Customer Reviews

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

5 star:		(150)
4 star:		(50)
3 star:		(45)
2 star:		(15)
1 star:		(19)

 

 

Go through the soundtrack listing before reading this review, because the former spoils everything there is to spoil.

While not necessarily the most vital feature of the `Harry Potter' films, one of the most important considerations is perhaps the feel of each movie, which is one of the most immediate things that strikes an audience.

In terms of that, as the series progresses, each part has become sturdier in achieving an all-round sense of completeness, in that every instalment gradually moves towards being a singular film in its own right while taking rich pickings from a world, whose continuity and consistency have been respected and admirably maintained, reconceived for the silver screen in what will ultimately be seven parts.

The first movie was atmospherically very lush, with rich hues of red and gold that both conveyed the wondrous regality of Hogwarts and gave the film an aptly warm, seasonal touch that maintained a sense of comfort in the world our young protagonists found themselves in as well as for the young audience, and, of course, mirrored the cheery Christmas movie-going period. The second saw a darkening that was tentative at best, giving it a more grimy, dull and sapped feel rather than a truly menacing or ominous one. The Gothic turn in the third demonstrated what that darkening should have accomplished, in addition to matching the mood of the third book, which, strange as it may sound, lent itself to the colour purple. `Goblet of Fire' then suitably attains a lovely palette that might have been filtered through a window in spring, bringing about a tightly textured look that doesn't suffer from an effluvium of colour, ranging from the autumnal compound of the castle to the shadowy blue of a graveyard. The feel of the fourth film must have been the most difficult to figure out out of the movies made thus far, but thankfully they've gotten the onscreen setting right for the cast to thrive in.

Because of the need to keep the central narrative of the Triwizard Tournament going, the script appears to offer very few opportunities for introspective or emotionally resonant performances such as those that we saw in `The Prisoner of Azkaban'. Although, this is in no way to undermine Steve Kloves's valiant effort as he manages to hit all the marks fans will be looking for, even if newcomers will be absolutely puzzled (Priori Incantatem, while mentioned, is never explained for one). Director Mike Newell, in addition to marshalling thrilling action sequences, extends the emotional range of, in particular, the young cast. The supporting ensemble of British thespians, however, gets more character moments as well, which in their own subtle way suggest flaws, fallibility and even occasional quirkiness. Be they Professor McGonagall's amusing absent-mindedness in informing Harry about a dance, the clumsiness of the lovably bumbling Argus Filch who can never seem to restrain his excitement in lighting a cannon, or the brooding anguish or severity of Professors Snape and Dumbledore, facets of our favourite characters never before seen render them more conceivable, human personas, and prevent them from degenerating into amusing two-dimensional plot devices. It is, however, always a treat to see great actors so sportingly partaking in what others may see as a childish premise that insults their talents.

Michael Gambon's performance demands some examination. While his portrayal makes a combination of both probable sincerity and twinkling playfulness believable for Dumbledore with a line like `I hate these drapes, burnt them down in my fourth year...by accident of course', one occasionally gets the impression of him engaging in broad strokes to lucidly form what still seems a flailing character of sorts in his hands. His performance appears to be straining towards a quality reminiscent of the understated sternness and gentle sense of humour that Richard Harris gave Dumbledore, who became in the first two films a thoroughly imagined onscreen character, clearly formed around the edges, as it were. While this reviewer still looks forward to more of his intriguing characterisation, one hopes that Dumbledore will be able to evoke the sympathy that his fate in the sixth instalment should bring about.

