Harry Potter may be losing his magic touch
Harry Potter fans: brace yourselves for disappointment. No spell or hex can stop this film’s bad form. The fourth, highly anticipated installment of the book-to-film adaptation of J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” series is rushed, overly dark and barely magical.
And other than Rupert Grint who plays Ron, the young cast once again feels stilted in their portrayals. Grint once again steals scenes with his charming awkwardness and shows an acting range that may reach beyond the “Potter” series.
Maybe it was the rushed schedule. Maybe it was the director. I never thought I’d say it, but I found myself wishing that even Chris Columbus (director of the first two Harry Potter installments), could have helmed this one.
Though his actors were hardly required to give motivated performances, at least he capitalized on the story’s magical world, creating an atmosphere Richard Roeper likened to “The Wizard of Oz.”
Perhaps Alfonso Cuaron, director of the third Harry Potter film, would have been an even better choice, and Warner Bros. probably would have kept him if he had stuck around. He made the third Harry Potter into a poignant art film, arguably the best of the series.
Cuaron’s Hogwarts was a place where darkness and magic blended well, and best of all, Cuaron coaxed substantial, sincere performances from his young cast. He apparently required the three principles to write essays on their respective characters. Emma Watson’s report was extensive, while Rupert Grint never got around to it.
Yet Cuaron’s big mistake proves that even he may not have pulled this one off: he reportedly convinced Mike Newell (director of “Goblet”) not to break the story into two films (as Newell had planned), but to compress the story into one movie.
Consequently, the film’s biggest downfall is the rushed pacing. Why, oh why, didn’t Newell choose to film two movies at once, only to release them, say, during Thanksgiving and then Christmas? If there was ever a box office slump to take advantage of, this season is the one.
In any case, while “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” misses many marks, it does have impressive moments and it’s still based on an exciting J.K. Rowling story, which counts for something.
The plot: it’s Harry’s fourth year to attend Hogwart’s School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and he’s worried. The Dark Mark is showing up, signifying the Dark Lord’s return.
To make matters worse, there’s no quidditch this year, a dance requires asking someone to go and Harry’s name somehow gets entered and selected for the dangerous Tri-Wizard Tournament. Will Harry find someone for the dance? Can he avoid death and win the tournament? Most important of all, will he (again) confront his arch nemesis, Lord Voldemort?
If you don’t understand what I’m talking about, what can I say; this story is smack dab in the middle of a series that’s tough to explain succinctly.
If only “Goblet’s” director, Mike Newell, would have acknowledged that fact.
Again, the movie’s main detriment is the choice to edit at such a feverish pace.
Going into the movie, my biggest concern was how they were going to condense a 700-plus page book into a single movie, and that concern proved to be well founded.
The first 30-40 minutes of the movie felt more like a visual checklist than a foundation for the story. For instance, the opening of the Quidditch World Cup sequence is promising, but hopes are dashed when the movie quickly cuts to a celebration scene.
Once at Hogwarts, the pace slackens, but most scenes still feel rushed, leaving you wanting more and feeling slightly cheated.
On the bright side, the visualization of the first task of the Tri-Wizard Tournament was excellent and Potter’s battle with the Hungarian Horntail made for a fantastic action sequence, but it’s downhill from there. Interesting details from the book, such as magical obstacles in the third task, are sadly obsolete.
Yet his film is at its best when it slows down and focuses on the characters. While the action sequences are fun, what makes Rowling’s books great is her cadence as she moves from character study to action sequence and back to character study.
It’s fun to see Harry out-flying the Hungarian Horntail, but what makes the movie worthwhile is the character scenes – the scenes where Harry and Ron are struggling to get dates to the Yule Ball, where Neville is seen practicing waltzing by himself in his room and where Ron gets a thank you kiss from Fleur. Sadly, too many like moments were left out. But those scenes that made it in save the movie.
“Goblet” is a film that fails to capture the spirit of its inspiration. Fans of the past “Potter” films may be disappointed, but will still probably like it overall.
Also note that if you aren’t familiar with the Harry Potter world, you should see this film with a knowledgeable friend who can fill you in. “Goblet” assumes the viewers already know what’s going on. If only it’s director did.
Chris Blakesley is a film critic for the Statesman. Comments can be sent to him at cblakes@cc.usu.edu. Film critic Ian Davis contributed to this article.