<p>Yeah I totally agree takeme2cali...</p>
<p>And the end! That was horrible! There was no fight between Dumbledore and the Minister of magic...and that leads up to the entire 5th book! I mean, it is all about the war between Hogwarts and the Ministry. What will the movie be about? It is very difficult to create a sequal, but this one has 7 parts so it is VERY important to include all of the information possible so it can give hte next movie a clean slate. I was very disapointed.</p>
<p>dumbledore's voice in the movie was too loud and he seemed too.. undumbledore-ish.. by acting like a total maniac when he found out harry's name was chosen (strangling, shaking)</p>
<p>hermione seemed quite pms-y throughout the entire thing. maybe overdid it a little. </p>
<p>i pictured krum as being a skinny hunched over thing.. and madam maxine as big but NOT bean-pole-ish.. </p>
<p>the entrances of the 2 schools were weird. dancing and flips? yeah.</p>
<p>but as a whole, i'd say this movie is better than the previous ones.</p>
<p>um. harry potter fans scare me.</p>
<p>oohhh yeah. i liked this movie a lot, but it seemed v. bare-bones. there was so much left out! i wouldn't have minded another 30 min to an hour... if it included rita as an animagus, hogsmeade weekends, dumbledore v. the minister, and more quidditch world cup. </p>
<p>madame maxine was scary. seriously. she was. i pictured her as being v. good looking, just large. Not...dressed in freakish fur and patchwork outfits. </p>
<p>dumbledore was odd too. defiinitely over-physical. </p>
<p>the durmstrangs, i liked a lot. a lot. hot. i mean, a lot.</p>
<p>barty crouch/ moody... the whole lip-licking thing? he looked like a druggie.</p>
<p>HOWEVER. the special effects were really good. the movie was filmed in such a way that it was actually exciting all the time. the actors GREW UP. yes! the portrayal of the dark mark was actually creepy. (i love the book illustrations, but it just wasn't scary there.) i thought they did teen angst v. well, too. </p>
<p>on the whole, i liked it. i think i may go see it again.</p>
<p>I would have really liked the movie if I had never read the Harry Potter books, but (un)fortunately I have. </p>
<p>Overall the movie was really, really packed with action, which is kind of a good thing I guess. However, as almost everyone above has said, they left out so many parts of the book! I think an extra 30 minutes, or even an hour would have done this movie good. Plus the inconsistencies between the movie and the book were appalling. They left out Dobby entirely and to mask it they had Neville doing the gillyweed scene :(. </p>
<p>However, I can't really blame them for cutting things down; Rowling crammed a lot of stuff into 1 book. I think they would have been better off releasing this as 2 movies even...</p>
<p>On a side note, the Dark Mark was really, really cool :).</p>
<p>voldemort's a *<strong><em>ing pimp. I wanna be just like him when i grow up. That fool commands a *</em></strong>load of respect.</p>
<p>Being 17, I have no moral problems with saying that Hermione is hot.</p>
<p>As an hp fan, as much as I like reading all the details, most of them I like to leave in the book to my imagination. I personally thought this movie was better than the last three and was very happy with the flow and the choices the director made. Do I miss some parts of the book, yes, but like I said before, I don't think I want to see them on screen.</p>
<p>In response to takeme2cali's post, you have to remember that the director's are adapting, and recreating their own visual look. Maybe in comparison to how the rest of the room was dressed and how the lighting was set-up, pink just didn't look good on camera. Also, as far as "plot changes" go, jkr herself has to approve all of them so they're fine.</p>
<p>Personally, I don't think goblet of fire could have worked as two movies. A good chunk of the book is the quidditch world cup, but frankly I hate watching quidditch on screen. I also think that a super long super accurate movie couldn't do the job. and I'm not one who doesn't like long movies, I do lots of double features, and have seen all the LOTR extended additions straight through, no pauses. I like long movies. but I don't think harry potter can be a great long movie.</p>
<p>On another note, I didn't like sirius's embers face, but I understand that a 3-d talking head of flames to gary oldman's likeness would have been really hard to make relatively believable (fire is the most difficult element to recreate in cinema). I did miss snuffles though.</p>
<p>Also, i liked voldemort's and dumbledore's interpretations, especially after reading all the books, I really think it more accurate. Though when dumbledore practically strangled harry, a little over done maybe ( the first dumbledore richard harris was very ill so he probably couldn't be very physical, and the last movie was about blending the two dumbledore's together so maybe...this is the new dumbledore).<br>
As far as voldemort, I wasn't scared per say, but I did find his movements and what not to be sketchy and un-trustworthy.