Everyone is talking about Ralph Fiennes, and for good reason, for his proves to be an inspired bit of casting. His Voldemort is one who vacillates dangerously between quietly maniacal malice and uneasy pleasantry. It makes for a discomfiting, unnerving and unpredictable mix, and the unsettlingly understated volatility of his character comes through, rendering the threat posed by his sheer presence all the more palpable. One thing surprising perhaps about his portrayal is the relative absence of the haughtiness one could glean from the book, that sense of superiority derived supposedly from being both a pureblood wizard and an immensely powerful one. Far from being the charming, refined and demonstratively supercilious young student depicted in `The Chamber of Secrets', the adult Voldemort seems to have been roughened around the edges, so to say, his appearance and manner reflecting his abasement by his heinous exercises in his pursuit for power, which, one should note, likely inflicted a great deal of pain upon himself. That that road to his own misguided notion of greatness was trying comes through in Fiennes's portrayal, and what emerges is a new kind of charisma and leadership, one that sees him identifying himself with and operating amongst, and therefore as one of, his men, who then find it easier perhaps to relate to him and recognise his authority in their group. In addition, his demonstration of his newly acquired ability to touch Harry by touching his scar is an example of a judiciously dramatic stroke that's emblematic of the discreet and well-measured theatricality with which Fiennes imbues his performance. Indeed, one does seem to behold, as Fiennes graces the screen, quite a magical concoction of elements coming together in a personification of evil that seeks to be as true to that dark essence itself as possible.

But back to the young cast. Harry's progression from a mild, well-mannered young boy to a gangly, moody teenager, likely the result of embitterment or dispossession due to everything he's experienced thus far, has been well pulled off by Radcliffe, who demonstrates consistency in his performance here following an edgier turn in `The Prisoner of Azkaban'. The danger here is for his character to tumble into blandness, and fortunately the occasional emotional moment, such as his crying over Cedric's death, while not completely convincingly performed, prevents that. Discussing Harry at this point naturally brings in Moody, and while Brendan Gleeson's is a no-holds-barred demented performance, it's never really endearing even when his character turns cheeky (sticking his tongue out at McGonagall, for one), and one doesn't get a sense of a relationship as compelling as that which Harry shared with Lupin, or for that matter as that depicted in the book, and thus there is no strong feeling of betrayal when the revelation regarding Moody comes, unlike the momentarily startling instant in the previous film when it seemed for a moment that Lupin had been in cahoots with a supposedly villainous Sirius Black.

Grint goes through much of the same as Ron, which is a shame because it wouldn't harm having him express some manner of emotional response to Harry's precarious predicament instead of always leaving Hermione as the sole good friend who emotes realistically over the dangers posed to Harry. Watson does stand out as the spirited young woman, but one gets a sense this time that, while admirable that she strives for a more demanding emotional range, perhaps she tries a little too hard and her performance sometimes comes off strained. However, it is evident that Newell has tried to suss out the nuances that are possible in the characters' interaction with each other, hints subtly conveying unspoken thoughts or veiled feelings that, while perhaps best not explicitly expressed, run on into and are thus discreetly revealed by the discourse that they engage in. The weight of the demands that his acute and observant direction entails in this sense rests mostly on Watson, and, again, while occasionally awkward, she invests a credible effort.

The supporting young cast deserves their share of good mention. The Weasley twins are a highlight in this instalment with an effortless comic chemistry. A scene where one of them asks a girl to the Yule Ball wordlessly is a hoot. Felton in the role of Malfoy is sportingly and nicely deplorable again, as is Isaacs in a welcome return to his role as Draco's father. A little more of Longbottom's back-story would have been nice, for his feeling disturbed by the Cruciatus curse is never clearly explained. It also appears to be Ginny Weasley's turn to blossom into a beautiful young woman; and the other Triwizard champions are all a refreshing presence.

This is a very funny movie. Aside from the Weasley twins, the main trio turns in occasional comic moments. In fact, it is precisely comedy that prevents Ron, who effects most of it in his interaction with Hermione, from remaining a character who merely sulks. The character of Neville is given a more substantial showing in this movie, and Matt Lewis is winsome as the blossoming nerd. Shirley Henderson's appearance as Moaning Myrtle is a scream, and her morbid ghoul is a gem of macabre humour. A lot of the laughs here are rooted in the film's premise. While we are thoroughly aware that we are dealing with a fantastical world and story, lines like `We do not use transfiguration as a punishment' still manage to sound amusingly bizarre.

