|
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Full Screen Edition) (Harry Potter 4) | 
 enlarge | Director: Mike Newell
Actors: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eric Sykes, Timothy Spall
Studio: Warner Home Video
Category: DVD
List Price: $14.98
Buy Used: $2.59
You Save: $12.39 (83%)
New (44) from $4.85
Avg. Customer Rating:  667 reviews
Format: Ac-3, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, Dubbed, Dvd-video, Subtitled, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), French (Original Language), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), French (Subtitled), Spanish (Dubbed)
Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 157
Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.3 x 0.6
MPN: WARD59387D
UPC: 012569593879
EAN: 0012569593879
Theatrical Release Date: November 18, 2005
Release Date: March 7, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
When harrys name emerges from the goblet of fire he becomes a competitor in a grueling battle among 3 wizarding schools - the triwizard tournament. But since harry never submitted his name for the tournament who did? now harry must confront a deadly dragon fierce water demons & enchanted maze. Studio: Warner Home Video Release Date: 08/19/2008 Starring: Daniel Radcliffe Rupert Grint Run time: 157 minutes Rating: Pg13
Amazon.com
The latest entry in the Harry Potter saga could be retitled Fast Times at Hogwarts, where finding a date to the winter ball is nearly as terrifying as worrying about Lord Voldemort's return. Thus, the young wizards' entry into puberty (and discovery of the opposite sex) opens up a rich mining field to balance out the dark content in the fourth movie (and the stories are only going to get darker). Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral) handily takes the directing reins and eases his young cast through awkward growth spurts into true young actors. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe, more sure of himself) has his first girl crush on fellow student Cho Chang (Katie Leung), and has his first big fight with best bud Ron (Rupert Grint). Meanwhile, Ron's underlying romantic tension with Hermione (Emma Watson) comes to a head over the winter ball, and when she makes one of those girl-into-woman Cinderella entrances, the boys' reactions indicate they've all crossed a threshold. But don't worry, there's plenty of wizardry and action in Goblet of Fire. When the deadly Triwizard Tournament is hosted by Hogwarts, Harry finds his name mysteriously submitted (and chosen) to compete against wizards from two neighboring academies, as well as another Hogwarts student. The competition scenes are magnificently shot, with much-improved CGI effects (particularly the underwater challenge). And the climactic confrontation with Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes, in a brilliant bit of casting) is the most thrilling yet. Goblet, the first installment to get a PG-13 rating, contains some violence as well as disturbing images for kids and some barely shrouded references at sexual awakening (Harry's bath scene in particular). The 2 1/2-hour film, lean considering it came from a 734-page book, trims out subplots about house-elves (they're not missed) and gives little screen time to the standard crew of the other Potter films, but adds in more of Britain's finest actors to the cast, such as Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody and Miranda Richardson as Rita Skeeter. Michael Gambon, in his second round as Professor Dumbledore, still hasn't brought audiences around to his interpretation of the role he took over after Richard Harris died, but it's a small smudge in an otherwise spotless adaptation. --Ellen A. Kim
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 662 more reviews...
 Lighten up February 8, 2006
607 out of 1041 found this review helpful
Lighten up. This was a good movie. If you want to read the book, read the book. There is no way to give the same attention to detail in a movie as in a 870 page (paperback edition) book. The action was non-stop, and as far as character develpoment, aren't these the same three (Harry Ron Herminone) main characters as in the first three movies? So I repeat, lighten up and just take the film for what it is: a good movie.
Now just for the heck of it, answer NO to the "was this review helpful" question that follows
Harry Is Growing Up February 27, 2006
38 out of 48 found this review helpful
Much darker than its predecessors, "Goblet of Fire" takes Harry and his friends into a darker corner of the wizarding world. There are dragons, mermaids, a wicked maze, a new Dark Arts teacher(of course!), and something that hasn't been in the first three films so far--death. Without giving away too much, just know that "Goblet" takes the viewer straight into the wizarding world, leaving out the Dursleys, trims up the book that it is based on and attempts to give the viewer the meat-and-potatoes version of the novel.
The acting is superb, perhaps the best of the film series. Daniel Radcliffe has grown quite well into his role as young Harry Potter, who is only beginning his years of teenage angst. Emma Watson has blossomed into a lovely young lady, but Hermione is still just as prissy as she was before. Rupert Grint has grown up more than any of the other characters both physically and as an actor. He has a solid handle on Ron. His twin elder brothers, Fred and George, get a little more spotlight in this film, and Oliver and James Phelps prove to the crowd that they are solid comic performers in this story. Ginny Weasley(Bonnie Wright) returns in a supporting role. Robbie Coltrane gets big and tall as Hagrid once again(but in a smaller role). Of course, Draco(Tom Felton) and his gang are around to torment Harry, but they take a backseat to the Tri-Wizard tournament.
