Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

When walking into any Harry Potter film since the series's debut in 2001 it's hard not to be expecting to have your face rubbed in rubbish for two hours, so naturally walking into the longest adaption in the series yet I was expecting to have my face rubbed in rubbish for more than two hours. Let's start this off by clarifying how much I loathe Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, I feel it is a monstrosity and an insult to the intelligent movie-goer. The screenplay made me want to retch, the direction was laugh out loud silly, the acting even from some of Britain's most talented was jaw-droppingly pathetic. Possibly the worst movie ever made. The release of Chamber of Secrets was a definite improvement, but it still lacked any edge, the screenplay was almost as weak, and Chris Columbus had driven the project into the ground again. However in 2004 when Prisoner of Azkaban was released with Alfonso Cuaron at the helm, I was shocked with how much of a difference it made. The film was fantastic, bold, creative, dark, and clever. It also avoided many of the script problems the first two had. But now we come to the much anticipated sequel directed by Britain's own MIke Newell who's brought us Mona Lisa Smile (gag) and Donnie Brasco (woohoo! ) What do we get? A talented director working with a screenwriter who seems to have no clue what to do with the monstorous novel. He gets to the 735 page book and his brain seems to shut down and flip back to the same problems the first couple movies had. The crummy one liners that would make even Arnold Schwarzennager cringe, the eye-rolling cliche humour, and the inhuman emotions in the characters. Seriously, I thought to myself, why is this guy (Steven Kloves the screenwriter) still being allowed to pen scripts when it's clear he has no talent or ability of any kind. Why wouldn't Warner Bros go to people like Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson, and Philipa Boyens who adapted the enormous Lord of the Rings trilogy into some of the best films ever made. Those guys know what they're doing. Steven Kloves is destroying the Harry Potter franchise. That being said the film isn't all bad. The casting is smart, the adult actors give terrific performances, the CGI is excellent, and the art design is fantastic. Oh and we finally get a look at the Death Eaters, which are the hilight of the movie, despite having perhaps 3 minutes of screentime. They're genuinely terrifying with their demonic masks and costumes that are reminiscent (ironically I believe) of the Klu Klux Klan. But because the script is so bad, the characters don't develop, we don't really care, and someone who hasn't read the books would have no clue what's going on. The movie needed to be longer, no beating around the bush, it had to be three hours. But because it's still a children's movie for some reason, Warner Bros insists on a shorter film despite the fact the book is almost twice the length of the first three. Which brings me to another complaint, they achieved their 14A/PG-13 rating, yet they still insist on holding back. I say once you've got the rating, stretch it for all that it's worth. Make it as dark and adult as you can without them uppting the rating again. They barely go dark enough to get the rating, and the film suffers for it. Ralph Fiennes though delivers a wonderful, albeit, brief performance as the dark wizard Voldemort that is strongly reminiscent of a portrayl of Macbeth or some other Shakespearean lead. Okay now, winding down what we have is a decent action/fantasy/thriller directed strongly, but in a futile effort, because the screenplay is so bad that you couldn't make a better film out of it. It ranks 2nd though, in the Harry Potter franchise, and let me just say that unless the studio starts to realize how much more mature the books get and that the films need to as well, the ride to the end of the series could be very rough.