Home General
Welcome to Harry Potter Forum! Below you will find many interesting threads and discussions. Enjoy.

HPF, come in here, I've changed my mind about something.

darthorcruxdarthorcrux Posts: 584 ✭✭✭✭
Well, Goblet of Fire kind of fucking blows...

I recently watched it for the first time in about a year or so, maybe longer, with some relatives. Quite frankly, this movie is an embarrassment compared to the others. I want to add a late preface to this by saying that there are scenes that I absolutely love. I love the tournament scenes, I love the Voldemort climax, I love Cedric's death aftermath, and I love the ending.

The entire rest of the movie is total garbage. I have no fucking idea how I've ever loved this movie at any point. Maybe it's because David Yates came in and well, comparing any one good director against Mike Newell isn't fair to Newell whatsoever now is it? Seriously, everything about this movie, with the exception to the aforementioned scenes, is completely off. The writing is off, the pacing is off, the acting is abysmal, the jokes aren't funny, Newell treats every character like they're from Looney Tunes (Malfoy ferret scene for example), the hairstyles are comical as fuck, much of the music unfortunately accompanies much of these shenanigans perfectly, and all in all it feels like a total clusterfuck following Prisoner of Azkaban which was treated with far more respect and creative vision than anything Newell brought to the table. Seriously, following Azkaban makes it look that much shittier. Because it is.

I don't suppose I hate the movie. It has a share of scenes that I think are great and they manage to hit some of the emotional beats at the end very well, and Voldemort's return was just about as perfect as it could have been. But I do think it's garbage for the most part. Every single scene involving dialogue is just plain bad. The Yule Ball scene is just plain bad. Emma's eyebrows. Most of the very weird, stilted writing and editing-- "Alastor Moody" comes to mind, how it just cuts to him standing there and saying his name. It's like THIS IS WHAT THIS CHARACTER IS CALLED EVEN THOUGH WE JUST FUCKING SAID IT A FEW MINUTES AGO. Just-- everything is treated like a comedy, and it feels so awkward sitting between Azkaban and Phoenix which I find to be two very respectable films that aren't treated like complete jokes.

Newell has always been a terrible director. His Prince of Persia ranks among some of the most god awful Hollywood by the numbers shitfests in recent memory. If I still love Goblet of Fire, it's because of some kind of parental love, as if I consider these movies to be my children and thus I have to stand up for even the ugliest of ducklings. But no, it's really bad. At least, bad by the standards set by the other films before and after.

And that Moaning Myrtle scene. What the fuck?
«1

Comments

  • darthorcruxdarthorcrux Posts: 584 ✭✭✭✭
    Also the Durmstrang/Beauxbatons Great Hall entrance scene is the worst scene in all seven fucking movies
  • darthorcruxdarthorcrux Posts: 584 ✭✭✭✭
  • darthorcruxdarthorcrux Posts: 584 ✭✭✭✭
    Fuck you Newell.
  • KranenKranen Posts: 4,770 ✭✭✭✭✭
    "HARRY! DID YAH PUT YAH NAME IN DA GOBLET OF FIYAH?!"
    image
  • TheDoctorTheDoctor Posts: 3,941 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I pretty much agree with everything you said lol.
  • JordyJordy Posts: 613 ✭✭✭✭
    Well it took some time. But, finally!
    image
  • PhineasPhineas Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Eh, I don't mind it. I wouldn't call it awful, but it's definitely one of my least favourites of the saga. Newell was weird. Made Gambon all shouty and Tennant all...crazy.
    imageimage
  • chesterchester Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2013
    I still don't understand how Newell managed to get such awful performances from the actors. Maggie Smith and Jason Isaacs are one of the few exceptions. The trio's acting didn't improve much in this movie either.

    Dan had a few good scenes and that was about it, Harry's hair was quite good. Rupert was Rupert but he looked like some sweet transvestite in this movie. Emma's eyebrows went nuts in a few scenes but she still had some good scenes. She was cast in Perks because of the stairwell scene after the Yulebal and her acting was also quite good in the ending scene.

