Watch
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

2005
Suspense/Thriller, Fantasy
2h 37m
Harry finds himself selected as an underaged competitor in a dangerous multi-wizardary school competition. (imdb)
Directed by:
Written by:
Starring:
Countries:
Languages:
Franchise:
Harry Potter
Your probable score
?

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

2005
Suspense/Thriller, Fantasy
2h 37m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 50.17% from 14011 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews

(14013)
Compact view
Compact view
Rated 16 Jul 2007
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.
Rated 12 May 2012
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.
Rated 09 Nov 2008
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 !
Rated 20 Dec 2009
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.
Rated 13 Jul 2011
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".
Rated 14 Jul 2015
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.
Rated 31 Jul 2011
40
43rd
Making your kids' movie into something 'darker' should involve more than turning down the brightness in post-production.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
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.
Rated 15 Jan 2009
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.
Rated 19 Jan 2010
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?
Rated 05 Jun 2010
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.
Rated 20 Sep 2010
68
65th
More Potter, the highlight of this one is Gleeson. Newell was a mistake after Cuaron.
Rated 14 Nov 2010
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.
Rated 18 Aug 2012
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....
Rated 27 Jan 2007
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.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
74
55th
Best one yet.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
70
22nd
A disappointment after Prisoner of Azkaban.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
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.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
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.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
7
84th
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.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
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?
Rated 18 May 2008
75
35th
At points this movie is laughably awful, but I love me some HP.
Rated 07 Aug 2008
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.
Rated 09 Nov 2008
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.
Rated 01 Dec 2008
5
3rd
Sister makes me take her to see the Harry Potters... bleugh!
Rated 15 Dec 2008
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.
Rated 01 Aug 2009
50
38th
As with most all the Potter films, this is a perfectly okay watch, and it does nothing exceptional.
Rated 25 Jul 2010
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
Rated 11 Sep 2010
50
20th
An enjoyable time waster. Worth watching, if it's on.
Rated 23 Jan 2011
71
52nd
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.
Rated 07 Aug 2011
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.
Rated 16 Feb 2012
76
55th
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.
Rated 12 Jun 2012
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.
Rated 22 Sep 2012
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.
Rated 14 Oct 2012
65
40th
This one had a ghost trying to check out Harry Potter's wiener.
Rated 21 Oct 2012
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.
Rated 15 Feb 2013
65
47th
These fucking haircuts, man, this is like the ugly hair year in the wizard world.
Rated 08 Apr 2013
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.
Rated 06 Aug 2013
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.
Rated 09 Feb 2015
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.
Rated 03 Apr 2015
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).
Rated 13 Feb 2019
72
40th
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..).
Rated 19 Apr 2020
64
85th
how come absolutely everyone's straight at Hogwarts, it makes no fucking sense.
Rated 06 Mar 2023
80
66th
I'll give this an 80 because it ends strongly, once Voldemort shows up. It was a 75 before that because it is better than the first, on par with the second. Gleeson and Pattinson are great additions, especially Gleeson since he was given a lot to work with. There are flaws, somebody pointed out pointless Harry/Ron arguing, which is true. The directing is not as good as Prisoner, but the acting as a whole may be the strongest it's been up to this point.
Rated 24 Nov 2006
45
29th
I thought a blockbuster like this would receive better treatment. Instead, it is the cheapest looking HP movie so far.
Rated 05 Dec 2006
85
62nd
Best HP movie so far.
Rated 20 Dec 2006
96
95th
They just get better and better.
Rated 27 Jan 2007
86
46th
The series keeps getting better. And now there's dragons. Big dragons.
Rated 29 Jan 2007
85
97th
best inthe serie
Rated 31 Jan 2007
82
61st
in terms of harry potter movies, this is one of the better ones. Managed to keep enough of the book in it (unlike Azkaban) while still being a decent movie (unlike the first two) the acting was a little wavering at times, and there wasn't enough of the adult supporting cast to make up for the lack of talent in the children.
Rated 12 Feb 2007
87
72nd
A competent adaptation of the book, but the pacing is painfully fast. Even so, a good fun time.
Rated 24 Feb 2007
75
40th
Better than the first two, however not up to par with its predecessor in Azkaban. Azkaban allowed teh characters to grow up and allowed for its entire plot to reveal itself. Goblet felt too condensed and reaimed for preteens.
Rated 26 Feb 2007
60
62nd
Good film.
Rated 02 Mar 2007
25
3rd
Admittedly I'm biased (disliked the franchise before ever seeing the movies) and ignorant (have only seen part 1 prior to this one), so I probably shouldn't even be reviewing this. But I just really, really hated it. Oh well.
Rated 15 Mar 2007
80
86th
I think it is the best in the first four Harry Potter movie!
Rated 19 Mar 2007
80
79th
The Triwizard tournament Harry must survive makes 'The Goblet of Fire' the series' most action-packed film. It also gets fans back into the ongoing dread of the dark Lord Voldemort, now in the flesh courtesy of Ralph Fiennes. The story also serves the kids as the teenagers they are with romances starting up, adding a fresh spin on things. Overall, there are minor quibbles with Part Four, but everything is mostly on the high end for these entertaining movies, and it doesn't disappoint.
Rated 25 Mar 2007
70
58th
Well this would be my 2nd HArry Potter movie...and I was slightly entertained, just like the last one. Great books I'm sure, and a great movie adaptation, it just didn't tickle my fancy.