For every moment of comedy, though, is another that is disturbing, and in realising these moments the designs for imaginary conceptions in particular stand out. Two brief but utterly memorable images that demonstrate the melding of technical deftness with imagination are that of an uncomfortably twitching spider on which the Cruciatus curse is inflicted, and a passing view of Voldemort as a hideous foetal creature. Iconic moments are captured competently, and in particular the golden dome that forms about Harry and his nemesis and the emergence of the spectres of Voldemort's victims when Priori Incantatem finally occurs is an exciting and, yes, spellbinding sight that is really quite marvellously achieved.

But the real treasures in this movie are the intimate moments that pertain entirely to character, as preciously few as these treasures are. Those who were perhaps unsatisfied with the relatively upbeat and childish conclusion of the third movie should be happy that there is quite a proper emotional resolution in this one before it ends, appositely, sombrely. The script makes the effort of an eulogy for Cedric (which alludes also to tensions with the Ministry of Magic, and that, along with passing mentions of the Department of Mysteries, teasingly and alluringly foreshadows `The Order of the Phoenix'), after which the movie reaches its final scene, which is its best. As Harry walks through a corridor along the edge of the courtyard, he looks with consolation at the students from various schools bidding affectionate farewells to each other, a sight from which he derives a heartening reassurance that, as Dumbledore tells him, he is not alone in this fight, and there is friendship that he, and everyone else, can count on, and which therefore must be kept strong. Our three friends standing silhouetted against the evening light on a balcony as they watch the departure of the Beauxbatons carriage then makes for a lovely, reaffirming sight. It's moments like this that serve as a reminder that, even amid the dragons and mermaids and evil sorcerers, there is a heart to this story, and it is very much alive.

There is so much good to say about this movie, but I'll start by answering the major criticisms of the detractors. Many are complaining that much from the book is left out. This is a valid point, and viewers who have read the book no doubt notice that the story skips about. I imagine if you haven't read the book, the story comes off as much more cohesive...you don't know what's missing. However, it is important to note that as in Lord of The Rings, the filmmaker is attempting to adapt a large and reasonably complex book into a film of 2.5 hours. In fact, this Potter book is far longer than any single Lord of the Rings installment. Things ARE going to be left out....thus, for fans of the books, it is more important to look at whether the overall portrait that the movie paints is both loyal and beautiful...Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is very true to its characters and captures the beauty of Hogwarts' magic to a degree that surpasses anything in the earlier movies. Detailed breakdown as follows:

Cinematography:

One of the things that impressed me most about Prisoner of Azkaban (Potter 3) was the beauty of the set piece scenes. No one could deny that Harry's ride on the hippogriff was beautifully shot. In addition, the color palette as a whole seemed many shades darker than the first two movies. The overal effect was that the movie felt more targeted towards adults. Goblet of Fire continues this trend. All of the major scenes have truly beautiful scenery buttressed by some impressive CGI. The whole movie felt like one set of wonders followed by another...I simply smiled at the beauty of much of it.

Acting:

While there are a couple of performances that are merely okay, Goblet of Fire also has several of the best performances in the series so far. All of the regular characters are as good as or better than they have been. Emma Watson, in particular, is shaping up to be a very convincing young actress. Every scene that she was a part of had an emotional core that reminded me of why I cared about the three main characters in the first place. In addition to the regulars, some of the newcomers were impressive. Whoever played Diggory did an excellent job. In addition, Ralph Fiennes joins the cast of the Potter movies. I won't say who he plays, but his acting in the role was so convincing that I didn't realize that he had been in the movie until a friend pointed it out.

Score:

Perhaps one of the largest improvements in this installment of the series was the score. John Williams, who penned the scores to the first three movies, is a master at writing compelling themes. I find everything he writes IN BETWEEN the themes to be very dull, however. In Goblet of Fire, Patrick Doyle takes over as composer for the series. Williams' fantastic main theme is still very much present, but the rest of the score is far more interesting than Williams' scores were. Stick around for the credits and you can hear a longing violin piece very much different from what Williams would have served.

Plot:

So those who read the books over and over for details will be disappointed. They will fault the movie for not including this and that detail. However, Goblet of Fire is one of the 2 best Potter books (the other being Prisoner of Azkaban) and director Mike Newell exploits the book to make sure that the best bits of it are onscreen. In addition, ample attention is paid to the emotions of the characters. The ballroom scene comes off particularly well in this capacity. Overall, casual fans of the books as well as general audiences should very much enjoy this latest Potter story.