    Overall i'm very glad David Yates came in to bring this epic franchise to en emotional and epic conclusion. GOF was most of the time entertaining, had some exciting scenes and some beautiful shots but it is one of the weakest movie of the entire franchise, along with COS. All while GOF is such a good book, all of the HP books are great. Except for COS.
    imageimageimage
  • PhineasPhineas Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Oh yeah, and I don't even know why Myrtle was put into the movie at all. I've never been less happy for a minor character appearance.
    imageimage
  • Goblet of Fire is a mess of epic proportions.
  • MattCatMattCat Posts: 372 ✭✭✭
    There’s so much useless material in that film, it’s really quite a spectacle. From Moaning Myrtle’s sexual offences to Karkaroff sneaking into the Great Hall, it’s bloated with these random, pointless and meandering off-shoots. On top of that, the pacing in the first half hour is awful. It’s completely devoid of any sense of rhythm, it’s just a bang-bang-bang through as many scenes as quickly, and as blandly, as possible. The characterisations are pretty poorly handled as well. Dumbledore is all over the place, he travels between being Dumbledore, a snaky old man and the bastard off-spring of Ludo Bagman. Many of the other performances are absurdly over-the-top.

    The film is also pretty ugly, I think. Newell’s visual style is pretty bland for the most part, and some of the compositions are just wonky. He lacks Yates’ aesthetic storytelling, as well his sharp visualisation.

    It also bothers me that some of the grimmest writing in the series was discarded in favour of, uh, absurd crap, or at best, cliché ridden crap. Crouch Jr’s trial in the book, with a son crying and pleading for his stonehearted father, was short-changed to an almost comical and overly dramatic…I’m not sure how to even describe it. The death of Crouch Sr., a demented and terrified man, desperately struggling to escape the dark forces that have taken hold of him, is transformed into a generic coroner shot from any police TV show.

    I suppose this is what you get when you give the story to the mercy of someone who considers it a “bollywood extravaganza!”
  • mattStrelowmattStrelow Posts: 3,183 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Even the game has more redeeming qualities than the movie, honestly
    image

  • PhineasPhineas Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Crouch Jr's demeanor gets people here treating David Tennant as an incompetent actor, I've noticed, when really, that's Newell's doing. You ask David to play nuts, he'll play nuts. You ask him to play crying and pleading, he'll play crying and pleading. He can do that perfectly, just Newell told him not to. Same story with Dumbledore. "Dumbledore's not supposed to be angry, Gambon's a shit Dumbledore!"
    imageimage
  • RyGuyRyGuy Posts: 7,837 mod
    Phineas said:

    Crouch Jr's demeanor gets people here treating David Tennant as an incompetent actor, I've noticed, when really, that's Newell's doing. You ask David to play nuts, he'll play nuts. You ask him to play crying and pleading, he'll play crying and pleading. He can do that perfectly, just Newell told him not to. Same story with Dumbledore. "Dumbledore's not supposed to be angry, Gambon's a shit Dumbledore!"

    David Tennant is Brilliant, and somehow in GOF every character had a different attitude and demeanor it seems like...but the people that blast him have no grounds to speak because he was absolutely phenomenal in Doctor Who. He played a level of emotions and feelings and in GOF he just came across as crazy...Gotta love Mike Newell :) *insert sarcastic laugh*
    image
  • darthorcruxdarthorcrux Posts: 584 ✭✭✭✭
    It's just depressing because it's literally the only movie that actually upsets me as a book adaptation. Sure, Half-Blood Prince is concerning because of how they do the Voldemort backstory (or don't) but the difference is that Half-Blood Prince is otherwise a great film; this is just mostly dogshit.

    I seriously cannot figure it out. I don't know if everyone just hit some sort of fatigue or if it was just Newell's incompetent direction... I mean everyone seemed to be out to completely ruin the movie. There are so many scenes that just make you think WTF and they don't work on any level-- for example in addition to the Great Hall scene, the Rita Skeeter scene when she's in the closet with Harry is just awkward as fuck on so many levels. Why did she have to pull him into that confined space? Why is the music so bad? Why is the acting so bizarre? Why does, after Harry say, "hey, my eyes aren't glistening with the ghost of my past..." does it cut to this weird shot of Rita where she kind of looks at him with this "sigh" combined with a *wink wink nudge nudge* expression? Why does she rub her tits on Harry? WHY IS THERE STATUTORY RAPE IMPLICATIONS