Rated 27 Mar 2007
75
65th
Probably the best Potter book, but didn't really have enough time to translate into a fantastic film. Still, it does a good job and the movie was entertaining enough.
Rated 04 Apr 2007
95
93rd
good movie - not as good as the book up movies usually aren't
Rated 24 Apr 2007
30
14th
Back to the crap of the first 2.
Rated 18 May 2007
25
7th
Pretty sad adaptation.
Rated 26 May 2007
45
24th
Read the book, had to see it.
Rated 09 Jun 2007
80
82nd
An assured adaptation of the fourth Harry Potter book. For the most part, plot exicisions and changes are handled well.
Rated 22 Jun 2007
94
98th
Nearly as good as Azkaban. It feels fairly rushed but still pulls off a great movie that's faithful to the book.
Rated 25 Jun 2007
76
73rd
The best Harry Potter film so far, but the relationships are starting to get annoying.
Rated 01 Jul 2007
85
63rd
One of the best of the series, with an epic scale that helps to suggest what's to come. The ending is a bit botched, though.
Rated 03 Jul 2007
29
20th
On top of being as forgettable as the prior films, this one also cuts out all the good parts of the book.
Rated 12 Jul 2007
93
85th
Well-done, with great special effects. The fight against the dragon is phenomenal.
Rated 14 Jul 2007
56
24th
No good
Rated 15 Jul 2007
65
40th
The first films aren't as exciting and well-crafted as the tremendously entertaining 4th installment of the series.
Rated 29 Jul 2007
50
43rd
WTF .. so, if Harry didn't save the French chick she would've drowned? That's pretty fucked up right there.
Rated 03 Aug 2007
77
38th
Better made and less lifeless than Columbus' movies but feels like an incoherent "greatest hits" from the book.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
100
94th
My ultimate fave in the series. Dan radcliffe with no shirt on? YUM!
Rated 14 Aug 2007
5
8th
I didn't like it. I thought it was too dark for kids.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
75
47th
Just like the first 3.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
89
89th
I don't know how the actors can still act surprised whenever something goes wrong with Harry Potter. It's been three times before? And they're still like, "Oh no, maybe someone is after harry because he has to do such and such forbidden thing now. oh my god." At least they don't try to rub off on the fact theres magick in them hills!
Rated 14 Aug 2007
95
61st
good one!!
Rated 14 Aug 2007
89
40th
the book is far better
Rated 14 Aug 2007
86
72nd
A step down from The Prisoner of Azkaban, but still very solid family entertainment.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
84
55th
It's so very, very rushed but Newell seems to know how to keep things right. It's as if the storytelling priority in the Columbus films and the filmmaking priority in Cauron's film have compromised here. While the result isn't the best HP film to date, it's certainly a worthy installment. I've warmed to Gambon a little too, and, of course, it must be said Ralph Fiennes is inspired casting for the Dark Lord.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
5
45th
Snape kills Dumbeldore
Rated 14 Aug 2007
91
96th
The series contunues to thrive
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
42nd
Azkaban and Sorcerer's Stone were better, but this is very watchable.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
70
43rd
best of the bunch so far
Rated 14 Aug 2007
85
64th
Best Harry Potter movie to date. This one matches the character personalities from the books more closely than any of the previous films, and does a great job of presenting the return of Lord Voldemort. Very good!!
Rated 14 Aug 2007
86
73rd
good, fun, but dang it's long.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
70
40th
pretty good but they ruined the mood of the last scene, it didnt work quite as well. funny.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
95
86th
Very good
Rated 14 Aug 2007
86
81st
The best in the Harry Potter series. Entertaining and thematically rich. A return to form after the underwhelming and dissapointing Prisoner of Azkaban.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
0th
It was a good movie, but they skipped MANY parts...yes they had to with a long book, but they missed many important parts. And it just skipped to one event to another for the tournament.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
90
70th
Well made movie, even if you're not a Harry Potter fan (like me).
Rated 14 Aug 2007
58
29th
Very disappointing! The magic of Harry Potter was very close to being extinguished by a messy script. The pacing was awful with many scenes being unexplained or being severely under developed. How can a book that was so riveting and wondrous be adapted so poorly? Gutted.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
62
31st
Not bad, but not great either. It was fun to watch, but it can never be as great as the novels.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
40
9th
It is difficult to even discern a plot from this pile of randomly chosen events.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
30
9th
Despite the excellent visual effects and production design, and great performances by Ralph Fiennes and Brendan Gleeson (Mad Eye Moody was my favorite character in the book BTW), I wanted to see certain subplots in the book that weren't used in the movie, such as that involving Dobby and Winky. Also, I thought that the characters of Fleur Delacour, Victor Krum, and Cedric Diggory were underdeveloped, and most of the humor wasn't funny. But the one thing that I hated the most was how the ch
Rated 14 Aug 2007
79
57th
The best one so far! Still nowhere near the level of the books, and they lost at least half of it in the transition. But still, really good.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
80
61st
One of the better installments in the fantasy series, with the young actors coming into their own and the effects and script improving.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
80
68th
A notch down from the previous installment, nonetheless, there is much to recommend from this. If nothing else, feeling like a sleazeball when you realize that Daniel Radcliffe is growing into a fine-looking young man is rather worth it.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
85
63rd
Great job of squeezing a massive book into a film without completely botching the book...other than leaving out the first 200 pages. Series gets better as the movies get darker...
Rated 14 Aug 2007
78
34th
POTTER?! It was a good flick, nowhere near as good as Prisoners, but nonetheless it was fun to watch with friends in the theaters.

Cast & Info

Directed by:
Written by:
Starring:
Countries:
Languages:

Collections

(58)
Compact view
Showing 1 - 24 of 58 results

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...