Conclusion:

Between the score and the cinematography, this is a very beautiful and wondrous movie. Between the directing and acting, this is also a very emotional movie. If you can suspend disbelief and accept Harry's cinematic and fantastic world for what it is, you're in for a very special ride, indeed.

The 2005 release of the film version of J.K. Rowling's fourth Harry Potter book, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", is the darkest of the four films to date and a cinematic masterpiece. Directed by Mike Newell, at 157 minutes, it is the longest of the four Harry Potter films to date, but because J.K. Rowling's fourth book was 734 pages long (about 300 pages longer than the third book and more than twice as long as either the first or second book), many of its subplots and details had to be left out from the film. Otherwise, the film would have to be quite a bit longer.

That aside, what the film focuses on includes the following:
1. Use of a portkey.
2. The start of the Quidditch World Cup.
3. The attack of the Death Eaters after the game, including the Dark Lord's mark in the sky.
4. The arrival at Hogwarts of students from the other two magical schools of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang.
5. Some class time with Alastor 'Mad­Eye' Moody (Brendan Gleeson) including his teaching of the unforgivable curses.
6. The selection of contestants for the Triwizard Tournament by the Goblet of Fire.
7. The various challenges in the Triwizard Tournament, which are all beautifully detailed and done.
8. The golden egg.
9. Harry's (Daniel Radcliffe) dreams about Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), Wormtail (Timothy Spall) and someone he doesn't know.
10. Harry gazing into Albus Dumbledore's (Michael Gambon) pensieve.
11. The Triwizard Ball, which was beautifully done.
12. The annoying Rita Skeeter (Miranda Richardson) writing gossipy articles.
13. The terrifying graveyard scene.

Some of the subplots that were examined included Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) being angry with Harry for a while, the tension between Ron & Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) due to Viktor Krum (Stanislav Ianevski) asking her to the ball, Harry's nervousness around Cho Chang (Katie Leung), Harry & Ron taking Padma Patil (Afshan Azad) & Parvati Patil (Shefali Chowdhury) to the ball, and Hagrid's (Robbie Coltrane) romance with Beauxbatons' headmistress Madame Olympe Maxime (Frances de la Tour). Other significant characters in the film included Neville Longbottom (William Melling), Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), Lucius Malfoy (Jason Isaacs), Fleur Delacour (Clémence Poésy), Minerva McGonagall (Maggie Smith), Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), Igor Karkaroff (Predrag Bjelac), Amos Diggory (Jeff Rawle), Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright), Fred & George Weasley (James & Oliver Phelps respecitvely), a brief appearance by Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), Moaning Myrtle (Shirley Henderson), James Potter (Adrian Rawlins), Lily Potter (Geraldine Somerville), Frank Bryce (Eric Sykes), Barty Crouch Sr. (Roger Lloyd-Pack), Barty Crouch Jr. (David Tennant), Cornelius Fudge (Robert Hardy), Arthur Weasley (Mark Williams) and Argus Filch (David Bradley). Sadly, what had to be left out from the film included the Weasleys picking up Harry from the Dursley's home before the Quidditch World Cup, some of the box scenes at the Quidditch World Cup, the Sorthing Hat's song, Dobby's involvement in the story, Winky, Nearly Headless Nick's deathday party, Hermione starting her "house-elf liberation front" organization that she calls "Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare" (SPEW) and Hermione discovering Rita Skeeter's big secret.

The cinematography and special effects used in "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" are absolutely magnificent, as is the acting, including all of the many new characters. The scenes with Voldemort in the graveyard are especially emotional, dark and powerful, including when Harry returns with the Triwizard Cup and Cedric to a stunned audience. Overall, I resoundingly rate the film version of "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" with 5 out of 5 stars and very much recommend it to anyone who enjoys J.K. Rowling's magnificent books. Again, because the film is 157 minutes and because so much detail in the book had to be left out, the film moves very rapidly. People who have read the book shouldn't have any difficulty with the fast pace, but those who haven't read the book could have some difficulty keeping up with the story and the many characters that J.K. Rowling introduced in the fourth book.