Other returning characters include Dumbledore(Michael Gambon), Snape(Alan Rickman), Flitwick(Warwick Davis), and all of the other teachers from Hogwart's, not to mention Jason Isaacs as the wicked Lucius Malfoy. New characters include Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody, Miranda Richardson as the hilarious Rita Skeeter, Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort, and Katie Leung as Cho Chang. Three pivotal new characters, the Tri-Wizard competitors, are also introduced in "Goblet." They are first-time actor Stanislav Ianevski as the athletic Viktor Krum, the lovely Clemence Poesy as Fleur Delacour, and Robert Pattinson as the honorable and trustworthy Cedric Diggory.
The story moves at the fastest pace of any of the films so far. There is some rather rough-and-tumble editing at points in the movie, but you have to give the director, Mike Newell, a mulligan for that considering the length of the book it is based on. The special effects have greatly improved, and are nearly flawless. Newell moves the story along at a smooth and quick trot, making the nearly two-and-a-half hour flick move along nicely.
This is definitely the darkest film so far. Folks who brought their young children to the first three films should preview this before allowing their youngsters to watch it. A good film to measure this against as far as the PG-13 rating goes is any of the "Lord of the Rings" films. If your child can handle that, they can handle "Goblet."
*Potential Spoilers*
The death of a prominent character may make this film a little tough for youngsters to view. Definitely watch the last thirty or so minutes of this film without your child before they can see it. When Voldemort makes his return, he is a grotesque creature, and Wormtail(Timothy Spall) quickly extinguishes one of the major characters in this tale.
Also, the language is a tad bit stronger on this film than in the others.
The opening sequence at the Quidditch World Cup comes to a violent end, so you might be wary of that before letting your youngsters view as well.
Other than these particular moments, most of this story will be no worse than the other three. This is an all-around good film, and I don't mean to take away from it by listing these few moments. However, I don't think that my daughter, who has viewed the other films, should see the ending of this film until she's a little older.
The enchanted candy is gone, this is a darker and more violent Harry Potter. Still, I highly recommend it to fans of the books and the films, as well as anyone who enjoys fantasy flicks.
Highly recommended.
 Get the Two-Disc Special Edition, All this has is the film. January 22, 2006
33 out of 38 found this review helpful
Contrary to what others may tell you, all this copy has is the Film itself, nothing more, nothing less. If you truely want a good copy, get the two-disc special edition. It has far more materieal, including Deleated Scenes! So just spend a few dollars more and get more.
 An awesome book becomes an awful movie April 11, 2006
24 out of 31 found this review helpful
A rabid Harry Potter fan, I've never liked the film adaptations of the books (with the possible exception of PoA) as they've never really been true to the storyline of the novels or to the characters. Yes I understand that quite a few things must be cut out, but it was never done neatly, and the story never really held together.
The Goblet of Fire film adaptation follows in that tradition. The movie felt like scenes and snapshots randomly thrown together, there was no real sense of continuity - this may have been partly due to the fact that each scene lasted about 5 seconds. You get this impression that the storyline is being squeezed in, that they were just rushing through scenes as if they wanted to get through them quickly without taking up too much reel space or something.
The Quidditch World Cup?! They totally skipped it. One moment you have the audience waiting in anticipation as the announcer (no Ludo Bagman) speaks, then the players fly in...and then cut to Harry, Hermione and the Weasleys celebrating Ireland's victory back in their tent (just one tent in the movie). That was so unbelievably disappointing, even though I didn't like the way they filmed the Quidditch matches in previous films (all that fouling seemed condoned).
The arrival of the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students is weirdly dramatic - it seems all the Beauxbatons students are girls (WRONG, try again - Rowling specifically mentions male Beauxbatons students in the books) and all the Durmstrang students boys (oops wrong again - a Durmstrang girl is in fact mentioned in the books). Then it seems that all of the Beauxbatons girls are as beautiful and fairy-like as veela, and the Durmstrang boys put on this odd martial arts display.
Then the Goblet of Fire scene, when the champions are announced...WHAT was Michael Gambon thinking? First of all, I've always disliked that ponytail beard of his, and I never liked his portrayal of Dumbledore too much. In this film there's this astonishing scene in which Dumbledore shakes Harry and shouts at him, demanding if he put his name in the Goblet. Does this ring true to Dumbledore's character to anyone? I was appalled; Dumbledore doesn't lose his temper when he's about to be murdered for God's sake, and they want him to start screaming when Harry breaks school rules? Later at the Leaving Feast, Dumbledore says a little speech in Cedric's honor, completely lacking in force or emotion of any kind, as if he's merely reciting his lines and then adding some gestures as an afterthought. There's none of Rowling's powerful language and drama and suspense in this film. None of it.
