Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Stars	User	Rating
6	Alex Watkins	3 _38th
Rushed and sloppy; though the movie is as confident in its choices as Prisoner of Azkaban was, it's not to the same effect, because the choices are nowhere near as good. It seems fucking campy. The book is either my favorite or second-favorite in the series, and this doesn't quite hold up to it. Still, I enjoy it.
5	BillyShears	75 _65th
The guy replacing Dumbledore after the first two movies is such a different character. He'd spit in your mouth and call it a spell.
4	KasperL	60 _50th
AKA "The One Where Nothing Happens So We'll Just Invent A Completely Unnecessary Dispute Between Harry And Ron And Throw A Ball And A Tournament".
4	Jeb	67 _49th
This is kind of a middle film based on likeability. It is worse than Azkaban, but greater than the first two. The noticeable production flaws and terrible character developments from the first two have remerged, but the dark and broody yet bewitching feeling of the third has been retained. Difficult to rate.
4	luc	65 _43rd
It's a family-movie but for me not so intresting. It's not my type of family-movie that I want to see. It's now the fourth movie and it's always the same : the same school, witches etc. I hope they will not make 10 movies like that !
3	misterlizard	40 _43rd
Making your kids' movie into something 'darker' should involve more than turning down the brightness in post-production.
3	BeeDub	85 _63rd
Skims over too much narrative ground to really be effective (this book, not the seventh, should have been two movies), but still reasonably entertaining.
2	lachapelle	68 _29th
This film is just all right, and honestly, a bit of a disappointment after the first three. The CGI is superb, but it does not make up for very large plot holes. Hopefully the fifth movie will capture the spirit better.
2	evrana	51 _15th
I caught it on TV. Harry Potter makes me feel old, as I can never understand what is all the fuss about it. For me, everything in it screams 'mediocre' and it is basically a mish-mash of all fantasy ideas with half-cooked social commentary. I can't even find one likable character in it. Most probably, I will watch all of the series over the next 20 years and will never be able to make sense of it. Maybe production quality gets better or something....
2	UniqueName	70 _34th
Harry's losing it, the charm and mystery solving adventure of the first two is nearly entirely lost. And this is nowhere near the dark brooding nature of Azkaban.
2	mwgerb	32 _17th
The notably dark visual style, decent performances, and some entertaining scenes don't make up for the absolute shambles they made of the plot. Adapting a novel, even a lengthy one, is not an excuse for such a terrible, rushed exposition. Neither is cutting away from major scenes for budgetary concerns, and rushing on to the next plot point that has to be referenced.
2	overrated	28 _19th
Harry Potter is really not my thing and this is the only film I've seen, dragged into it by a group of friends with nothing better to do. At the risk of this becoming a critique of the series in general, I don't get the appeal of a blank slate protagonist thrown into the worst aspects of high-school drama and cheesy CGI-heavy fantasy. Like that test where HP has to save his friends from the lake... you're saying teachers kidnapped them and left them to die in order to raise the stakes?
2	GrahamJ	67 _21st
Decent. Inferior to Azkaban. Lacks that film's visual flair. Often feels disjointed; plot points are introduced suddenly or are dropped abruptly. Feels like a highlights reel of a much better and less fragmented movie. Needs longer running time, and a better use of it.
2	hellboy76	68 _65th
More Potter, the highlight of this one is Gleeson. Newell was a mistake after Cuaron.
1	lightcat	75 _0th
Conventional wisdom has it that this, the fourth installement in the lucrative Harry Potter series, is also the best. I beg to differ. It's dark, scary, and even features Daniel Radcliffe in a soapsud-filled bathtub, but the whole never does add up to more than the sum of its parts. To see true justice done to Harry Potter, watch Alfonso Cuarón's "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban": sheer magic, made with an obvious relish for the proceedings at hand.
1	MartinTeller	68 _32nd
Not as distinctive (or as fun) as Azkaban, it still does a damn good job. It's a bit rushed, even with all the superfluous bits from the book cut out. There's so much ground to cover that important plot threads like Harry's increasing unpopularity arise and get resolved in the space of a few minutes. This is also a rather dark and gloomy entry in the series, and earns its PG-13 rating. Even the ending is very subdued, lacking the triumphant oomph of the previous films.
1	Magb	70 _39th
This is a decent film, but it has a rather rushed feel to it. I imagine that some parts must be fairly confusing to people who haven't read the book. I don't think I've read the book since it was published, and I found myself puzzled by certain parts. There are also too many scenes that felt like they should've been there but that were obviously taken out/never filmed for time reasons -- the quidditch world cup match comes to mind.
1	triffid	83 _61st
Not as good as the Prisoner, but still a surprisingly good HP adaptation. The beginning must be confusing for people who didn't read the book, but the ending is just perfect, with Fiennes as an incredible Voldemort. I have to admit I was truly frigthened in the cinema, which hasn't happened to me for a very long time.
1	willofgaia	70 _22nd
A disappointment after Prisoner of Azkaban.
1	Ndkchk	74 _55th
Best one yet.
1	Harmonica	72 _39th
From a storytelling perspective the strongest or at least most involved film of the series upto this point. The plotting is engaging, even if the central premise of the inter-school wizarding tourney just seems overly grisly. Though a little light on laughs, and gloomy throughout, it has real dramatic clout. For the first time, the teachers are no longer able to wholly protect the students in the face of true peril (though you might think the PTA would step in at some point..).
