Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Widescreen Edition)

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

Harry and the Goblet of Fire, 2008-07-17
This was an upgrade to HD DVD. It was what I requested and came in a timely manner.

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

Enjoy the entire film series!!, 2008-06-22
I have some of the films on HD-DVD as well, but there is no differnece in quality between the two. Great film!!

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

What Happened? , 2008-06-21
The Harry Potter movies have been an everlasting source of comfort for me. I was always promised a good faithful script, nice acting, and stunning visuals. But....Something along the road didn't quite work for Goblet of Fire. What didn't work, however? The first three movies ran smoothly, were great, and didn't have any problems. What happened?

It's Harry's fourth year at Hogwarts, and sometime has passed since he last heard from Voldemort. But quite suddenly, Voldemort supporters start springing up, promising terrifying results. On top of that, Hogwarts is hosting the Tri-Wizard tournament; a Wizarding competition.....And Harry might just have his first crush....Now before I start with the bad, let me start off with the good....It's always best to start that way now isn't it?

Rupert Grint gives a solid performance as Ron Weasley. He might just be the best young actor in the entire cast. He delivers his lines precisely, as great facial expressions, and is just a way to watch on film. Robert Pattinson does a fine job as Cedric Diggory, and makes a welcome, (if not short) addition to the cast. Oliver and James Phelps are back as the two Twins, and are hilarious once again. Tom Felton shows true professionalism as he steals every scene he's in, even if he only has three lines in the entire movie!

As far as adult actors go, Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy and Alan Rickman as Severus Snape steal the scenes they're in. Jason is devilish as Mr. Malfoy, and nobody could play Severus as Alan can. But it's truly Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort that's the wonderous performance. Ralph has always been a favorite as mine, and he practically is Voldemort. Mr. Fiennes's acting is superb, as you find you can't take your eyes off of him....even if he has no nose....

But all reviews have to have a negative side; even in the case of Harry Potter.

I cannot fathom any idea as to what happened to Emma Watson. Her acting vastly improved in Prisoner of Azkaban, and she was showing promising results as Miss Granger. But suddenly, it was like as if she had suddenly taken a class on how not to act. In every scene Miss Watson is in, she's either A) Looking as if she's ready to cry, B) Getting ready to yell at someone, or C) Smirking very stupidly into the camera. What happened? As my title suggests... Perhaps it was the script? Surely the script however, does not give word for word what expression to use at every second however! Hermione Granger has left the building, and we have indeed been left with an empty shell.

The same thing goes for Daniel Radcliff; his acting even takes a detour! He only has one expression on the entire time of the movie, and comes across as very bland indeed. Miranda Richardson as Rita Skeeter was an atrocious mistake on every level. She hams the role up too much; the acting coming across much too over the top. Also, what was up with Dumbledore? I love the Michael Gambon as Dumbledore, but who decided to make him bland? He's supposed to be warm and fuzzy, but in this movie comes across very cold and unsympathetic. We can only blame this on a bad script.

The visuals in the film are nothing to write home about. Everything looks positively dark and dreary; which isn't very appealing to the eye. In turn this makes the viewer of the film bored, as stunning visuals grab the viewers; but there aren't any here. And I know Goblet of Fire is supposed to be dark, but is was too overly dark and depressing and not appealing to the eye at all.

It also seems the Magic takes a backseat in this flim. As another reviewer said, this movie is more like a movie about a School and Hormonal teens then it is about magic. The Yule Ball gets more screen time then it's worth; including a very stupid shot of Miss Watson walking down the steps in a pretty pink gown. The movie focuses more on Hormones and Death, and that's not what makes the Harry Potter franchise...Harry Potter.

Also, there's no Special Features. Seems you have to buy the 2-Disc special edition to get any. Which is bad if you already went and shelled out Twenty bucks for this version; to go out and shell out almost 40 is quite stupid indeed.

Me: Mr. Owl, Why was Goblet of Fire such a terrible film?

Mr. Owl: The world will never know.....

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

Another knock out punch from Hollywood., 2008-06-19
It seems Hollyweird, who usually can't get anything right, just "gets" what Potter is all about.
They haven't made one poor movie based on the Potter books yet, and that is saying something.
I don't understand why so many "OFFICIAL" film critics slammed this for being too dark. HUH???
Clearly they haven't read any of the books.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO GET DARKER!!!
The kids are growing up, the story line is getting more serious, if Hollywood tries to dummy the story line down they WILL alienate all the rabid readers.
Sorry critics, it's not Hollywood who dropped the ball, you did.
This film is yet another brilliant addition to the Potter legend.
Another must see/ must own.

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, 2008-05-24
I am very pleased with my purchase, I stayed up late and watched my new DVD as soon as I got it. It came very fast after I ordered it and was everything it was said to be. I would definately order from Amazon in future.