Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2025)

Please note I have included spoilers concerning the story of the book and film of the Goblet of Fire. If you have not read or seen either the book or film first, I would recommend doing so before reading this review. Now onto the review.Preface: Having just finished the finals to my undergraduate degree I decided to re-watch all the Harry Potter films together, and it was relaxing in front of these classic films that I noticed a problem. The Goblet of Fire follows the Prisoner of Azkaban, arguably the best of the films second only to the grand finale, and pales in comparison. Many of the complaints concerning the film focus on its closeness to the books, noticing that a great many details were dropped for time reasons. However, changing aspects of the story aren't always an issue; the third film omitted much of the backstory of Harry's father, and heavily condensed the emphasis on Hermione's impossible timetable that made the time-turner plot twist seem more sudden. The fourth film by comparison had severe pacing issues at its start, and leaves many book events introduced without conclusion, highlighting that its issue lay with how close it wanted to be to the book, which cased it to fall short. With this in mind, I'm suggesting that this film shows the problem a large book presents to a film adaptation; namely, the Goblet of Fire suffers from cutting large sections of the book, forcing pacing issues and reducing the impact of its story.Review Proper: The Goblet of Fire's pacing problem is tantalisingly clear from the very start, with a first act that hurtles forward. We are introduced to the villain, Barty Crouch Junior, in the first scene, and then the Quidditch World Cup, and then to a Death Eater riot that disrupts it, all within 12 minutes. The speed of which this occurs almost causes whiplash as I was left wandering why we were taken to the Quidditch World Cup if all we saw of it was the two teams flying towards each other before a quick cut. The riot afterwards similarly lasts a mere minute as we see a flash of chaos before Harry is quickly knocked out for the important plot point that follows. Hogwarts becomes the stage of the story after 15 minutes of story, a speed at definite odds with other films in the series, and instead highlights not the intriguing story to come but that interesting story points were dropped. The quick build up to the World Cup is squandered as the match is edited out, which only reminded me of its appearance in the book. The chaos of the riot cut short again only reminded me of its more sober and imposing pace devoted to it in the books. Details of the plot edited out for time reasons were abrasively visible, simply because the film mentioned these moments before hurtling past them, refusing to pause to take these moments in. A further moment that shows this is when Hermione recommends Harry tell Sirius about his dream on the train to Hogwarts; the film doesn't take the time to debate this and remind us with some pensive dialogue of Sirius' role in Harry's life. Instead we shift quickly to the next scene where other schools arrive at Hogwarts for the Triwizard Cut, moving uncomfortably between two barely connected story points. The cut is jarring, mismatched, and highlights that this film was juggling many ideas at its start, not knowing quite what to keep or what to omit.As the second act draws in we are introduced to the main crux of the plot itself - the Triwizard Cup Tournament. This is where the film settles down, having many character driven scenes as Harry is forced into the tournament and the dangers to his life mount in ever more dangerous tasks. This is where the film shines a bit more, because the film finds focus, keeping to the telling of the tournament, and regaling plot points and action set pieces important only to the telling of this tournament. We also are given hints towards the grand reveal of the tournament itself; Mad-Eye is fantastically played by Brendan Gleeson, who delivers a masterful act as the menacing but seemingly trusting Defence-Against-the-dark-arts teacher who is not who he seems. There is enough of Barty Junior to add weight to his reveal, and Voldemort's reveal is the true highlight of the film as it is the one time the film stops and takes in the gravity of story taking place.The second act onwards bears the marks of a good film. It is riveting, engaging, and the ending is superb emotionally and visually. However, the opening highlights an issue that prevents this from being a great film, which is story focus. The first act sets up the importance of Barty Crouch Junior to the story but omits most of Crouch Senior until his death and pensive appearance, omitting entirely the story of how he placed the imperius curse on his son to stop him re-joining Voldemort. Seemingly irrelevant material except until we consider that this "side plot" is central to the story. To explain what I mean, I refer primarily to the general story arcs of the book and particularly to what its story is about.So the Goblet of Fire focuses on two consecutive issues: the Triwizard tournament, and the return of Voldemort. The book is about the return of Voldemort, and this is demonstratively clear because the story concludes with Voldemort's return, for which the tournament is only the story's catalyst. The tournament ensures, by means of a timely portkey, that Harry arrives to bring about Voldemort's return, and thus the story is not about the tournament at all. Consequently, the story is instead really about the plot concerning Voldemort's return, and this can be stilled into one main mysterious question: who put Harry's name into the Goblet of Fire? This question causes the story to progress as Harry is forced into the tournament against his will, leading eventually to Voldemort's return, and is made possible by Barty Crouch Junior. Crouch Junior is central to this story arc, and thus he needed to be fully fleshed out as a character, and his motivations made clear. This was established in the books with resounding depth by Rowling but lacks depth in the film because his story arc was distilled, and Crouch Junior was reduced to a "loyal servant of Voldemort".As such, the book is exceptional for providing two concurrent plot threads, one of which dominates the story (the tournament) despite being, effectively, a red herring deceiving us on what the story is about. The book overtly tells the story of the tournament but provides a constant stream of clues about Crouch's story arc that moves the true story forward. The film omits much of this, providing a mere 4 scenes for David Tennant, and thus focuses far too much on the tournament. This highlights a key issue in book adaptation, namely that details must be omitted to provide a coherent story within two and a half hours. However, the Goblet of Fire is an example of a film that struggled with this issue, and focused on the wrong areas, unbalancing the story and causing blaring pacing issues. Most of the set up for the story's cathartic reveal comes from the first act, with the Quidditch World Cup and Crouch's introduction, an event glossed over by the film in its haste to introduce us to the Triwizard Tournament. Conclusion: I have been perhaps unduly harsh against the Goblet of Fire, because at its heart it is a good story, and had to deal with a huge problem: how do you adapt a book that has potentially 5 hours' worth of cohesive film material in it? The answer the film presents is focus; emphasise the story points of one of the two main story arcs to provide a coherent narrative for the audience to follow for two hours. Where the Goblet of Fire fell short of being a great film was it simply, to my mind, focused on the lesser of the two stories. The Triwizard tournament is a distraction in the books from the more important mystery of who put Harry Potter's name in the Goblet of Fire, who Barty Crouch Junior was, and why did he want so desperately to bring about Voldemort's return. The film answered only the most basic of these questions, succumbing to the distraction the action of the tournament provided. The confused first act of the film demonstrates this issue; the first act of the book's story was dedicated to setting up Crouch Junior, establishing Crouch Senior's controlling character and introducing Winkie the house elf. With this cut down, the first act had little to stand on and wobbled.I'd like to conclude here by asserting that this shows not that the Goblet of Fire was a poor adaptation, but instead illustrates the danger long books pose to story telling in film. The solution the Goblet of Fire poses pulls the film short of being great. I feel with this Harry Potter film, Steve Kloves did not quite understand the book as well as he did Rowling's other works when writing the screenplay. That is not to say he failed, simply that he fell short, which is disappointing considering how great the Goblet of Fire book is.