1	Ytadel	7 _83rd
A fun fantasy flick. The kid actors are noticeably improved; Rupert Grint in particular comes into his own with a surprising comic flair as Ron and won a lot of laughs from me. The major set pieces like the Yule Ball and the resurrection of Voldemort capture the feel of the book, although the movie also emulates the book's extremely scattershot storyline. Nonetheless, it's an entertaining Potter.
1	Vince Leo (Qwipster's Movie Reviews)	60 _36th
While the baggage and confusing mythos are beginning to necessitate reading the books to truly understand just what is going on during any given scene, I'm not going to succumb to the impulse. My rationale is as it always has been with book adaptations: if you have to read the book in order to understand a movie, then it isn't really that good of an adaptation then, is it? [Full Review]
1	angrypierre	71 _51st
These films are getting darker, which is good, and longer, which isn't so good. I continue to hope that Ron and Hermionie will be less whiny in the next one. I think I will probably be disappointed.
1	Mini-T	82 _32nd
For the moment only have seen the first one , and this one. Expected more of the 3 'great challenges' , and Fleur and Kruml. Alsow tought hole the film would be more darker ( from what I have heard ). Liked the Potter vs Voldemort confrontation , and that's why I want to see the rest. For Voldemort. I can understand why many people love it , but I think it's just alright and fun to look at.
1	IHateMovies	75 _35th
At points this movie is laughably awful, but I love me some HP.
1	purgatos	65 _40th
This one had a ghost trying to check out Harry Potter's wiener.
1	Fake Shemp	5 _3rd
Sister makes me take her to see the Harry Potters... bleugh!
1	janus	55 _24th
An unenthusiastic followup to Cuaron's artful Prisoner of Azkaban. It feels rushed, cutting most of the book's amusing tangents (to be fair, the novel is over 700 pages), and the result is a film that moves quickly but gives the audience no time to savor any of the detail of Rowling's world. The three leads seem tired of their roles, and I don't blame them.
1	nauru	42 _37th
The plot doesn't really make sense, nor do the motivations of the characters, but at least Brendan Gleeson is on hand to elevate the scenes he's in. Glad to see a sliver of darkness toward the end, though it isn't nearly enough for the viewer to feel fairly compensated for the self-indulgent runtime.
1	Okkervil	50 _38th
As with most all the Potter films, this is a perfectly okay watch, and it does nothing exceptional.
1	d_drudges	20 _17th
Tries to be an exact reproduction of the book and unsurprisingly fails. There is no effort to adapt the story to explain the stuff that was cut due to time constraints, resulting in an incoherent mess. I actually had to have many of the key points explained to me by a fan. Apart from the very end, the movie didn't advance the main story at all. Skip it.
1	Zio	50 _33rd
The tipping point for the series. It had its moments, and some very nice imagery, but this is where the angst of the series builds up and starts taking itself far too seriously. Goblet of Fire is not a bad movie as it still is fun to watch and maybe the best of the later Potter films, but it is a point of no return from the wonderment from the that the first three films had.
1	Mr. Film	89 _70th
Second best HP after Prisoner. These both films show the matureness the latter films had, but without sacrificign the heart the early films had. All in all, these two succeed in both at being mature and having a heart
1	Elahn	50 _20th
An enjoyable time waster. Worth watching, if it's on.
1	basasdura	65 _47th
These fucking haircuts, man, this is like the ugly hair year in the wizard world.
1	myfavchords	76 _54th
This is not the best in the series but it is still a good movie. The three leads do a great job in this one. If you are a Harry Potter fan then obviously check this one out.
1	hsncrspywl	58 _25th
This film suffers from a very oppressive & bleak tone - it looks so grey and bland! While the climax of the film is very dark (and featuring Ralph Fiennes chewing a lot of scenery) the rest of the film kind of suffers from this shift in tone - while the plot becomes near incomprehensible at points, often needing resolved with the return of endless expository dialogue. The cast are great, especially the young leads, although I found their hairstyles irritating.
1	adouble	68 _40th
Not awful, but kind of sloppy and disjointed. Ideas from the book are introduced and then either disappear after 5 minutes or are never followed up on. Gleeson is fun as always, and Ralph Fiennes' first scene as Voldemort is one of my favorite of the series. Not as good is the tottally pointless Ron/Harry arguing, the pretty dull action scenes, and the Quidditch World Cup that you get to see for like 30 seconds.
1	judsonlady	60 _46th
Kind of a let down after Prisoner of Azkaban. Story line didn't seem to flow as well as 2&3. Guess it's your normal middle child of the series syndrome striking again.
1	VengefulKBM	35 _11th
Pretty ineptly put together, the clear worst of the Harry Potter movie franchise. I try to set aside my fandom for the books, but what they did to the plot here is pretty much just a mess. Spending half an hour at a school dance and going on a long tangent with a dragon chase scene, only to skip over practically all of the interesting parts for noticeably rushed exposition, is not my idea of a good adaptation of any novel. The entry of Big Bad Voldemort into the series is pretty good, though.
1	Corbad	70 _54th
Misses a great deal of material, but tells what it can in a movie's time frame through occasionally lovely cinematography, solid art direction, and acting that is a little unbalanced (I'm looking at you, Hermione).
1	rihrey	64 _84th
how come absolutely everyone's straight at Hogwarts, it makes no fucking sense.

Displaying 1 to 250 of 347 total ratings: Prev | Next

Average Percentile 50.1% from 13757 Ratings