The Goblet of Fire plotline was massacred. I know the storyline is extremely complex, but it IS manageable! Didn't Peter Jackson prove that when he adapted the LOTR trilogy so brilliantly? He did miss out some sections, but he pulled the story together so perfectly that in the end he really did justice to the novels. There was no backstory whatsoever about the two Crouch men, no explanation of motives, and when Neville starts shaking in DADA class it makes you think they'll explain why, because otherwise his behaviour would be baffling to the audience (those who haven't read the books). No, there's no explanation. In the trial scene in the Pensieve (two scenes condensed to one, but that's perfectly understandable), there's only one reference to Frank and Alice Longbottom, and you won't catch it unless you know the story already.
Voldemort...I felt embarrassed. He is the most unimpressive fantasy villain ever depicted on screen (I haven't seen the Narnia movie so that isn't included in the comparison). Ralph Fiennes is a great actor, but he was completely out of his element in this role. Voldemort, like Dumbledore, lacked any real stage presence or force of character, and Fiennes employed dramatic poses and gestures that looked completely idiotic. When Voldemort started melodramatically leaping about the graveyard and yelling, I started laughing. The direction was the biggest problem I think - I've seen Fiennes in other movies, and he's talented. Admittedly Voldemort is a tough character for anyone to portray, but then so is Saruman, and Christopher Lee nailed him in that performance. Both Lee and director Jackson were LOTR fans, so I assume they took a lot of trouble understanding the characters. In any case, Voldemort was even more disappointing than Dumbledore. Moody was also carelessly portrayed, and they hardly took the trouble to make his eye look like a real one, instead strapping some pirate-style thing over his forehead to attach to his eye.
The only time I felt anything at all was when Harry returned with Cedric's body and Amos Diggory said "My son!" - I admit I did get a bit teary-eyed then. Cedric Diggory, Cho Chang and Viktor Krum were good, Fleur a bit too dull; I had imagined a sparkling young person with icy indifference to people around her, but never dull or boring, or lacking in vitality.
On a related note, Hermione is becoming way too pretty. Hollywood is such a sell-out; they're so obsessed with having everyone look good in movies they disregard the fact that, in this film at least, some characters aren't supposed to look like movie stars. Hermione was great in the first two movies, but she's becoming more and more lacquered and doll-like. They've made her hair fall in these beautiful ringlets rather than made it look unkempt and bushy - which is how it's supposed to look. I honestly wasn't so shocked when i saw her at the Yule Ball, because she looks like that in all of the shots in the movie. It's the same with Harry - the first thing I ever noticed abt him in the first movie was that his hair was all neatly combed. And Ron's character was once again sidelined - he's never given the same prominence and respect that the novels give him.
All in all, a predictable massacre of the Harry Potter world. Hollywood evidently has the money to create the perfect sets, but the producers, writers and directors involved in these movies so far clearly don't have the vision. Maybe if they had commissioned J K Rowling to write the screenplay it would have been a few million times better. Unfortunately for all of us, they just didn't.
To be fair... February 10, 2006
23 out of 27 found this review helpful
Anyone who expects the films to have the same strengths as the books is quite frankly naive. Film and book are two totally different media and both can be appreciated if you just get over the protective snobbery you hold in favour of the one you encountered first.
As far as I'm concerned Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is the best Harry Potter film yet. Forget you ever read the book, and just see it as a film. It works well, apart from the slightly annoying bit at the end where Harry asks Dumbledore why the wands joined and he says "priori incantatem" and leaves it at that.
Compared with the other HP films, the acting is better, the humour is funnier, the drama is tenser, the euphoria is happier, the horror is scarier and the emotion is, possibly for the first time, genuinely touching- I nearly cried when Harry brought Cedric out of the maze.
My message is: if you've read the books, please be reasonable. Don't expect each film to be a 10-hour, carefully crafted masterpiece, with every aspect of the novel still intact. It's not going to happen. It's still possible to enjoy the films though- see them as pure entertainment, something to quickly bring to mind the total beauty of the books. Don't be stuck up about it- in doing this it's only you that's missing out- on a film which is genuinely funny, scary and sad and which is perfectly capable of entertaining generations of people- not on the same level that the novels do, but on a different level which is not objectively better or worse- just different.
|
|
|
|
2005-2007 Zone1electronics All rights reserved.
| |