What does a 14 year old do when he enters the game of adults. The fight against Dragons, the direct encounter with Voldemort were scenes enough to give goosebumps. The yes the unfateful demise of Cedric Diggory was a heart touching one. Friends for all times, the beautiful age of loving making; the chemistry of Hermoine, Ron and Victor Krum added to the story. Harry comes ous strong and victorious yet suffers the death of his friend. Most amusing of all parts. Must watch for all.

This movie is pretty bad. The acting and effects are worse than the previous movies. The plot is full of holes. The filler outweighs the story. Nearly every element falls apart when you try to apply logic to what's happening. Yes, this movie is entertaining. Yes, this movie is stupid. I'd only recommend watching this movie if you are already invested in the series.

After the magnificent Prisoner of Azkaban, The Goblet of Fire is just a horrible downgrade. Yes, the book is long and there's no way every scene would be in it, but so much has been left behind. The beginning is butchered, so is the school year. Now it seems like nothing else happened except for the Triwizard Tournament. The main characters had like one class during the entire year. They should've made the movie longer. Three hours may be a long movie, but it's better to make it long than make it seem like all this happened in few months instead of one school year. Seasons barely changed!This film includes the one change everyone hates: Dumbledore was supposed to calmly ask Harry if he put his name in the goblet of fire, but for some reason Michael Gambon's Dumbledore is furious 24/7 and even violent. It makes no sense. Of course Dumbledore is quite a reckless headmaster, but with Richard Harris he seemed gentle, just the right way. If Michael Gambon can't pull of that kind of gentleness, they should've cast someone else. Everyone loved Harris, he was the perfect Dumbledore. After he died, did the people in charge of casting just think, "Ah, f@#k it, let's choose someone completely different". One thing I like is how dark the ending is. It's a good prelude to how dark the last movies are going to be. Of course now it seems like the movies are starting to be too scary for kids. It's hard for me to watch few scenes because of how gruesome they are, so how do they except children to watch them? All the charm Prisoner of Azkaban is gone. If one Harry Potter movie clearly needs a remake, it's this one.