    And that's just one scene. Almost the same amount of issues could likely be pointed out in other scenes. I mean it's so, so very bad.
  • darthorcruxdarthorcrux Posts: 584 ✭✭✭✭
    RyGuy said:

    David Tennant is Brilliant, and somehow in GOF every character had a different attitude and demeanor it seems like...but the people that blast him have no grounds to speak because he was absolutely phenomenal in Doctor Who. He played a level of emotions and feelings and in GOF he just came across as crazy...Gotta love Mike Newell :) *insert sarcastic laugh*

    Exactly! He's a brilliant performer, and yet his acting in GOF is some of the worst shit I've seen in modern cinema. Just-- nothing about it is good. His expressions, what he does with his eyes, his line deliveries, everything is across the border nonsensical. Again, like I mentioned above-- everyone treats their characters like cartoon characters. "Oh! We're in a Heddy Pottah movie! It's silly right!?"

    EXCEPT DID YOU NOT SEE PRISONER OF AZKABAN WE'RE PAST THAT SHIT NOW. Thank you David. Thank you David.
  • darthorcruxdarthorcrux Posts: 584 ✭✭✭✭
    No... it wasn't even really like that in the first two movies. I swear the performances and dialogue almost make GOF more childish than the first two.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    MattCat said:

    There’s so much useless material in that film, it’s really quite a spectacle

    And yet the filmmakers considered making two films out of the book. Thank god that didn't happen.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭

    MattCat said:

    There’s so much useless material in that film, it’s really quite a spectacle

    Thank god.
    I mean Cuaron.
  • darthorcruxdarthorcrux Posts: 584 ✭✭✭✭
    If it were a different director with a better script, I would have been fine with a two parter. But not with Newell. I imagine the script was so bad because it was rushed and heavily condensed and jammed together. The book is very long and dense but it could have been done in 2.5 hours without the rushed nature of the script. Some things that are there just for the sake of being there like Rita Skeeter who has no character arc to speak of and serves absolutely zero purpose to the movies could have been omitted for example. The Quidditch World Cup should have been completely axed too, even the death eater raid. It was cool to see but if it means that we wouldn't have had that bizarre edit from the beginning of the match to AFTER the match, whatever.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If it were a different director with a better script, I would have been fine with a two parter.

    No.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2013

    It was cool to see but if it means that we wouldn't have had that bizarre edit from the beginning of the match to AFTER the match, whatever.

    Any competent screenwriter would have had the bad guys interfere with the match and attack the stadium. That would also hide the fact that it was included merely for the purpose of introducing Krum.
  • darthorcruxdarthorcrux Posts: 584 ✭✭✭✭

    Any competent screenwriter would have had the bad guys interfer with the match and attack the stadium. That would also hide the fact that it was included merely for the purpose of introducing Krum.

    Wow that's actually a very good idea. I do agree with you above though that it's fine to do it in one movie, I'm just saying that with a good director and better script I would have been okay with two parts. I mean, it couldn't have been worse than what we already got.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2013

    Any competent screenwriter would have had the bad guys interfer with the match and attack the stadium. That would also hide the fact that it was included merely for the purpose of introducing Krum.

    I do agree with you above though that it's fine to do it in one movie, I'm just saying that with a good director and better script I would have been okay with two parts. I mean, it couldn't have been worse than what we already got.
    It could have been worse, yes. A two-parter adaptation makes no sense. This is probably the easiest HP book to adapt. The plot is straightforward and action-packed; you have three big set pieces in the movie, giving the illusion of a three-act structure in itself. If you were to split it into two movies, the lack of resolution in part 1 would only make the first two tasks seem extremely pointless when separated from the third task and the overall goal: To bring Harry to Voldemort. This isn't The Hunger Games where it's about survival and killing. It's about winning...until the end when the characters realize how pointless it is. Two movies=no development in personal values and in turn little to no feeling of bonds being formed between the schools. Not that Newell handled this very well either with the exception of the third task and aftermath. I disliked that he made it seem as if people were likely to die; I bet two movies would mean even more emphasis on the "will they survive?" aspect. I don't see how Dumbledore or even The Ministry of Magic would allow such a dangerous competition to begin with if people may actually die.