I am a big fan of the books and have enjoyed the movies so far without too much complaint. It has made a good deal of sense why minor details were cut out of the movie, but the reason I gave this film such a low review is because how the screenwriters managed to butcher the characters.

1.) Victor Krum is meant to be an awkward guy who is tall, lanky and has a sort of duck-like walk. When you get him on a broom this awkwardness is completely gone. He's also a quiet character who is always found in the library at the same time as Hermione. That's why she's attracted to him in the first place. This is completely changed for the movie. Victor Krum is suddenly a very robust and muscular young man who is adored by the ladies. He is also very cocky and seems to have absolutely nothing in common with Hermione.

2.) Cedric Diggery is also not such a self conceited character. They did manage to cast a good looking young man, but since when does he laugh at Harry? It is also insinuated that it is Cedric's friends who make the "Potter Stinks" buttons. That's not true! Cedric is adored by his father, yes, but Cedric is a Prefect. He isn't a popular kid who uses that to his own advantage. Cedric is loved by his classmates because he is a genuinely good person. They didn't do a very good job of portraying this. The audience feels very little for Cedric which doesn't give such a great character any justice.

3.) Since when does Dumbledore try to strangle Harry? I had a lot of problems seeing a character who has always been respectful turn to this sudden loss of hope. Suddenly Dumbledore doesn't know what to do, he can't handle the situation and he continues to yell at the students. Dumbledore is such a respected character that he doesn't have to yell or lose his temper. When he says something, people listen. Harry looks up to Dumbledore as a father figure and a respected mentor that I feel Dumbledore placing his hand around his neck would destroy a lot of that trust. Dumbledore's true character is much like that grandfather you always wished that you had. Someone you'd want to sit with you for hours and tell you all of his stories. The movie version of Dumbledore is so stressed out that he continually loses his senses from scene to scene.

4.) The last challenge in the Tri-Wizard Competition involves a maze. The cool thing about this part in the book is how around each corner there is a different challenge to be faced. You have to answer riddles, face monsters and use your head. The maze in the film keeps changing, so the only real challenge is to see who can keep running. If you can do that, then you'll win in the end. How is that a challenge worthy of the best competitors from each wizard school? I understand that they were pushed for time, but they could at least have tried to do something of importance with the maze.

Overall, I felt bad for people who hadn't read the book and watched this movie. Those viewers were completely lost because there wasn't anytime in the movie for the characters to actually explain what had just happened. There's no explanation as to why the two wands collided like that. That's a major fact that is worth the extra minute. If they would have cut down on the unneeded excessive special effects sequences, there would have been time. I have no interest in watching this movie a second time. I intend on sticking to the books and I highly recommend the same to any loyal fans of the book. Save your money and re-read the book. You'll feel much less frustrated, I promise.

Okay, I know a lot of people were generally pleased with the movie but somewhat disappointed that things were cut or changed.

Here's what I do when going into one of these films -- I ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THE MOVIES AND THE BOOKS ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS!!!

No movie has ever really captured EVERY SINGLE THING if it is adapted from a written work. There are things in books that simply can't be brought to life via film, and vice versa. That's why if such a situation arises where a book or story is made into a film, the credits read -- BASED UPON THE NOVEL BY J K ROWLING. Notice how it didn't say -- THIS MOVIE CONTAINS EVERY SINGLE THING CONTAINED IN A 700+ PAGE NOVEL. Hopefully I'm not the only one who caught that.

The filmmaker (especially if he or she is a fan) will do their best to make a great movie. However, they know, as we all should, the what we see in our minds when we read the book and what we see on the movie screen are going to be different. Get over it. If you want that to change, start making your own movies.

GoF was beautiful to look at and fun to watch. Necessary cuts had to be made, such as the Dursleys and Winky/Dobby. I think the cuts and their replacements were well thought out and still paid respect to the general story.

