the series – harry giving the twins his winnings from the triwizard tournament, percy weasley becoming a Ministry employee and transforming himself into a git in the process, Hermione discovering that rita skeeter is an unregistered animagus and the parting of ways between fudge and dumbledore. there are some things that director mike newell leaves unexplained like the essence of priori incantatem. more importantly, the film makes us vaguely aware of the gamut of emotions that j.k. rowling has so carefully woven in her book.
the harry-ron fight is an example. in the book, ron's insecurities are rooted deeply on his background. we can empathize with him because he comes from a poor family; almost everything he owns are hand-me-downs including his ghastly dress robe; and, he always plays second best to his older brothers and harry. his jealousy over harry's selection as a triwizard champion is not merely because of his personal desire to eternal glory, as implied in the movie, but to rephrase hermione's line in the book, it is one time too many for ron to be overshadowed by harry yet again. this bit of sensitivity to ron's character and the drama of the reconciliation between the two best friends are somehow lost in all the action surrounding the film.
the blossoming of young love between ron and hermione is surprisingly downplayed too. j.k. rowling peppers the book with so much hints on the sexual tension that begins to arise between this pair and yet we don't see much in the film except during the yule ball. and while emma watson shows a superb acting when she delivered in her choked voice one of my favorite lines, "next time there is a ball, ask me first and not as a last resort", i would have loved to see j.k. rowling's idea of ron and hermione screaming at the top of their lungs and making it more obvious to everyone that they fancy each other.
on a positive note, certain parts of the film are to be commended. for one, the film successfully depicts how the yule ball ushers the trio of harry, ron and hermione to the threshold of adolescence. i love how neville and ginny are given more exposure, preparing the viewers of the bigger role they are going to play in the succeeding films. and, fred and george finally getting the screen time they truly deserve as they embody too well the humor and antics of the twins in the books.
rupert grint as ron weasley gives out the best performance in the film. unlike in the prisoner of azkaban where he is mostly reduced to the scaredy-cat bestfriend of the boy-who-lived, ron shows the many sides of him in this film. he is absolutely hilarious from his first scene way up to the last. rupert is ron weasley personified and i couldn't imagine someone else playing ron but him. the worst actor for me is michael gambon who plays dumbledore. he doesn't convey the calmness, charisma and wisdom that is dumbledore in the books. when he confronts harry about his name on the goblet of fire, he comes off as harsh with violent-like tendencies, which is an insult to j.k rowling's characterization of the hogwarts headmaster. dumbledore, in the books, is always the voice of reason; the one who believes in harry when no else does.
overall, the film is good, definitely better than its predecessors. it combines humor and drama, action and thriller in a fast-paced story that mirrors j.k rowling's writing. it is a good source of entertainment for the loyal harry potters readers and non-readers alike. but it does not, and cannot in any way, equal the rank of lord of the rings as the best fim adaptation of all time (at least in my opinion). i have always told my friends who enjoy harry potter films to go and read the series because the movies do not give justice to the vastness and depth of the world that j.k. rowling has created in her books.
this being said, i'm off to read harry potter and the goblet of fire… for the nth time!
FILM RATING: 6 OWLS