    You would also reduce the impact of seeing the graveyard in the opening and recognizing it near the end of the same movie before hell breaks loose. Other than certain scenes, I agree that Newell and Kloves failed in most regards, but a two-parter would be even worse and drag out the plot. I know because I'm yet to see a great adaptation covering only half a book and Goblet doesn't get interesting until after the second task.
  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Newell has always been a terrible director.

    Donnie Brasco begs to differ.

    But Goblet is a very uneven movie, from what I remember. I too haven't seen it in years and I also like the scenes you do, darthhorcrux. People like to complain about Gambon's performance as Dumbledore after the revelation that Harry has been entered into the contest, but I will always like it for one reason: his reaction is human. I always got sick of the calm Dumbledore in the book, so seeing the film version display an emotion that gets the best of everyone is nothing short of brilliant.

    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,594 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Calm Dumbledore is the only Dumbledore... Extremely wise people don't react on emotion.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Newell has always been a terrible director.

    Donnie Brasco begs to differ.
    I like Four Weddings and a Funeral too.
  • IsaiahIsaiah Posts: 3,342 mod
    The last time I saw it was when It came on a couple of weeks ago on ABC, i couldnt watch the whole film. The Dragon task and the final task was the only sequences i could watch. I love some of the comedy but it wasnt necessary Order of the Phoenix I watched from beginning to end. Great pace.
    LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
    Photobucket

    Photobucket
  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Calm Dumbledore is the only Dumbledore... Extremely wise people don't react on emotion.

    I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who hasn't blurted out in anger. Dumbledore is one of the most unrealistic characters I've ever read in fiction. It's not until the final book that he's made human (with some sneak peaks in OotP).

    Also, Dumbldore admitted that he didn't tell Harry everything in OotP because his love for the boy got to him.
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Extremely wise people don't react on emotion.

    Everybody reacts on emotion, even psychopaths acting on their impulsive desires.
  • IsaiahIsaiah Posts: 3,342 mod
    Kranen said:

    "HARRY! DID YAH PUT YAH NAME IN DA GOBLET OF FIYAH?!"

    image
    LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
    Photobucket

    Photobucket
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2013
    That's not to say that you display your emotions all the time, but emotions do influence your choices, including "wise" people, despite some thinking they are being oh so rational about everything.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    "Extremely wise people don't react on emotion."

    That's not insightful, @Abhi. Unless you are using the button sarcastically like I do at times.
  • darthorcruxdarthorcrux Posts: 584 ✭✭✭✭

    But Goblet is a very uneven movie, from what I remember. I too haven't seen it in years and I also like the scenes you do, darthhorcrux. People like to complain about Gambon's performance as Dumbledore after the revelation that Harry has been entered into the contest, but I will always like it for one reason: his reaction is human. I always got sick of the calm Dumbledore in the book, so seeing the film version display an emotion that gets the best of everyone is nothing short of brilliant.

    Oddly, of all the complaints I have and that other people have, Gambon actually didn't bother me. Not even his rage scene. I always took it as Dumbledore putting on an act so that the other school leaders wouldn't be suspicious as to why there were two Hogwarts champions. If Dumbledore were being his usual humble self, Karkaroff and the others would have been even more ravenous toward Dumbledore and Harry than they already were.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't get the complaints either. The following scene in which he shakes the shit out of Harry is of course over the top, but I have no problem with his anger when he announces Harry's name. It's one of the best and engaging scenes in the movie for me. Think about how the audience would perceive Dumbledore if he hadn't even moved a muscle in reaction; he would come across as cold and perhaps even apathetic.
  • SoulxxBondSoulxxBond Posts: 2,079 ✭✭✭✭
    I must be one of the few who really like this movie, always have.

    Really, there are only three annoying things in GoF for me:
    1. The tent scene after the QWC
    2. The dancing lessons scene
    3. Nigel.

    Other than that it is okay, really. Emma's eyebrows annoy me at times, but as she is one of my favorites in the series, I overlook it.

    I don't mind Dumbledore's crazy accusation scene. In the rest of the movie he's okay. Definitely it is not Gambon's best performance of the series, yes, it is probably his worst, but only because he does so good in the other movies.

