Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Scott Hardie: “It was ok.”
Potter fans automatically put this film on the same lofty pedestal as its forebears, but as an outsider, I was left scratching my head why. The cutting of half the tale to cram it into a movie's running length hurt it immensely, as it felt rushed and seemed to be missing crucial details; the Weinsteins would have filmed the whole novel and cut it into two films. Once again Harry stands there like a dolt forever on the verge of being murdered until he's rescued just in time by the broadly-drawn supporting characters. The idea of a magical tournament is an exciting one, but even by kid-movie standards, the rules of this contest are poorly established and then broken left and right by the characters without consequence, making it a series of things happening loudly instead of a story. As usual, the technical craft that goes into bringing the story to life is superb, especially the visual effects, but the story itself needs some better care if it's going to survive the transition from page to screen with anyone but die-hard fans to enjoy it, many though there are.
Kris Weberg: Speaking as someone who watches the films but doesn't read the books, I have to agree that by Prisoner of Azkaban it was apparent that the quality was slipping and the adaptations growing more piecemeal. − November 24, 2006 more by Kris