the fourth Harry-Potter-film (and the first to be directed by an Englishman) is a fun ride. Not for the youngest fans, perhaps, because like Rowling's novel it marks the point where Harry's story transforms from a children's tale into darker, maturer fantasy. In this sequel, Harry's arch-enemy Voldemort rises again and, as the movie's tag-line has it, "dark and dangerous times lie ahead."
More immediately, Harry finds himself an unwilling participant in the dangerous Triwizard tournament a doubtful Honor that alienates him from his schoolmates and even turns his friend Ron against him. And the teenagers' trouble doesn't end here. They also have to face the three unforgivable curses mind-washing, torture and murder as well as the pangs of disappointed love. Harry and Ron are pathetic when it comes to girls, and director Mike Newell ("Four weddings and a funeral") makes the most of his actor's efforts when they try to secure a female companion for the Christmas ball. Ron's dismay when faced with his fancy, decades-out-of-date-dress-robe alone is worth seeing the film.
In fact, it's the teenage angst topic rather than the magical plot that distinguishes this film. I was asked about the best spell in the film after the press screening, and I couldn't come up with a single one. OK, there's several "expelliarmus'" and "accio's", as well as spectacular Special Effects, but "magic"? Less than in the previous Potter-adaptations, I should say. At least it's less central. Mike Newell who earned one Million Dollar directing "Goblet", one tenth of the sum pocketed by Chris "Home alone" Columbus certainly achieved his aim to shoot "a classical thriller with lots of action, something along the lines of 'North by Northwest', without disregarding the often funny teenage angst".
Thus the pacing in the first half of "Goblet" is impeccable, whereas towards the end it gets a bit rushed. Still, "Goblet" manages to tell the complex story and capture most important moments of the book even if it means that certain subplots are only hinted at. One would love to see more of Rita Skeeter (Miranda Richardson), for instance, or of the death-eaters at the Quidditch Championship: a dark initial sequence, which, together with the repeated dream-sequence, sets the tone for what is to come.
On the other hand, there are enough shots involving secondary characters to offer emotional or even comic relief, such as Neville dancing or Filch loping wheezily across the Great Hall. The Yule ball alone is a visual and musical feast: Hogwarts decorated with icicles and frozen seafood, the couples dancing formally to Patrick Doyle's romantic soundtrack before the whole thing evolves into a wild party featuring stage-musicians from Pulp and Radiohead.
A few words about the performances. The young protagonists (especially Rupert Grint as Ron) were inspiring to watch, writhing in the grip of puberty. Daniel Radcliffe impressed me by managing to look very young, fearful and confused in some scenes and handsomely mature in others, especially when fighting Voldemort. In these scenes, one can almost see the grown man in him.
Equally impressive is the fact that Radcliffe did some stunt-work himself; in the scene where he falls off the roof fighting the dragon, for instance, he bungee-dived 13 meters down. He took diving lessons for the underwater sequence and spent 41 hours acting in a deep pool, in murky darkness, with only the assistant's voice in his specially devised earphones giving him directions. In the short takes underwater he had to hold his breath, remember not to let out bubbles, react to non-existent monsters, then swim back to the divers to receive air not a mean feat.
Of the secondary characters, I liked Miranda Richardson as flamboyant, sensation-creating journalist, although she didn't turn out as nastily insinuating as the book-character. I was less happy with Brandon Gleeson who wasn't sinister enough as Mad-Eye Moody, giving the character a comic edge it shouldn't have. The Triwizard champions, too, were mediocre: Clémence Poésy's Fleur Delacour is pale and nondescript, not the fascinating, haughty part-Vaala of the book. Worse, she's apparently hardly equal to the Triwizard tasks simply because she's female. While Stanislav Ianevski made a passable if too handsome Viktor Krum, Robert Pattinson as Cedric Diggory hardly got the chance to develop his character, which should have had a charisma equaling Harry's. The only thing that redeemed him is the scene of his death, which is appropriately chilling.
Last but not least, the two great wizards, Dumbledore and Voldemort. Sir Michael Gambon simply can't make up for Richard Harris' loss and it doesn't help that he's playing Dumbledore as an old man afraid and out of control. Whoever came up with this interpretation, it does not suit "the only one Voldemort ever feared". Dumbledore shouldn't be hasty, or perplexed, or making pompous speeches, nor should he shake Harry's shoulders in panic after Harry's been chosen as champion.
Ralph Fiennes, on the other hand, is genial casting. He embodies the Dark Lord with uncanny charisma, evilly human, undergoing sudden changes of mood: not a serial killer, but a scary madman. With minimum makeup a thin layer of latex applied onto Fiennes shaved head, arms and breast, giving the impression of pale, translucent, veined skin and digitally created nostril-slits, Fiennes makes a truly frightening, eerily handsome Voldemort. Dressed in a billowing black silk robe, a "floating reptile", as Fiennes describes him, barefoot, long-nailed and displaying a weird, suggestive body-language, he reminds one of a dark version of Cate Blanchett's Elven-sorceress Galadriel in "Lord of the Rings".
A final comment on the CGI: I loved the dragons, great and small. Absolutely adored the scene when the horntail climbed over those rooftops to get at Harry. And I was happy to read, in the final credits, that "No dragons were harmed in the making of this movie."
37 out of 60 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
