I’m sorry to report that few theater-goers were decked out in full wizard regalia the night I saw “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.” Attesting to the popularity of the series, however, were squabbling parents and a sold-out show.
The fourth film in the Harry Potter Series (now six books long), “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” is based on the immensely successful J.K. Rowling novel of the same title. “Harry Potter 4” centers on the three main characters of the ongoing story: 14-year-old wizards Harry, Ron and Hermione, all best friends. This year, their school, Hogwarts, has been chosen to host the Triwizard tournament, a competition in which one champion from three wizard schools competes in a series of wizarding tasks. Because of an unexpected magical mishap, Harry becomes a fourth competitor in the tournament. This turn of events leads to jealousy, confusion and even fear for the young wizard’s life.
The plot involving Harry’s trials and tribulations within the tournament is crafted alongside the overarching plot of the series: The Dark Lord Voldemort, murderer of Harry’s parents and myriad other wizards, is slowly regaining power. Because Harry is the only person to have ever survived an attack against Voldemort – Voldemort almost died while trying to kill infant Harry – all fear that the Dark Lord will again come after “the boy who lived.”
Even before the opening credits begin to roll, the dark lighting and scary imagery let the audience know that this tale of a boy wizard will not be for the faint of heart. The book might have been written for children, but the movie is targeted to an older, broader audience.
Although “Harry Potter” is getting more mature in terms of theme and content, there is one aspect of the film which is clearly childish: The acting.
The unfortunate truth is that Daniel Radcliffe (portraying Harry Potter) and Emma Watson (portraying Hermione Granger) are not good actors, at least in this film.
Radcliffe spends the majority of the film gritting his teeth, breathing heavily and looking off to the side in angst. The hardest part about this film is trying to ignore Harry’s one-dimensional, somewhat-off nature. It also doesn’t help that Radcliffe, when not speaking, is usually standing perfectly still, with his arms hanging, fists slightly clenched, at his side. The movements and body of the character just look awkward at these moments; you feel like you’re watching actors rehearsing lines on a stage before the director has given them guidance.
It should be noted that Watson may very well be a terrific actress suffering from the influence of bad lines and apparently bad direction. In the books, Hermione is as smart as they come and a slight show-off, someone who likes to give advice and make her opinion heard. In this film, however, Hermione takes on the role of weepy cheerleader. She rah-rahs Harry throughout the film and is given a lot of one-liner, “Come on Harry, we’re going to be late,” kind of dialogue. Watson often looks as though she is moments away from bursting into tears. As a result, the story suffers a lack of intellectual, comic energy, which the novel so well induced through Hermione.
The nice thing about sub-par child actors is that their flaws are easy enough to overlook in context with the fact that no one really expects dynamic child characters anyway. Radcliffe and Watson’s shortcomings are not so extreme that the movie is rendered completely unenjoyable. Indeed, the fourth installment of the series had many positive traits, the first of which is that director Mike Newell’s interpretation of the Triwizard camping grounds looks like a scene taken from the Oregon Country Fair.
The fourth movie finds the bulk of its cinematic strength in the fact that it is a nice stylistic balance of the first two movies and the third. In movies one and two, Christopher Columbus worked almost too hard to include every detail from the book; in the third movie, audiences complained that Alfonso Cuaron strayed far away from the plot while adding his artistic touch (though I would still personally contend that this was an apt directorial decision). Newell, however, smoothly lays out the key action of the book, while still maintaining an artistic and entertaining film.
Adapting a book onto the big screen is never an easy task, especially when said book spans more than 700 pages. Newell does a fabulous job of staying close to the original storyline while avoiding an overload of semi-important subplots. It was only after leaving the theater that I realized Newell had diverted from the custom of beginning every Harry Potter film the way the books begin: At the home of Harry’s muggle (non-wizard) aunt and uncle.
All in all, “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” is a good adaptation. Though it lacks some subtle humor and rounded, lovable characters easily found in Rowling’s novel, the film does exactly what any good adaptation should: It sticks to the plot and is entertaining whether you’ve read the books or not.

[email protected]