GoF is a fantastic movie, but it was an absolutely amazing novel first. You are allowed to enjoy both for what they are --TWO SEPARATE THINGS!!!

Get over it and let yourself enjoy this beautiful movie.

The movie was really good, considering it's a very long book, but I think it was a bit choppy. They cut out the Dursleys, the houselves, and Sirius. You did see a head in the fire, but not the way the book presents it. There was too little time between tasks. We didn't get to see the imperius curse. Or Bertha and Frank at the Priori Incantatem. It was good otherwise. I just didn't get to see a lot of my favorite parts from the books. It upset me a bit.

Positives:
1) Held True To Story: What was important to the story held true. My biggest dislike of the third movie was that too much was left out, especially a lot of the important, significant stuff. While a lot was left of this movie (it had to be) they didn't leave anything of GREAT importance out of the movie.
2) Special Effect: The special effects were pretty good. Whether Harry was flying through the air, swimming under water, or doing battle with the Dark Lord there appeared to be no expense spared in making it look good and realistic.
3) Sound Track: The music to this Harry Potter was very good. I'd even say a bit better than previous Harry Potter movies.
4) Acting: For having to direct a ton of children, this movie had some excellent acting. There is one exception, outlined in the negatives, but the acting was great no matter if it be a child or an adult.
5) More Intense: The book was more intense and the movie held true to this as well. Thus the PG-13 rating. The book, nor this movie, is not for the weak hearted.
6) Humor: A bit of humor was added to this movie. It didn't put the actors our of character but it did make things a lot more funny and interesting.

Negatives:
1) Emma Watson's Acting: Emma did AWESOME in the first three movies but in the fourth movie it seems she has picked up acting lessons from William Shatner. Every line she uttered was overly emotional and exaggerated. This was not the Emma nor the Hermoine was have all come to love! I hope she does better in the fifth movie. Thank goodness the topic of S.P.E.W. was left out of this movie, I probably would have walked out!!
2) No Quidditch World Cup: We got to the world cup but didn't see it take place. Just the opening of it. Too bad, I was really expecting to see a treat. Instead, it just skipped to everybody celebrating the outcome. This was a missed opportunity to see some awesome special effects and creative choreography.
3) Bad Pacing of Movie: This was especially true at the beginning. It changed from fast to slow to fast to slow within a few minutes. It did a horrible job of building up to action and did a worst job of cooling off of it. It made things feel fairly uncomfortable. The pace got better by the end of the movie, but the first half an hour was just plain dizzying.
4) Rita Skeeter stuff: Of all the stuff they could have left out, I'm surprised this didn't make the cut. Her appearance added nothing to the story and it left out the things that made Rita especially horrible. And the fact that her secret at the end of hte movie was left out completely.... I don't understand why she was in the movie at all.

Overall, highly suggested to anybody who loves reading the books. Some things may be confusing to those who don't, but they will probably still enjoy the movie if they enjoyed the previous three.

Despite the negative review found elsewhere here, I found the movie to be extremely well done. CGI characters? Well, how else are you going to have a dragon that breathes fire? There are some relationships that are drastically minimized here - Hagrid and Maxime don't get a spat as they do in the book, and Rita Skeeter, although she is still in this movie, is so minimized that I almost wish she had been left out, except that she'll be needed in other movies to come.

The sad thing in the condensation, particularly at the beginning, is that there was no room for the great quidditch championship game. This makes the presence of Krum and the aura around him far less established. Also we lose the Dursleys this time around. The book has the funniest scene so far with them and the Weasleys, but it got lopped off.

The actors are getting better and better. Daniel Radcliffe is becoming very good at conveying a wide range of emotions with barely a flick of his eyebrows. His obvious comfort with Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) shows in every scene they have together. It is also pleasant to see more of the twins and Neville Longbottom. The adult regulars are also wearing well into their roles.

The new comers, particularly Robert Pattinson (Cedric), are very well cast, although Clemence Poesy could have stood a little more of the veela aspect.

The direction captures the story line quite well, injecting humor where it is possible, and building the scary scenes really skillfully. Go see it, and hope that there is an extended edition when the DVD comes out. He lets the relationships be seen. Talk isn't the only way to make it clear that someone likes someone else!