All in all- I'd say 3 stars out of 4 in comparison to the rest of them, and 2-2.5 stars as a movie.</p>
<p>YAY!!!!!!!!!!! FINALLY!! i'm gonna be watching this TODAY!! at IMAX THEATRE!!! WOOT! WOOT! WOOOOOOT!!!!</p>
<p>uh...what takeme2cali said suddenly depressed me...NEVILLE instead of a plant? what does harry do, gobble up neville? and no winky? okay...i guess WOOT WOOT just turned in to a woot woot.</p>
<p>Voldemort's nose, or lack thereof, kind of bothered me. It wasn't scary; it just looked dumb.</p>
<p>Guys complaining: you've got to realize that a great book does not always translate verbatim into a great movie. I think they were right on target with what they cut (except for having Barty Crouch Jr. kill Neville's parents instead of Bellatrix, but only because it plays a part in the next one).</p>
<p>Loved how Ginny and the Twins got more screen time. Was slightly disappointed with the Voldie-scene aftermath, though - thought they could have concentrated more on the impact of him being back, and Sirius, Remus, Snape etc. rallying to fight him instead of just Cedric's death and leaving school - but overall I was quite happy with it.</p>
<p>Oh and I want a Durmstrang stick.</p>
<p>hey, im so happy because i got to see GOF. i thought i would have to wait a month before i could find a theater playing it in captions (im deaf) but i found one in manhattan today!!!</p>
<p>i really enjoyed it despite the fact that i was disappointed after each time i realized a scene was being cut (ie the quidditch world cup match). also i very much disliked the peformance of the actor playing Dumbledore =/</p>
<p>but otherwise it was entertaining =D i was freaked out by moaning myrtle though! lol it was so weird, she kept trying to peek at harry, and touch him. lol.
i was laughing so much when harry drooled his pumpkin juice! </p>
<p>oh and i was teary when amos found out cedric was dead =(</p>
<p>in the underwater scene, the "hostages" looked so horrible! and gross... </p>
<p>the durmstrang and beauxbaton student entrance was weird lol.
but fleur is so pretty. cho was also pretty but i think she should have been a little hotter lol. </p>
<p>so it was cooool
i <3 harry potter!</p>
<p>(silentsailor, i want a durmstrang stick too)</p>
<p>durmstrang looked like it came straight out of the Eastern Bloc of the Cold War</p>
<p>I thought that the movie was pretty good, but the transitions from scene to scene were pretty stiff. The special effects were great but a lot got cut out from the book (I read it a long time ago, but I felt that some things were missing). For example, when Voldemort and Harry face each other in the duel, people in the audience who've never read the book are probably going "WHAT?" because Voldemort's power is obviously greater than Harry's and the reason why they can't overpower each other is because both wands come from the same phoenix. I know that they explained this in the first movie, but a reminder would've been nice =/.</p>
<p>I didn't like Dumbledore either. The first actor was better!</p>
<p>It could have been better but that's probably unfair to judge the movie on what it could have been (Ebert style). It was pretty good overall =).</p>
<p>Go see it!</p>
<p>Cho Chang was ugly as ****. With all the pretty Oriental girls they could have picked from, what the hell, the HP movie crew chose one that looks like a 12 year-old who has not hit puberty!!!</p>
<p>Oh well, Hermione at the Yule Ball made up for it like WOW.;)</p>
<p>Oi, be nice to Cho. I want her accent.</p>
<p>I think, however, that the movie held sufficiently more eye-candy for the girls (COUGH cedric harry krum COUGH).</p>
<p>Chica sailor, Krum looked like he was 40. If that's the kind of guy you're interested in, then more power to you.</p>
<p>I'm more of a Cedric kind of girl, actually. Just passing along what I've heard ;)</p>
<p>I'm a guy and even I gotta admit Cedric was pretty fiiine. That sly bastard almost took my attentiona away from Hermione...almost.;)</p>