    This movie is generally one of the favorites when it comes to those who haven't read the books... the critics really loved it too. Why? Because it is a good action-packed story if you ignore some of the really stupid scenes.
    image
  • chesterchester Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Emma's eyebrow problem lasted until OOTP but was the worst in GOF.
    imageimageimage
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2013
    I doubt Dumbledore, a cunning mastermind like few, is apathetic about someone toying around with his favourite puppet, Harry -- the chosen one -- whom Dumbledore intends to sacrifice for the greater good when the time is right. The filmmakers needed to show his frustration to convey that he cares.
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,713 mod
    I think Nigel is more annoying in OOTP
  • SoulxxBondSoulxxBond Posts: 2,079 ✭✭✭✭
    Richard said:

    I think Nigel is more annoying in OOTP

    The only movie he wasn't annoying was DH2. "Lightning has struck!" is his best performance.

    Pity there wasn't a scene where Neville carries his corpse into the Great Hall. That would have been his best scene.
    image
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Richard said:


    Pity there wasn't a scene where Neville carries his corpse into the Great Hall. That would have been his best scene.

    Haha, probably unless he had moved a hand or foot.
  • SoulxxBondSoulxxBond Posts: 2,079 ✭✭✭✭
    I've hated Nigel right from the start -- really, even his very first scene is annoying. When the Beauxbaton's carriage arrives, Nigel's going all crazy next to Ginny, and poor Bonnie has to play along with it... ugh!
    image
  • IsaiahIsaiah Posts: 3,342 mod
    Nigel was okay even though he had very little screentime.
    LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
    Photobucket

    Photobucket
  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,594 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2013
    I don't agree with anything being said about Dumbledore.

    Albus had problems in his youth with Power because he was very powerful. There never was or will be a Wizard with his ability. To think that any of you know how realistic or unrealistic it is to be the most powerful wizard on the planet is absurd.

    What I meant in my post is that Dumbledore would never react immediately off an emotion. His reactions are drawn out and calculated. They may not always be right since he is HUMAN but they will never show a sense of lack of control.

    Albus Dumbledore has always been my role model in the books. His knowledge vastly exceeds those around him, and he never acts rash because a brain of that magnitude THINKS before acting.

    Dumbledore would have been worried about Harry but he also knew there would be nothing he could change about the situation. When its done its done.

    Also it's hinted in PS that he treads the fine line between genius and insanity that SEVERAL great scientists of our time also tread. A greatly advanced mind can see and be a part of great things and great horrors and retain their sanity because they understand the ebbs and flows of the way the world works.

    For Dumbledore to have been mad and visibly upset in Goblet of Fire would have been completely against his character.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2013
    Darth Ledger, I said the following about his character: "Dumbledore is one of the most unrealistic characters I've ever read in fiction. It's not until the final book that he's made human (with some sneak peaks in OotP)."

    I am not talking about his abilities, but how he reacts to given things, how he appears to know everything, and how calm, collected, and cool he almost always is. That's unrealistic.
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • SoulxxBondSoulxxBond Posts: 2,079 ✭✭✭✭
    The fact that he didn't tell Harry about the prophecy, before the end of book 5 -- until Harry had to discover it for himself, and in turn cost him his godfather's life -- to me that is one of Dumbledore's biggest mistakes, and that makes him human. He was also quite manipulative when it came to Harry.
    image
  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The fact that he didn't tell Harry about the prophecy, before the end of book 5 -- until Harry had to discover it for himself, and in turn cost him his godfather's life -- to me that is one of Dumbledore's biggest mistakes, and that makes him human. He was also quite manipulative when it came to Harry.

    Indeed. I think we had nothing but Mary Sue-ism until the end of OotP and it continued until Skeeter's book in DH.
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,594 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Darth Ledger, I said the following about his character: "Dumbledore is one of the most unrealistic characters I've ever read in fiction. It's not until the final book that he's made human (with some sneak peaks in OotP)."

    I am not talking about his abilities, but how he reacts to given things, how he appears to know everything, and how calm, collected, and cool he almost always is. That's unrealistic.

    Having magic abilities is unrealistic...

    This throws variables into the equation that you have to account for. There are heavily Stoic people on this earth who display calmness almost all of the time, why would a person gifted with insanely high amounts of magic ability in the body and brain not be able to be this way 99% of the time?

    I think he's highly realistic and I can't find any basis to question it.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This is the problem with magic: you can use to explain anything.
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,594 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is the problem with magic: you can use to explain anything.

    That's not a problem that's the lay of the land.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.