The soundtrack CD is wonderful, too, except for the songs slapped on at the end. They are quite jarring, as is that moment in the movie when one of those songs is played at the Christmas Ball.

Great movie in spite of being long to compensate for the book. Great care has gone into maturing the main characters in this latest movie. I really can't wait for it to come out on DVD. I have already seen the movie twice and I highly recommend it. It might be a little dark for children under 11. I have a 13 year old and he loved the movie also. We have read all of the books which contain more details that a movie couldn't possibly present in an allotted time period.

A tired, labored, breathy voice. A small, rat-like man cowers in fear, while another looks on in awe at the thing the voice originates from. A curious man looks on. The thing with a breathy voice, noticing he and his band are not alone, utters a strange phrase and the curious man is awash in an eerie green glow. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) awakes from his nightmare, in a cold sweat and with an aching forehead. So begins the newest "Potter" knockout "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," foreshadowing the sinister events that will follow.

Like the behemoth of the book it is based on, dread is the theme of "Goblet of Fire." Every movie has been building to the pivotal events that take place during Harry's fourth year at Hogwartz, when Harry, his friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) and his beloved Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) realize they are no longer safe, that things are no longer certain and that a great evil lurks in the shadows. The troubles begin with the Triwizard Tournament, a magical contest between Hogwartz and two other magical schools. A single student from each of them competes for their alma maters' honor, and during the selection ceremony Harry inexplicably becomes the second of the Hogwartz contestants. When Dumbledore reads his name aloud, Harry sees in him a change. Once his rock and protector, Dumbledore shows uncertainty, anger, and most forebodingly, fear. Harry must now face three dangerous magical contests alone, without the safety net that has kept him relatively distant from harm and with no knowledge of what lies ahead, which turns out to be something out of his darkest nightmares: the resurrection of Lord Voldemort.

Veteran director Mike Newell guides the dark story with a sure hand. The film, although a full two and half hours, flies by with barely a breather as it fleshes out the story of the Triwizard Tournament. Newell also knows well enough to let the great cinematographer Roger Pratt work his magic. Pratt, a Terry Gilliam favorite and "Batman" veteran, paints the film in shades of almost serene blues and greens, inviting the audience into the film, only to be swept up into the action and intermittent horrors of the story they follow. Pratt and Newell shine in the films' handful of action sequences, and none are more convincing or exciting that the dragon fight, the first task in the tournament. The Dragon awaiting Harry simply thunders with ferocity and terror, a triumph for the visual effects gurus behind it, who pull off countless other wonders throughout the film as well.

But "The Goblet of Fire" is not all darkness and technical achievement. Director Newell also throws in something that his young cast has not seen before: teenage angst. Only teasingly hinted at by Alfonso Cuaron in "The Prisoner of Azkaban," Newell hits the adolescent ground running, humorously exploring the dynamics between the sexes in the teenage world, the petty rivalries that arise as well as the organic humor that naturally arise from the conflicts. Harry and Ron's plight to find dates for the Yule Ball dance and their frustration at trying to figure out the mysteries of women are hilariously relatable to anyone who remembers being a teen.

Newell further works with his gifted cast, young and old, to put a human face on the magical intrigue. Daniel Radcilffe gives his most confident performance to date, catching Harry's vulnerability and sadness as well as his strength. Michael Gambon strips back the seemingly unflappable nature of Dumbledore to expose a man who sees events slipping from his influence. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have matured along side of Radcliffe and their experience comes through in two excellent performances as helpless onlookers to their friends' plight. Ralph Finnes plays the most inhuman character, Lord Voldemort, with a seductive elegance that makes his malevolence hit that much harder. And all hail Brendon Gleeson as the demented, out-sized paranoid Mad-Eye Moody, whose rantings and wickedly cool crazy-eye give the film a sense of levity to balance the oncoming darkness. And it does in a devastating finale, one in which the Harry and his friends simply survive to fight another day, and one cannot wait until the next installment, "Order of the Phoenix," rolls around sometime in the next couple of years.